Standards of Living: Guardia vs. Medina, years 600~1000

[FaustWolf]

EDIT: Phrase "lifespan" changed to "reign" per alfadorredux's observation. Makes more sense now, hopefully.

Between the years 600 and 1000 in Chrono Trigger, we have a point of comparison between the lifespans (or at least length of reign) of Guardian monarchs and Medina monarchs/Maguses/whatever.

Guardian monarchs go from 21 (XXI) to 33 (XXXIII) during that period, for an average monarch reign of 33 1/3 years.

Medinian leaders go from Ozzie I to Ozzie VIII, at least considering one timeline, for an average reign of 50 years. It should be noted, however, that Ozzie VIII was originally numbered Ozzie XIII in the beta, which would lower Medinian leader reign to 30.76 years on average. I wonder why Square Enix found it necessary to change such a small detail?

I suppose that as time progressed, lifespans (and perhaps the length of a monarch's reign) progressed as well, so the average lifespan in both nations was probably an evolving quantity. Maybe a natural log formula could be devised based on the evidence we have as a ballpark estimate on standards of living progression. Also, exogenous events that we don't know about (wars, famines, plagues) could have produced very short lifespans for intervening leaders in one nation or another.

Uh...discuss.

[alfadorredux]

The catch is that what you have here isn't lifespan, it's length of reign, which isn't at all the same thing. We don't know the average age of accession, whether there were any hiccups in the line that dropped one succession or the other in the lap of a sibling, cousin, or uncle/aunt rather than having it pass serenely from parent to child... Heck, we don't even know the lifespan of Ozzie's species--the Mystics could conceivably live for 200 years on average! But if we assume an average age of twenty years at the time of accession (and that's probably a bit on the young side), and that the normal lifespans are the same, we then get an average age of 53.3 years for the humans and 70 years for the Mystics. Presumably, the Mystics had healing magic, which would reduce the number of premature deaths by violence and disease (probably also deaths in childbirth, but male royalty wouldn't have been likely to die that way unless a Mystic played a particularly nasty sort of joke on them).

Okay, so...mid-fifties. We're talking about people doing a high-stress job that would tend to make them targets for violence. Seems to me that those lifespans are probably consistent with Guardia having access to early-twentieth-century-ish medicine as of the Millenial Fair, and the Mystics having had something a bit better the whole time. It also suggests relatively robust overall health on the part of the Guardians.

(And if these were real populations, this is the point at which I would bitch about ~10 people being too few for a statistical sample.)

[FaustWolf]

I corrected the language in my initial post on account of those observations, thanks. I guess I was entertaining the possibility that Guardian monarchs somehow ruled from birth, or...something, with the Chancellor or another figure acting as regent. But I suppose it doesn't exactly make sense that the previous ruler would magically die upon the birth of an eligible child.   Obviously Marle isn't a totally isolated case. 50 1/3 years sounds much better all things considered.

Hmm, I was thinking at first that a monarch would have access to the best health care of the age, and would therefore live a longer lifespan on average than a commoner in a monarchical system (whether feudal or constitutional). However, the idea that monarchs could actually suffer a lower average age than commoners through targeted violence is certainly compelling. I didn't even realize just how short Queen Victoria's life could have been had one of those assassination attempts succeeded. If a number of such attempts upon the Guardian Crown had occurred, that would certainly have thrown things out of whack. Perhaps being the king ain't so hot after all?

I think what I was trying to get at is, the number of Medina leaders in relation to the number of Guardian monarchs is an interesting item in and of itself, from a standards-of-living point of view. I'm more curious than ever regarding the switch from Ozzie XIII to Ozzie VIII now.

[utunnels]

Hehe, 30 years is a fairly long period for a monarch.
As far as I know, Chinese emperors have an average lifespan of 39 years(among the 209 ones whose birth date and death date were recorded), let alone their reigns.

[tushantin]

Hmm lifespan and the constitution to lead does play a major role in reign of each King. Perhaps those of the Mystics are more evolved than those of the humans, considering their healing and magical abilities, contact with the spirit realms and all that. Although I would argue that Dark Arts often leads to shortening lifespan.

[xcalibur]

EDIT: Phrase "lifespan" changed to "reign" per alfadorredux's observation. Makes more sense now, hopefully.

Between the years 600 and 1000 in Chrono Trigger, we have a point of comparison between the lifespans (or at least length of reign) of Guardian monarchs and Medina monarchs/Maguses/whatever.

Guardian monarchs go from 21 (XXI) to 33 (XXXIII) during that period, for an average monarch reign of 33 1/3 years.

Medinian leaders go from Ozzie I to Ozzie VIII, at least considering one timeline, for an average reign of 50 years. It should be noted, however, that Ozzie VIII was originally numbered Ozzie XIII in the beta, which would lower Medinian leader reign to 30.76 years on average. I wonder why Square Enix found it necessary to change such a small detail?

I suppose that as time progressed, lifespans (and perhaps the length of a monarch's reign) progressed as well, so the average lifespan in both nations was probably an evolving quantity. Maybe a natural log formula could be devised based on the evidence we have as a ballpark estimate on standards of living progression. Also, exogenous events that we don't know about (wars, famines, plagues) could have produced very short lifespans for intervening leaders in one nation or another.

Uh...discuss.

I don't mean to pick at details, but are you sure you crunched your numbers properly? Dividing 400 years by 12 reigns correctly gives you 33 1/3. However, dividing 400 years by 7 mystic reigns gives you 57.14285714286. It depends on what point Ozzie I and Ozzie VIII were in their respective reigns - it ranges from slightly above 50 years to slightly below 60. I'd say 55 years is a good guess at the mystic reign average.

