Motivation for a rebel faction in a vassal state

[Jabrosky]

The story I am outlining has as its backdrop a conflict between a superpower nation and one of its vassal states. The superpower is a monarchic empire on the mainland named Akhiptu whereas the other is an insular oligarchy called Parthenos. Parthenos is actually one of several islands in an archipelago named Ellasia, but these Ellasians have a tradition of squabbling with one another. What they all share in common is a penchant for raiding countries on the mainland coast, including Akhiptu.

To set up a protective bulwark against these raids, the Akhiptans have made Parthenos their client state. If the Parthenans can keep the other Ellasians at bay from Akhiptu, the Akhiptans will shower Parthenos with a share of its material wealth and the knowledge of its sages, to name just two of the major benefits.

This arrangement does not please all the Parthenans though. One political faction known as the Owls, who are led by the distinguished warrior Mosileon, opposes the Akhiptan hegemony and calls for Parthenos' political and economic independence. When the Akhiptan king's heir gets ambushed by mysterious agents on a hunting trip, the king points his finger at the Owls and orders his daughter to kill their leader. And so the story begins...

What I need is a motivation for Mosileon and his Owls to protest Akhiptan domination over Parthenos. While the Parthenos have a visibly different culture from the Akhiptans in many respects (e.g. more patriarchal gender roles), they also receive many economic and scientific benefits from their intercourse with Akhiptu. What would Parthenos gain from cutting off their Akhiptan ties?

 

[CupofJoe]

Very mundane reasons but the three that leapt to my mind were...
Freedom - Everyone wants to be free and independent [being a shill for some other country has to rankle]
Representation - Everyone wants to be taken seriously at the highest levels [military, politically or culturally]
Taxation - Everyone thinks they pay too much and get too little [especially if the taxation isn't money but the lives of people]

 

[Jabrosky]

Very mundane reasons but the three that leapt to my mind were...
Freedom - Everyone wants to be free and independent [being a shill for some other country has to rankle]

I like this freedom idea the most. Mosileon, as a seasoned veteran, could be a staunch patriot whose nationalistic tendencies conflict with Akhiptan hegemony.

 

[Queshire]

People mostly just want tomorrow to be much the same as today, they might not care about the economic and scientific benefits, indeed they could just view them as yet another way the big country is meddling in their affairs. "Our fathers did not fear the mainlanders, our grandfathers did not fear the mainlanders, they took whatever they wanted from the pathetic lanflubbers. Are we to now be dogs? Our pride broken? Our strength yoked by the lazy slugs across the see? And for what!? Some gold!? Some beeping gizmo!? No! Rise up I say and take back your freedom as Parthenians!"

...or something like that.

 

[wordwalker]

One key to writing about freedom is showing just where these people aren't free. And that might be very specific forms (imprisoned dissidents, major taxes or trade issues, or too many of their men being pulled into foreign wars), or it might be a more complex sense of their culture being repressed.

Is their religion under threat, maybe outlawed or just being squeezed out by mainland priests making converts? Their language? Their beloved line of leaders being bullied by their overlords? Can you give a sense of their traditions being slowly threatened?

"Freedom" is a great concept, but to start a revolution--or a story--you want to be clear just what they want to be free of besides whose rear is on the throne.

 

[ink.]

My advice would be to do some long hard lookin' into the Ukraine/Russia/Crimea situation that's going on at the moment, from what I understand there are all kinds of cultural dilemmas at play there which seem to fit perfectly into what you're after. Borrowing from the real world isn't plagiarism.

 

[Queshire]

I would be worried that the Crimea situation is too current and the fact that there's still so much up in the air that using it as inspiration could risk corrupting the purity of the story vision. Looking at similar things a bit more distant might be safer, maybe like the events leading up to the revolutionary war.

 

[thecoldembrace]

From what I see right off the bat is that this agreement/proposal for the Parthenans to protect Akhiptu from raids, this puts Akhiptu as the weaker of the two. Any superpower that cannot successfully defend it's own shores is not a true superpower. Your dissidents would see this and use it as a key focus. Now this may or may not be true that your main nation can or cannot successfully defend its shores, perhaps they just would rather leave it to someone else, but it is still a sign of weakness to trust and rely on the strength of arms of a vassal state to protect the larger. Traditionally vassal states were protected by their liege state and only really became vassals because they either needed the protection of the larger state or were threatened by it.

Your dissident leader could play on the fact that it is their people that are fighting and dying, while their liege state sits back and relaxes, growing richer off their plight. Regardless of the economic benefits this would not sit well with the vast majority of the population regardless of culture (usually, unless it is a very warlike culture). Those that would be in favor of this bargain are those that gain the most, those with the power and money and influence to gain. The average person however would probably not gain much from the bargain.

Play with the plight of the common person who gain little to no benefit to this arrangement except death defending a state that seemingly cannot defend itself.

