What would a medieval fantasy world be like if it is in complete anarchy? There are no more rules, no protection, and all the kingdoms have fallen. And would there still be countries even if their kingdoms are gone? This is my idea for my first draft. An evil overlord conquered everything and left the world lawless because he wanted the world in chaos. And it is up to the hero to restore order back to the world.
It would depend on how the society was broken down into anarchy. The modern concept of a country or nation state would be rather foreign in the middle ages. Instead they had a system of feudalism where local nobles held the power, but were vassals of the higher level nobles and in turn the king. Communication was slow, so individual areas were able to govern themselves without much centralization. There were no police forces until the 1800s. You would need to be careful about introducing modern concepts into the mix, unless you deliberately want to take that angle. Peasants were not revolutionaries, and generally did not hold bold ambitions. There are some notable exceptions however, particularly towards the end of that period. We see the French Revolution, which is its own particular brand of chaos that may or may not be anarchy depending on how you see it. And also in France, we see some initiatives by the crown to centralize power in the capital.
Researching this a bit more, you might want to look at the reign of Louis XIV if you’re thinking about this in terms of the destruction of centralized authority. Louis XIV required his nobles to travel to his court, which gave him direct, centralized control over the government. If that type of government were to fall, then there may be large consequences. Spoiler: “Game of Thrones” Your dark lord may resemble Littlefinger a bit actually. He intentionally causes chaos by turning feudal houses against each other and instigating war. This is even more proactive than simple anarchy and would be a way to create even more chaos than just destroying the central government. Though it is unclear how much the life of a common westerosi peasant was really affected by the blood-letting of their masters.
The biggest social experiment in anarchy is the internet. Ironically enough. But that won't help you with a fantasy setting, I understand. So let's get into historic anarchy. How much do you know about the 30 years war? That was complete anarchy. Study a bit about that.
Fifty years later But yeah, medieval style feudalism tends to be the response to a collapse of a centralised government. E.G Rome Collapsed, Europe became feudal. The central Chinese bureaucracy collapsed, China became feudal. Beyond that, humans natural go towards some sort of order, so five minutes after the dark lord leaving, a feudal state is going to pop up again, or at least something capable of organising people.
Almost every time anarchy has been implemented, either through the collapse of a government or the overthrow of a despot, the worst people are the first to take over. France is the perfect example. No one expects the period after a revolution in the name of liberty to be dubbed "The Reign of Terror," but that's what happens. The "Arab Spring?" Yeah, that hasn't worked out well yet for a lot of those countries. Those are fairly modern examples compared to the period you'd want though, so you'd probably be looking at warlords and surviving royal lines battling for the crown at the bloody expense of the peasants. It could go on for years, with the throne changing hands repeatedly.
In the 1985 movie Flesh+Blood, Rutger Hauer plays the leader of a band of mercenaries who capture a castle. Can't find the exact quote, but something like: "We've got gold, we've got a castle...We're nobles now!" And that's about all it takes to end anarchy and reinstate feudalism. See also the Holnists from David Brin's The Postman, or Somalia in the early 90s, or wherever the Lord's Resistance Army was operating. Nature abhors a power vacuum.
As a slight continuation using that article itself, The European Early Middles Ages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Middle_Ages Because The Dark Ages article is all about how "this period wasn't as bad as people say and it got its name from when people were kissing the Roman Empire's ass."
In times where communication and flow of information was so slow, it could take months before a kingdom even heard that there was a new threat, never mind organise a response to it, which could take years. Therefore, opportunism had the chance to be very rewarding, whilst not necessarily being so easy to punish. Even with your dark lord having 'conquered' everything, there will be those in positions of authority who will take their chances, no matter how ruthless a conqueror they face or how hopeless the odds, because they judge that's it's better to be a king for a day than a pauper for a lifetime. There will be those who still resist, in mind and spirit, because they still have an identity, they can still remember 'the way things were'. So it was that 'conquering' is the easy bit, making sure a people stays conquered - that's the tricky part. @Iain Aschendale is right. The power vacuum can never be stable. You will get the opportunists making a grab for anything and everything that they can or things gradually resolving back to the way things were before your conqueror came. I know your setting is medieval, but I would study what happened after Alexander the Great's sudden demise. There was no apparent successor, but the people within his empire did not fall into total anarchy, not like how you seem to desire. Immediately after his death, his closest generals, Seleucus, Ptolemy et al. just grabbed whatever they could lay their hands on and life went on.