Also, if the modern Ozzie had remained XIII, the average reign would've been exactly the same as Guardia at 33 1/3.

 

[FaustWolf]

Ah, the fact that I was beginning with Ozzie I threw me off, and I didn't get a proper difference (should be 33 - 21 for the Guardian side, 8 - 1 for the Mystic side). I have an embarrassing weakness when it comes to subtraction.   Yeah, that would make the Mystics even longer-reigned than I calculated at first.

Now things make more sense. So originally, Square Enix having Ozzie XIII in 1000AD Medina implied that the rate of monarch turnover(a quantity ambiguously related to monarch lifespan) in Medina was on par with that of Guardia. Going to the trouble of changing Ozzie XIII to Ozzie VIII in the final might imply that whoever made that decision wanted to communicate one of several things:

1. Greater standards of living in Medina compared to Guardia over this period, yielding longer lifespans (whether due to magic, trade, etc)

2. Better protection of Medina monarchs compared to Guardian monarchs over this period (again, "magic" is an easy explanation)

3. Different political systems -- some kind of democratic element in Guardia's during the period would promote faster monarch turnover, for example. However, monarch election in Guardia strikes me as unlikely, seeing as Marle is descended from Leene, implying bloodline succession.


That's just considering the Ozzie XIII > Ozzie VIII switch. Getting back to the more general topic of standards of living, we could bring into evidence the kind of domestic furnishings available to Medina and Guardia in 600AD and 1000AD. However, I think in 600AD all we have access to are Magus' castle and Ozzie's fort, huh?

[utunnels]

Well, I think they simply thought a Mystic usually had longer lifespan than a human.
For example, Sprigg in CC is 224 years old.

In mythology(both east and west), humanoid creatures usually live longer than human.

[_Janus_]

Yeah, the Mystics(demons in japanese, fiends on the DS) prolly have longer lifespans for an obvious reason: they are mystical beings

[Thought]

As a bit of an aside, it is implied (not definitively, though), that Queen Leene, the wife of Guardia XXI, is the Great Grandmother of Marle. If one recalls the scene where Lucca talks about the grandfather paradox, only 4 generations of Guardian women are seen (I think). Of course, this might have been abbreviated rather than exact.

Most disturbingly, however, is that Marle appears to be produced through the female line. That is, Leene had a daughter who had a daughter who had a daughter who had Marle. Now either succession is not determined via the male line, or King Guardia XXXIII married his sister (or something like that). As this may mean that it is through the female line that kings and queens are determined, then many "kings" could have come and gone for each queen. Consider, for example, the case of King Henry VIII but in reverse. Leene's daughter could have had six husbands, taking us from Guardia XXII to XXVIII in just one generation.

[FaustWolf]

And King Crono would naturally fit into such a matrilineal tradition. Not to mention Cedric. Wild!

[Thought]

Sorry for the non-related comment, but I totally read that as "Cedrics gone wild" at first.

[deviant_ambition]

As a bit of an aside, it is implied (not definitively, though), that Queen Leene, the wife of Guardia XXI, is the Great Grandmother of Marle. If one recalls the scene where Lucca talks about the grandfather paradox, only 4 generations of Guardian women are seen (I think). Of course, this might have been abbreviated rather than exact.

Most disturbingly, however, is that Marle appears to be produced through the female line. That is, Leene had a daughter who had a daughter who had a daughter who had Marle. Now either succession is not determined via the male line, or King Guardia XXXIII married his sister (or something like that). As this may mean that it is through the female line that kings and queens are determined, then many "kings" could have come and gone for each queen. Consider, for example, the case of King Henry VIII but in reverse. Leene's daughter could have had six husbands, taking us from Guardia XXII to XXVIII in just one generation.

This is new. I had already surmised that showing us 4 generations was simply to simplify the effects of the current situation. However, I hadn't thought of the rest of your post.

Now it might not be that rule is determined by the female child, just that if Queen Leene were captured, she and the current King couldn't birth a child. This child that no longer exists couldn't become ruler and birth their child, onwards and forwards until 1000 AD. I think they simply used female sprites to simplify things and to further show the similarities between Queen Leene and Marle.

[Quenditar]

Most disturbingly, however, is that Marle appears to be produced through the female line. That is, Leene had a daughter who had a daughter who had a daughter who had Marle. Now either succession is not determined via the male line, or King Guardia XXXIII married his sister (or something like that). As this may mean that it is through the female line that kings and queens are determined, then many "kings" could have come and gone for each queen. Consider, for example, the case of King Henry VIII but in reverse. Leene's daughter could have had six husbands, taking us from Guardia XXII to XXVIII in just one generation.

It's possible.  There have been some human societies where royal succession was in the maternal line.  However, usually the king was the hereditary queen's brother not the hereditary queen's husband, and rule passed to one of his nephews.  The "Heiress Theory" of Ancient Egypt is the exact system proposed for Guardia, but it has recently come under heavy attack.

However, one bit of counter-evidence is that Japanese has two words for "queen," 王妃 (king's concubine) "queen consort" and 女王 (female king) "queen regnant".  Leene is referred to as 王妃, never 女王.  Interestingly, Queen Zeal is referred to as 女王 only.  Japanese has several perfectly good words for "regent", so the implication is that Queen Zeal is queen in her own right.

Sure, the simple explanation is that both countries use patrilineal succession and the illustrations and titles were chosen for maximum ease of comprehension by middle school children, but this is more fun!