Imo the society that best fits the canon OoH is the medieval Icelandic Free State.

When the first settlers arrived in Iceland they found vast tracts of viable farmland, free for the taking. Naturally, there was a land-rush from Norway and other Norse colonies. Part of the motivation to leave their homes was the rise of a single king over Norway, who demanded others recognise his overlordship. To the independently minded Norse, such submission was dishonourable and many preferred to leave their homeland rather than bend their knee.

The available land was quickly claimed. Often families would claim far more land than they could use/control. This led to emancipation of slaves, who were given the extra land to settle; thus taking true possession. Conflicts of boundaries, accusations of theft and killings grew.

In response to this anarchy, the Icelander organised a meeting to decide on a legal code all could follow. Based on Western Norse legal codes what is now termed the Icelandic Free State was born. It had no taxation, no executive. It only provided a means for the people to process their conflicts under a rule of law.

Every Icelander was a member of a farm's household. Farmhands were under the household of their employer. Even fishermen had to belong to a farm's household, even if this was only a technicality.

A householder needed to choose a chieftain to attach himself to. This was not a feudal arrangement however; it did not demand tribute or any service. If a householder was unhappy with a chieftain he could attached himself to another. If a chieftain needed a group of men for some action, his householders generally assisted. A chieftain who could not gather a supportive group in need was no use to anyone. However, no householder was obliged (unless an oath had been given) to provide assistance; such assistance was voluntary, based on principle or just the self-interest of having an effective chieftain.

The Icelandic sagas give excellent insight into the sort of group dynamics at play in this relationship. Often it was the collective opinion of the householders who forced a godi to act or not act and seek a legal settlement.

Three local chieftains appointed a panel of judges to hear cases at their local assembly. They also appointed other panels to make judgements as to the facts of a case. This was a significant role, but the power of a chieftain it was balanced against the two other chieftains.

All the chieftains went to the national assembly. There they appointed judges to panels and had a vote on the 'law mending' council. This council discussed and voted on new laws and amendments to old laws. There was not body above this council, no one to make executive decisions.

In Icelandic law there were only three punishments. A three mark fine, lesser outlawry and full outlawry. Lesser outlawry exiled the convict from a quarter. If found within that quarter, the convict could be killed without legal penalty. Full outlawry applied throughout Iceland. All other penalties were in the form of private settlements.

Critically though, there were no execution of these penalties. No one was employed by the State to enforce the sentence. If a convict refused to pay a fine he was merely made outlaw; striped of legal protection. It was generally the social responsibility of the prosecution party to hunt the outlaw down, but this was a matter of honour, not law.

There were very few national-level crises. One involved a breakdown of law, which led to a restructuring of the legal system. One was the adoption of Christianity. The last was the acceptance suzerainty to the Norwegian king.

The surrender of the Icelandic Free State stems from the Norwegian king's desire to gain control of Iceland. He encouraged the undermining of the legal system by a handful of men, who gained control of multiple chieftaincies. They then competed with each other for true feudal control of Iceland. Their aim was to hand Iceland to the Norwegian king in return for the Earldom.

In the end the householders had enough of the anarchy generated and gave the Norwegian king Iceland to restore a rule of law. They agreed to becoming subjects of a king, compromising their freeman status, but to the average Icelander this was the least bad option, not a positive choice.

However, the Icelandic Free State endured for about 300 years. The Icelandic sagas give great insight into the sort of 'politics' common to Icelanders. Disputes over the ownership of lands, rights to gather, feuds which may have started over a petty slight. Manslaughter, duels, litigation, exactly the sort of stuff ArM canon has filling the agenda of Tribunals.

The sagas are full of intemperate chieftains bringing slaughter and chaos. Many are forced by the dictates of honour to commit acts they know will bring them ruin. Some refrain from the ruinous act only to be goaded into it by a woman's sharp reminder of his duty. They could all run farms, but they were often imprudent and/or overly aggressive leaders.

In fact the legal system of the Order is now heavily derived from the Icelandic Free State (see True Lineages).

Regards

- D Woods

Further points of similarity.

Goegraphical isolation: Icelanders lived in widely distributed farmsteads. Often a farmstead would not have another within sight.

Lack of Urban Centres: There were no urban centres, not even villages. The closest Iceland came was the two Cathedrals and associated colleges (still small in mainland European terms).

Character of its political class: Iceland's chieftains were not urbanites living in the same city. They were all farmers, as all of their associated householders were; richer than most perhaps but still farmers. They were not full-time professional politicians.

Regards

- David W