Your Fantasy City Needs These 11 Governance Attributes

In this episode of Worldbuilding Blueprints Season 2, we'll discus the development of city governance models and extract 11 attributes that will help you determine your city's governance model! 

Newsletter: https://www.mariemullany.com/newsletter

My website: World Building | Marie Mullany Writing
My Amazon Profile: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Marie-Mullany/author/B099QJMV6C
Join the YouTube Channel! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxvBH0EkwuHsQ9ryHHQNi2Q/join
Buy the Worksheets: https://ko-fi.com/justintimeworlds/shop/worldbuildingforms

Chapters

• 0:00 City Size Matters
• 1:58 Ancient City States
• 9:30 Roman Cities
• 18:37 Medieval Europe Cities

Transcript

The thing about cities, towns, and villages is that they're all the same in some ways and very, very different in others. As I was preparing to talk about city security, I realized that I really couldn't do that without first addressing city governance types and the models that apply not just to different cities, but to different situations—from city-states to trading towns to manorial villages.

So today, I want to rectify that gap in our ongoing exploration of worldbuilding cities. We're going to talk about the various city types, their political situations, and how that affects their government. Welcome to Worldbuilding Blueprint Season 2, Episode 6: City Government Types.

When it comes to city governance, it really does matter how big the city is and what its governing context is. A minor town in a kingdom has a vastly different government from a major city-state, for example. With that in mind, we need to understand the different models of city governance, both as standalone states and as part of a larger polity. To do that, we'll explore the evolution of city governance, mostly in the European context, but honestly, it's applicable to any polity since all governments of a city are mostly focused on making the city itself run better, and the cultural differences are not big when taken at a broad scale.

Let's start where all stories should: not in a tavern, but at the beginning. Ancient city-states. When we stopped wandering and started building, villages naturally formed and governance became more important. This is essentially an outgrowth of ownership. When you're a hunter-gatherer, there's not that much to own. Sure, maybe some tribe claimed rights over a hunting range, but honestly, there were a lot of ranges. So if you found yourself beefing with another tribe over said hunting range, moving away from conflict was often easier than engaging in war because you had so little to gain from it and, frankly, you didn't have much that you needed to defend.

Now, here is a caveat: I am by no means saying that hunter-gatherers were all peace, love, and harmony with flowers in their hair. That would clearly be false. All I'm saying is that they had less reason to not take the simple solution of resolving conflict by running away. That changed once we started owning a lot of stuff that couldn't easily move—like farmlands, equipment, a house, and so on. At that point, just picking up and leaving is a lot less attractive because you have to leave your stuff. And so, hierarchy, status, and governance evolve in order to protect the stuff and the ownership of the stuff.

In short, the first villages emerged as independent farming communities. They protected against raids from both hunter-gatherers and other villages. They grew crops in shared farmlands, they raised animals, and sedentary civilization was very slowly born. The most successful of these villages emerged as the early city-states, notably in Mesopotamia in the shape of Uruk and Ur around 4500 to 1900 BCE (roughly 6,000 years ago) and in ancient Greece—for example, Athens and Sparta by the 5th century BCE.

This was a vastly scaled-up version of the villages that had preceded them. And these city-states were sovereign entities; they controlled their surrounding territories and developed distinct governance structures. In Ur, by the Third Dynasty, the king was seen as a divine representative of the gods, particularly Nanna, the moon god and patron deity of Ur. They had a highly organized bureaucracy and a legal system called the Code of Ur-Nammu. The state managed large-scale agriculture, trade, and the redistribution of resources, often through the temples.

Uruk, often considered the first city-state, was very similar to Ur. However, there is some evidence to suggest that they had early forms of citizen assemblies or councils of elders, though power remained heavily centralized in the king and temple. Speaking of citizen assemblies, Athens pioneered direct democracy under Cleisthenes in 508 BCE, enabling citizen participation in decision-making. The execution of the decisions of the citizen assembly was mostly left to either those chosen for the job or those selected by chance in a process called sortition. Not a joke. In Athens, you could get randomly picked for way more than jury duty. I sometimes wonder if they didn't have the right idea.

