I want to add on a bit to this using LOTR and GoT since people aren't gonna care about the obscure stuff.
Apparently according to an actual history professor (and AI) despite it being supposedly more realistic, GoT is actually less grounded and realistic in worldbuilding and explanations of governance than LOTR.
How can that be? Tolkein never talked about Aragon's tax policy after all. Well the thing is GoT didn't talk about it much either. If anything its actually worse because it tries to portray itself as realistic but never going into depth about actual governance because thats boring. Notice how a lot of the governance stuff is just people backstabbing and killing each other for power? This is more of politics rather than governance. Thats why so many love GoT for its "realism" because it pretends to be realistic while not focusing on the actual stuff that needs details. In contrast despite LOTR being a fantasy, most people would find the indepth lore from it as well as the other materials rather boring because although it doesn't go into that much realistic details, there is a systematic structure of how things are laid out. Like who is the steward of Gondor, why Aragon has the right to claim lineage, why the shire is still alive, how it elects leaders, why a certain area does stuff culture wise etc. This is sort boring and doesn't even go to that much detail but this is consistent, does not involve all this drama and is closer to showing "governance".
