From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


Tyrian Hierarchies, Tyrian Government Forms, Tyrian Governments, Best Wor of Gild Worz. This name is quite fine. ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 14:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would think Governments in Tyria would be a good name to move to, simply for consistency with other articles like Religions of Tyria, Gods of Tyria, and Languages of Tyria. -- Konig/talk 19:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Then it'd be Governments of Tyria? ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 19:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Right, typo on my part. -- Konig/talk 19:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. -- pling User Pling sig.png 19:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


I disagree with the characterization of Vabbian government as a "monarchy". A "merchant prince" is not royalty as we commonly understand it, and his position is not inherited except to the extent that his wealth is inherited. New merchant princes can arise simply by gaining a great degree of wealth (Hedge Wizard Mabai ==> Prince Mabai), and I imagine that existing princes can lose their positions by going bankrupt. There is no single ruler ("mono" + "arch" = monarch) for all of Vabbi, but simply a group of extremely wealthy men who own most of the territory and employ most of the populace. BrettM 13:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually the best term for Vabbian government would probably be plutocratic oligarchy meaning a few people rule by virtue of their wealth and not necessarily by descent. Also, the Luxons would probably be best described as an alliance of chiefdoms and the Kurzicks as an aristocratic theocracy as they apparently depend on some form of divination for thier decision making process. -- 03:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
For the kurzicks, the divination is, from my recollection, merely guidance, and are just as much of an alliance as the luxons (i.e., they're still one people, just different groups within the nationality - so luxons I would hardly call an alliance of chiefdoms). -- Konig/talk 04:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)