But not all Greeks were enthused by democracy. Sparta's militarized society was governed by a strict oligarchy and social hierarchy. In Sparta, you had to be rich, of the right bloodline, and militarily apt to be a citizen, and only citizens had any rights. Since they never had that many citizens to begin with, their governance structures remained remarkably simple: oppress the helots and rule the roost, more or less. Of course, oppressing the helots took a lot of energy and institutions like the Krypteia, but that's a story for another day. I wrote a blog post about it, which you can check out in the link down below if you're interested.

City-states were economically based on agriculture, trade, and manufacturing, with political power often concentrated in the hands of elites, priests, or merchant classes. Their autonomy allowed them to raise armies, collect taxes, and conduct foreign policy independently. Of course, city-states frequently engaged in conflict with each other, and eventually, this led to one of the most successful city-states in history: the Roman Empire.

But before we talk about how towns and cities other than Rome itself were governed, give me one moment to tell you how you can get even more out of this podcast. Members of the Just in Time Worldbuilding YouTube channel get free access to the worksheets on the topics we discuss in these podcasts, from the "Build It in Straw" tier to the "Build It in Stone" tier. Not only do you get the worksheets, but you also get a monthly members' livestream and early access to all my videos. In addition, members of the "Build It in Wood" and "Stone" tiers get discounted rates on engaging my worldbuilding consulting services.

But if you don't want to commit to a monthly membership, you can also purchase these worksheets on my Ko-fi page. And if you're interested in the first season's worksheets, buy the book *Worldbuilding Blueprints: Volume 1*, which is an epic book with color layout and worksheets that will guide you from zero to hero in worldbuilding. The digital format of the book is available on my website right now, and the physical will follow in March 2026. Depending on how fast the Kickstarter fulfillment completes, the first 15 people who use the code URUK2026 will get 25% off on purchasing a PDF copy of the book. The coupon will be valid from 31 January 2026. Links to all that are down below.

**Roman City Governance**

Rome started as a city-state, but it didn't stay that way. By the time it became an empire, it had swallowed the Mediterranean whole. And with an empire that big, you can't just govern everything from one city. You need a system. You need hierarchy. You need standardization. And if you're Rome, you need a way to make sure that all those conquered cities and towns don't revolt the second your legions march away.

So, how did Rome do it? How did it govern its cities, towns, and villages without everything descending into chaos? Let's break it down, starting with the hierarchy of Roman settlements. Not all cities were created equal in the Roman Empire. Rome classified its settlements into a few key types, each with its own level of autonomy, privileges, and obligations.

These were *Coloniae*, or colonies. These were essentially mini-Romes. They were founded by Roman citizens, often veterans of the armies. These colonies were granted Roman law, citizenship, and a high degree of self-governance. They were strategic, serving as military strongholds and cultural outposts. A good example was Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium, which is modern-day Cologne in Germany; it was a key colony in the Roman province of Germania.

Then there were the *Municipia*, or municipalities. These were existing cities or towns that had been granted Latin Rights—a sort of "Roman citizenship light." They could self-govern using their own laws but were expected to align with Roman interests. Over time, some of the *municipia* were granted full Roman citizenship, especially after the Edict of Caracalla, which extended citizenship to nearly all free men in the empire. Pompeii was a *municipium* before its unfortunate encounter with Vesuvius.

On the smaller side of the scale, we have *Civitates*, or local communities. These were typically smaller towns or tribal centers, often in the provinces. They were allowed to keep their own local governance structures but were ultimately subordinate to Roman authority. They paid taxes, provided soldiers, and followed Roman law in matters that affected the empire. Lugdunum, which is modern-day Lyon in France, was the capital of the Gallia Lugdunensis province and a major hub for local governance.

