Hyrule and its feudal state

Now, I know that the medieval, feudal look in the Zelda games contributes to most of the series' charm, but thinking literally, when will Hyrule evolve? Some features in TP suggest a minor evolution is occuring, but overall, Hyrule has existed for thousands of years and it's still stuck on castles. My thoughts are that Ganon's constant attacks, the flooding of Hyrule, the Twilight affect and all of the other wonderously terrifying events prevent the ascention from feudalism. What are your thoughts? Please reply.

Actually in WW there was more of an anarchy. And in OoT you had a king but also different tribes and under Ganondorf a dictatorship. Also in MM it was more different city states. So it hasn't always been feudal. Maybe in the future there would be some kind of council rather than just one adviser. On that council a Hylian, Zora, Goron and Gerudo would all have a seat and any other races present. Other than that I can't really see an other more modern form of government but Zelda never seems to put any attention to the form of government and it isn't really important. And I think the feudal system suits the style, so as long that doesn't change there is not a real need to change the look of the government.

I think the sages are the council... And you're right about TWW

Originally Posted by LOZelda64

I think the sages are the council... And you're right about TWW

Hmm yes, though I think they are more of a council that is called up on in need or say once or twice a year. Like the early system in England. (If you are familiar with that, didn't look where you are from.) So what I meant was more of a permanent council.

Are you specifically talking about the country of Hyrule, or the lands of Zelda in general? Because Kohilint (did I spell that right) has a castle, but it seems to have no real governmental function. The villages themselves seem to be self governed.

Hyrule works in waves, a society is built up, technological advancements are made, and then everything goes to the vultures, and the people rebuild, it's a never ending cycle.

Originally Posted by LOZelda64

Now, I know that the medieval, feudal look in the Zelda games contributes to most of the series' charm, but thinking literally, when will Hyrule evolve? Some features in TP suggest a minor evolution is occuring, but overall, Hyrule has existed for thousands of years and it's still stuck on castles. My thoughts are that Ganon's constant attacks, the flooding of Hyrule, the Twilight affect and all of the other wonderously terrifying events prevent the ascention from feudalism. What are your thoughts? Please reply.

That's a good point that's been made. I think the whole medieval feel of the game is part of what makes Zelda, Zelda. In LA there were phones, cameras and a crane game, but even that was just a dream. I know that thousands or even millions of years seem like a long time, but to remove that way of life, well it just wouldn't be Zelda. Imagine Link rides a chopper instead of a horse and wields the Master Gun instead of the Master Sword!

Maybe a change in government could be cool, but nothing extreme. I remember playing Final Fantasy IV (II) and bit of others I-VI. Then I played Final Fantasy VII. The thing with the technology and machinery, yet swords were still being used ...it just didn't fit for me. If Zelda when the same way, it would be heresy!

Wouldn't it be kinda cool to have a Mission Impossible or 007 type game, but its in Hyrule, and Link's a CIA or bounty hunter guy with a black uniform... kevlar and stuff... Like that guy in Splinter Cell

Originally Posted by LOZelda64

Wouldn't it be kinda cool to have a Mission Impossible or 007 type game, but its in Hyrule, and Link's a CIA or bounty hunter guy with a black uniform... kevlar and stuff... Like that guy in Splinter Cell

That's what I was just talking about. Sure it may be cool, but it wouldn't be Zelda.

I've been thinking about zelda's perpetual medieval stage for a long time now, but soon I'll explain it in a post.

For the simple reason that it wouldn't be any fun if it wasn't medieval type. Link would have to get a gun, and that would be the most stupid thing ever. Hyrule wouldn't be any fun if it wasn't medieval.

This feudal is what zelda is. If it is altered or changed it won't be the "same zelda as we know it." Hmmm... that quote sounds familar?

Originally Posted by HeroOfTime5

This feudal is what zelda is. If it is altered or changed it won't be the "same zelda as we know it." Hmmm... that quote sounds familar?

This "Umm every other thing in Zelda?" is what zelda is. If it is altered or changed it won't be the "same zelda as we know it."

I don't really see how Zelda would change if it was a King with a council that has a role in the game.

Well, speaking from a histoic point of view, feudal societies eventually collapse. Take Japan for example (and keep in mind this is just an overview): For hundreds of years the country was divided into different kingdoms. Each kingdom was owned by a lord, usually a warrior or wealthy merchant. The lord then had a soldier class of people to protect him, lesser merchants and craftsmen to provide items to the kingdom and trade with others, and pesants to work the land, provide food and build structures. There were also regions, mostly in the mountains, where no particular lord had a stake, and they were either barren or inhabited by indiginous peoples.
Hyrule in OOT follows this model pretty well.
What eventually happened with Japan was that the lords started arguing over things; land, money, roads, supplies mostly, and these led to localized conflicts. Usually one lord could conquer another and take his land and spoils, but when it came to a standstill, alliances were formed. The conflicts started to snowball, now involving one group of kingdoms against another. And it got even worse; one lord would betray another, or switch sides, or pull out completely, blood-fudes between well-known families arose, and eventually the feudal way of life gave way to near anarchy.
Japan didn't recover from this until they decided to end the policy of isolation and begin relations with other lands, namely Europe.
In Hyrule were a real society, Ganon would represent one particular lord, and the Hylian king another. Their war would eventually engulf the entire country and plunge it into a dark age. The fighting wouldn't end until one of the lords is slain, or gives up. At the end of OOT, Ganon is defeated. However, realistically, the damage would already be done. Medieval society was slow to recover from war, even if it was the winning side. Commodities such as food, clean water, shelter and medicine always came in short supply after battle. To survive this, Hyrule would need some sort of backup, an ally, to help them through the hard times.
And interestingly, I read somewhere that the village Link begins in in Twilight Princess is outside of Hyrule, meaning that the country does have allies outside of it's borders.

Another reason for the lack of technological progress in Zelda is the heavy use of magic. If, say, warriors are using magical fire arrows like Link uses, then there is little incentive to invent a musket. If teleportation spells are available (even if you have to hire a high-level mage to do one), then there is little incentive to invest millions of bucks in creating railroads.

Originally Posted by hylianprincess7

i suppose you're right, but what do you mean by a few? are there things i'm missing?

Well there was the Clock Tower, and the Pirate's motor boats, maybe a few others.

Terminia was actually advanced compared to Hyrule.

Originally Posted by LinkZeldaGanon

Well there was the Clock Tower, and the Pirate's motor boats, maybe a few others.

Terminia was actually advanced compared to Hyrule.

yeah you're right but i would have figured that the clock tower were water powered being that the inside is the big propeller that looks as if it were leading to the clock on the outside.