-Cold

 

[Jabrosky]

From what I see right off the bat is that this agreement/proposal for the Parthenans to protect Akhiptu from raids, this puts Akhiptu as the weaker of the two. Any superpower that cannot successfully defend it's own shores is not a true superpower. Your dissidents would see this and use it as a key focus. Now this may or may not be true that your main nation can or cannot successfully defend its shores, perhaps they just would rather leave it to someone else, but it is still a sign of weakness to trust and rely on the strength of arms of a vassal state to protect the larger. Traditionally vassal states were protected by their liege state and only really became vassals because they either needed the protection of the larger state or were threatened by it.

Actually I did want Akhiptu to be a powerful state in its own right.

Hmm, maybe I should switch the power balance around and have Parthenos start out choosing vassalage to Akhiptu as protection against their neighbors. Then Mosileon's argument could be that, in the time that has passed since the vassalage started, the Parthenans have grown strong enough to not need Akhiptan protection.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Just a thought. What if all of these advantages that Perthenos gets go to the king and his cronies, and none of them come down to the people or the soldiers doing the fighting for the king? Then you have the beginings of a revolution in the island state, and one in which the mainland state would be seen as the enemy of the people. This could be something like the overthrow of the US backe governments in the Middle East - eg Iran. The Shah was unpopular to say the least, there was a religious centred uprising against him, and after he was killed the US became the Great Satan.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Jabrosky]

The relationship I've settled on is that Akhiptu conquered Parthenos sometime in the past. Parthenos is in this respect not a client state but a colonial possession like those Europeans cut out for themselves in Africa. They have a sort of "indirect rule" policy where Parthenos' indigenous political institution is subservient to the Akhiptan crown.

I have a different question to pose now, which should have a greater effect on my story's plot. A couple of assassins from Parthenos kill the Akhiptan heir apparent while he's out hunting, so the Akhiptan King accuses the Parthenans of rebellious terrorism. What action should he take against them? Would he organize a full-on military assault on a province he's already conquered? Or would it make more sense for him to send an assassin on his own (i.e. his vengeful daughter) after whomever he claims planned the terrorist act?

 

[Queshire]

My first thought is not a military assault but significantly buffing up the military garrisons and the military presence they already have in their colony, or if you want them to have more independence than a colony you could have P have some A military bases on it like how Japan has American military bases. The only way I can see that not happening is if they didn't want to risk the increased military tension with the other nations in the area that would result from the increased military presence. In either case the daughter could be sent in as a special operative to ensure that the job gets done with the local military ordered to give her whatever aid is necessary.

 

[Bortasz]

The reason for creating USA was to big taxation.
The freedom was just a nice advertised key world.

 

[Gurkhal]

The relationship I've settled on is that Akhiptu conquered Parthenos sometime in the past. Parthenos is in this respect not a client state but a colonial possession like those Europeans cut out for themselves in Africa. They have a sort of "indirect rule" policy where Parthenos' indigenous political institution is subservient to the Akhiptan crown.

I have a different question to pose now, which should have a greater effect on my story's plot. A couple of assassins from Parthenos kill the Akhiptan heir apparent while he's out hunting, so the Akhiptan King accuses the Parthenans of rebellious terrorism. What action should he take against them? Would he organize a full-on military assault on a province he's already conquered? Or would it make more sense for him to send an assassin on his own (i.e. his vengeful daughter) after whomever he claims planned the terrorist act?

Depends on his style but for myself I would flood the province with agents and march a huge army into it and take military control until I know I've rooted out every little traitor that's hiding there. And then give some ghastly deaths to install a proper sense of dread in the rest.

 

[Lvl20wizard]

I'm thinking any vassal state rebelling against a higher power is often risky business. If they enjoy wealth and prosperity, the safe choice would be to keep relations steady. Breaking vassalage is not only dangerous, but the vassal state may get infamous for being untrustworthy and scheming, which would make future alliances even more difficult.

An act of rebellion in this situation, where they in fact prosper, seems to be one born on ambition. Confidence in getting even more wealth if they overthrow their rulers. If the ruling state show some sort of weakness, as has already been suggested or if the vassal state feel wrongfully treated, maybe from the accusation of the kidnapping being their doing, it could fuel a desire to overthrow them. It could even serve as an excuse to overthrow them, so they may seem more righteous in their conspiracy.

Though these cities sound a bit like the quarreling cities of Ancient Greece, so if they start fighting a war with their rulers on the mainland, wouldn't they risk a two front war with their island neighbors? Perhaps an alliance or meager insurance of temporary truce with their fellow islanders might be in order before they risk their necks and leave home for the mainland.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

It's hard to answer, but as a parent the first thing I would want to know is who did it? He has the assassins? Then I suppose with the information in hand he would start hunting them down through agents etc. There could well be public executions and torture. There could also be punitative punishment. The leaders / court might well be killed for "failing" to stop assassins on their shores from going and killing his son. There might be a cull of some sort - one in every hundred son's perhaps slaughtered for the same reason - just as a warning / retribution. It depends how you write him and his politics.

Cheers, Greg.