Finally, we have *Vici*, or villages. These were the smallest settlements, often just clusters of homes, farms, or way stations along the roads. They had little to no formal governance and were mostly concerned with local affairs. Rome didn't micromanage these; it just expected them to pay taxes and not cause trouble. And if they did cause trouble, they were stomped into a mud puddle. You know how that goes.

The key takeaway here is that you can see various forms of power-sharing and responsibility emerging in the empire. In some cases, the city was reasonably self-sufficient and had a lot of political independence, like the colonies. In the case of villages, they were expected to sit quietly in the back and let Rome manage their affairs.

But there is more to the story than just Rome's interests. There's also the question of how these cities governed themselves. Rome wasn't stupid. It knew that if it tried to rule every single city directly, it would drown in bureaucracy and revolts. So, it did what all stable empires do: it delegated authority. Each city or town had its own local government, but it followed a Roman-approved structure.

Every Roman city had a *Curia*, or a council, made up of local elites—usually wealthy landowners or former magistrates. The *Curia* handled local laws, taxes, and public works. In addition, cities elected their own officials called magistrates, usually for one-year terms. The two most important of these officials were the *Duoviri* (or *IIviri*). These were the top dogs of the city. They were like co-mayors responsible for law, order, and representing the city to Rome. And yes, they were modeled on the two co-consuls of Rome. Rome really liked to have dual leaders in order to prevent tyranny. It worked until it didn't, you know? In some places, these fellows were called *Quattuorviri* (four men) or *Quinqueviri* (five men), depending on how fancy the city was.

In addition, there were the *Aediles*. These guys were in charge of public works, markets, and festivals. If the city streets were clean and the games were good, the *aediles* got the credit. If not, they got the blame. Besides officials, there were also assemblies, though this was mostly restricted to cities with Roman citizenship. These were popular assemblies where free male citizens could vote on local issues. But let's be real about how Roman democracy worked: most of the power stayed with the elites.

And finally, there were Roman overseers. For cities that Rome didn't fully trust or that were strategically very important, Rome appointed a *procurator* or *praefectus*—a Roman official who kept an eye on things and made sure the locals didn't get any funny ideas.

I think you can see from this structure that one of Rome's biggest contributions to governance was its legal system. Roman law wasn't just for Rome; it was exported to every corner of the empire. Cities were expected to follow Roman legal principles, especially in matters like taxation, where cities collected taxes for Rome and Rome made sure they didn't skim too much off the top. Local courts handled minor disputes, but serious crimes like treason or major theft were dealt with by Roman governors or judges. After the Edicts, most free men in the empire were Roman citizens, which meant they had the right to appeal to Roman courts. This was a big deal as it tied people to the empire and made them feel like they had a stake in it.

So, in these matters, the cities didn't choose what services to offer or how to implement them. Rome did, and the cities had to follow Roman law. This was enforced, of course, by the presence of the legions, which were a powerful governance tool. Rome’s system—and its Far East equivalent, the Chinese system, which worked in a similar fashion although centered around a bureaucracy—had real legs and governed large swaths of towns for a very long time.

But no system is perfect. Local elites abused their power. The empire overextended and became harder to manage. Cities that had once been loyal began to chafe under the weight of taxes and distant rulers. And then there came trouble in Rome itself, leading to the legions decamping from the northern regions of Europe. That meant you had small local polities that had to organize in a hurry to defend their local lands. And that leads us into the patchwork of governance systems that is Europe during the medieval period.

**Medieval Europe**

If I say a fantasy world is based on medieval Europe, the first thought in your head is probably kingdoms, knights, Divine Right to Rule, and so on. But in fact, Europe had enormous political diversity during the medieval period. That strong central monarch that people typically think of is much more a feature of the Renaissance than the Middle Ages.

