History of Khijovia

Primordial Aeon

Prehistory

Approximately 35,000 years ago, the Acreatics, a nomadic civilization, were the first known inhabitants of Khijovia. Evidence from the Yvernia archaeological site on the Pletorian coasts reveals complex burial practices and shamanic rituals. Despite the Neolithic agricultural revolution, the Acreatics relied on hunting and gathering until climatic changes around the twelfth millennium BR led them to migrate inland, transitioning to transhumant farming and eventually settled agriculture, marking the end of their nomadic lifestyle.

Protohistory

The advent of agriculture and livestock, providing a surplus of food, led to a significant demographic increase and the emergence of the first housing agglomerations. During this phase, the matriarchy gradually faded as the need for male military leaders arose to defend villages, ushering in a transition to a patriarchal society. The onset of metallurgy in Khijovia marked the Copper Age, giving rise to distinct cultures: the Venatorian culture in the north, Khantan culture in the east, and Koritian culture in the central-south. The Bronze Age saw the emergence of the Xomian culture on Axiomia island, while the Iron Age gave rise to the Kleitite culture near the mouth of the Thevre river. These cultures, stemming from the Acreatic people, shared a common language but spoke different dialects, often unintelligible to one another.

Around 1400 BR, the large village centers evolved into cities, establishing an interdependent relationship with the surrounding countryside. Rural areas produced goods to sustain urban centers, while the cities provided defense for villages. Job specialization's development led to a social hierarchy, with the ruling class of specialists forming the foundation for the future aristocratic caste.

Era of Ruin

Archaic Age

Urban centers within the Khijovian region manifested as independent and self-sustaining city-states, flourishing predominantly throughout the Era of Ruin due to a robust isolationist policy. Despite their cultural and linguistic similarities, these city-states adopted diverse organizational structures.

In certain locales, authority was wielded in the name of the deity by theocrats—priests perceived as those chosen by the gods to govern the city. In such cases, there existed no separation between political and religious power. The theocrat, serving as the executor of divine will, held full political authority, led the military, and administered justice. The sovereign received support from a caste of priest-officials known as hierarchs, convening every ten years to elect a new state theocrat and distribute cultivated lands among the populace. The temple of the eponymous divinity, aside from serving as the theocrat's seat, functioned as an organizational hub for work, a storage facility for foodstuffs, and the city's treasury. In these cities, private property was virtually nonexistent, as land was communal, and all residents contributed to public works. Conversely, in some instances, this theocratic system devolved into viewing the theocrat not merely as the gods' representative but as a deity incarnate, whose sacralization justified their authority. The unbridled powers of the absolute theocrat found legitimacy in a powerful priestly caste of extensive landowners, exerting considerable influence in political affairs. The high priest within this caste assumed the role of grand vizier to the sovereign. Consequently, from a political standpoint, Khijovian absolute theocracy manifested as an autocratic form of governance fundamentally grounded in priestly legitimacy.

On the other hand, certain cities evolved into monarchies, representing a likely progression from the theocratic system, wherein a clear distinction was established between political and religious authority. Concurrent with this separation of sovereign power, the kings in these city-states fortified their capacity to intervene in social and economic affairs, channeling their efforts in a more centralized manner. In certain instances, this consolidation of royal power also involved the adoption of an expansionist policy aimed at territorial enlargement. These kingdoms adhered to a well-defined ideology of monarchical authority, a concept subsequently transmitted to subsequent state organizations in Khijovia. Similar to theocratic systems, it was believed that the gods endowed the sovereign with power; however, this divine gift, while acknowledged, was deemed distinct from religious authority. Consequently, this shift led to the displacement of the temple, formerly the governing center, with the royal palace assuming the pivotal role of power. In this organizational framework, citizens were regarded as mere subjects and possessions of the sovereign, although it is noteworthy that substantial privileges were reserved for the priestly class.

Certain city-states adopted a state structure founded on a timocratic principle, wherein landed or military aristocrats governed within a small general assembly known as the kledia (klaēdïæ). Exclusive to a particular caste, assembly members had the privilege of inheriting a seat of power. The kledia biennially elected seven specialized magistrates responsible for administrative, religious, and military functions. Upon concluding their terms, these magistrates joined the council of sapients - the ghrontia (ghrœhntïæ) - serving as both a supervisory body and the supreme court. In addition to these aristocratic institutions, there existed the drarchia (đrahrchïæ), a minor consultative assembly representing some members of the less affluent population. In cities governed by aristocracy, the title of citizen, implying possession of political rights, was reserved for adult males who owned land. Among these citizens, only the large landowners held actual political power, qualifying them for high offices within the city. In an economy centered around agriculture and livestock, wealth was conspicuously measured by the extent of landownership. The considerable influence of the aristocracy severely constrained opportunities for small landowners and marginalized all other individuals within the city, subjecting them to aristocratic domination.

Finally, when a city-state was governed by its populace, it earned the designation of a "democratic" city. Democracy, emerging later in the League Phase, evolved as a protracted process originating from the aristocratic system. Democratic transformations commenced with concessions from the aristocracy, aimed at averting popular revolts, which strengthened the people's influence within institutions. Over time, following a sequence of concessions, the drarchia, where the people asserted numerical superiority, ascended to become the paramount political entity, leading to the displacement of the kledia and ghrontia. Magistracies were drawn from all citizens except women, individuals from other cities, serfs, and slaves, while military and financial positions remained elective. Citizens of democracies enjoyed equal rights to speak in the people's assembly and tribunal, alongside equal legal rights. Aristocrats, on the other hand, were largely excluded and marginalized, stripped of their extensive estates, barred from participating in political life, and, in certain instances, faced proscription lists calling for exile or possible elimination. These radical measures, indicative of demagogic populism adopted by the "democrats," led to some democracies being labeled kakistocracies by other city-states. Ultimately, Khijovian democracy never materialized in its pure form, existing as a hybrid balance resulting from the coexistence of different state forms.

This forced coexistence of diverse and conflicting state systems endured throughout the entirety of the Archaic Age in Khijovian history. While diplomatic relations between city-states remained ostensibly peaceful, underlying political tensions lingered, compelling cities to reconcile through an intricate network of alliance pacts and leagues. This network served as the sole remedy to prevent disastrous intranational wars.