Let's unpack the settlements in Europe and how they were governed so you can see what I mean. We'll start with the medieval city-states. During the Middle Ages, city-states reemerged in Europe, particularly in Italy and the Holy Roman Empire, as centers of political and economic power. This makes sense in the context of the decline of the Western Roman Empire, which led to the fragmentation of political authority and created space for cities like Venice, Florence, and Genoa to assert their independence.

These city-states developed sophisticated republican governance systems based on their earlier Roman governance but were now independent of a central state. Their tools of governance included councils, assemblies, and magistrates dominated by merchant aristocracies or guilds. Venice, for instance, was governed by a tightly controlled merchant oligarchy and maintained a powerful navy and diplomatic corps, enabling it to dominate Mediterranean trade. Florence's republican system included broader guild participation but was later dominated by the Medici family. In a future podcast, we will be delving into guilds, factions, and inter-factional politics, so don't forget to subscribe for that.

These medieval city-states enacted laws, raised taxes, and maintained their own military forces, functioning as sovereign states within the medieval political landscape. But of course, kingdoms were certainly not unheard of. So, how did towns and cities function in such a context?

Towns within kingdoms often had limited self-rule under monarchical authority. In contrast to city-states, most medieval towns existed within kingdoms and principalities where they enjoyed limited self-governance granted by royal charters. These charters recognized towns' rights to hold markets, construct walls, and manage local affairs, but retained the king's or overlord's ultimate authority. Towns were often "judicial islands" with their own laws and governance structures, but they remained subordinate to the kingdom's political and legal framework.

The relationship between towns and monarchs was reciprocal. Towns provided financial and military support in exchange for autonomy in local governance. For example, French royal towns—the *villes royales*—had a cooperative relationship with the monarchy, balancing local self-rule with royal control.

And then we come to villages and manorial control. Villages in the Middle Ages were primarily rural settlements governed by customary law and the authority of local lords or landowners. They lacked formal political institutions beyond communal assemblies which managed shared resources, primarily their land and local disputes. Villagers, especially free tenants, largely governed themselves without formal organizational structures. They used the open-field system which required intense communal cooperation, but this was managed without formality.

Some villages received charters recognizing their right to governance and justice administered by their own councils, indicating a limited autonomy for a village that was important enough or strategic enough. The manorial system dominated village life, with lords controlling land and resources and villagers owing labor and taxes. Villages were thus politically and economically subordinate to either a larger urban center or feudal authorities in the shape of their manor lord. That relationship lay at the heart of the feudal system.

Now there is another wrinkle in medieval times that we should discuss, and that is large trading states and the dual power centers they created. This is specifically about cities in large trading guilds such as the Hanseatic League, as well as major medieval cities like Prague or Paris. These kinds of trading cities occupied a distinct niche in the governance spectrum.

The Hanseatic League was a confederation of merchant guilds and market towns in Northern Europe that evolved into a powerful economic and political network. It lacked a centralized government but wielded significant diplomatic and military power through collective action and economic interdependence. Cities in the League did have their own local governance, but they were also part of the League and had to stick within the League's rules governing commerce. The rules were based on consensus among member cities, which retained considerable autonomy while benefiting from shared trade privileges and protection. It's not unlike the modern European Union when you get right down to it. Europeans do love a decentralized government. On the other hand, Europeans with centralized governments tend to get completely out of hand, resulting in mass mayhem and way too much conquest. So maybe it's a good thing that we're largely into decentralization.

Anyway, commentary on history and politics aside, let's return to worldbuilding. Major cities like Prague and Paris served as both urban centers and seats of royal or ecclesiastical power. These cities balanced local autonomy with the demands of higher authorities, often hosting royal courts, cathedral chapters, and universities that influenced governance. Their political systems were characterized by complex administrative structures, including specialized departments and professional officials who increased royal authority and financial management.

The monarchy played a crucial role in maintaining order and enforcing authority, often through professional armies and bureaucracies. The trend towards centralized nation-states in the late Middle Ages and early modern period further shaped the governance of these cities, integrating them into larger political entities while preserving elements of local self-rule.

So that was a lot of yapping. What can we extract in terms of city governments from this speedrun of European urban development? There are 11 attributes of city governance that I want to highlight, and I'll discuss how each of our town types breaks down their governance in these attributes. The five town types are: City-States, Towns within Kingdoms, Villages, Large Trading States, and Major Cities.

The attributes, broken down as questions, are:

1. What is the source of your town government’s legitimacy? 
City-States: Local councils, assemblies, and merchant elites. 
Towns within Kingdoms: Royal charters granting limited self-rule. 
Villages: Customary law and manorial lords. 
Large Trading States: Collective agreements among member cities. 
Major Cities: Royal or ecclesiastical authority and local councils.

2. What are the key governing bodies required for the city’s governance? City-States: Councils, magistrates, and guilds. Towns within Kingdoms: Town councils, mayors, and royal officials. Villages: Communal assemblies and lords. Large Trading States: Merchant guilds, city councils, etc. Major Cities: Royal courts, city councils, and bureaucracies.

3. Does the town have taxation rights, and to what extent? City-States: Full control over local taxation. Towns within Kingdoms: Limited taxation rights under royal authority (similar for imperial towns). Villages: Limited taxation, mostly labor and dues to their lord or local empire. Large Trading States: Collective taxation for trade privileges. Major Cities: Royal taxation as well as local taxes.

4 & 5. What are the military obligations? (Both externally for safety and internally for policing). City-States Their own armies and navies. Towns within Kingdoms/Empires: Local militias, supplying royal armies, and town guards. Villages: Feudal levies or recruitment into the empire’s armies. Large Trading States: Collective military forces for defense and war. Major Cities: Royal armies or urban militias.

6. How does the town’s legal system work? City-States: Independent judicial administrations. Towns within Kingdoms/Empires: Local courts under royal or imperial jurisdiction. Villages: Customary law, local lords, manorial courts, etc. Large Trading Towns: Standardized trade regulations and merchant courts (otherwise local regulations). Major Cities: Royal or imperial courts.

7. What services does the town actually control? (e.g., sewage, currency, etc.). City-States: All services. Towns within Kingdoms/Empires: Most services are local, but things like currency are managed by the larger polity. Villages: Most services controlled by the lord; the village has limited scope. Large Trading States: Most services controlled locally, with some subject to league oversight. 
Major Cities: Most services controlled by the town, but with strong imperial or local oversight.

8. What economic services does the town offer? City-States: Dominated by trade and commerce. Towns within Kingdoms: Trade and markets under their charter. Villages: Agrarian economy with limited trade. Trading Leagues: Economic power based on trade networks and guilds; very commerce-based. Major Cities: Centers of trade and administration.

Finally, our last two attributes are about how magic and fantasy impact the town, as well as the town’s relationship to surrounding regions.

Which of these types of towns do you have in your world? How does magic impact your town’s governance? Do you have a type of town that I haven't thought of? Let me know in the comments. And that's all that I wanted to cover for city governance types at this point.

Next time, we will be discussing city security—internal and external—bearing in mind our city type as well as the impact of magic and fantasy, and how a central state can influence a town’s governance of both internal and external security. So, make sure you subscribe for that episode.

And a huge thank you to my channel members who make this possible, especially the members of the Build It in Stone tier: Epic, Jeff Hicks, Laura Bones 79, A Wellyard, Necromancer, JM, Neil Buckley, and Katie Kofi Mug and Tony Lman. As well as the members of the Build It in Wood tier: Husio, Patricio, Ignatio, Rossavon, Mogane, Jack, Mium, Miumu, Mu, Joan Morera, Nicholas Aman, Bare Necessities, Carrie, Aya Shami Maru, and Tiffany Felix. Without your support, this channel wouldn't be possible.

I will see you soon for another episode of Worldbuilding Blueprints. Remember: build what you need when you need it.