On governments, alliances, and rebellion

[Garren Jacobsen]

I have a fledgling world swirling in my brain. In this world there are two alliances that are divided further into 5 and 6 countries each. The former is called the Alliance of the Crow and the latter is called the Alliance of the Eagle. These countries and alliances were all part of a grand empire and when the emperor died his scheming children all warred for their throne, he had 11 sons in case you were curious. What prompted this was that the Emperor never gave clear direction on who should rule. In fact his last words was that, "Sovereignty is to be given to..."

To further confuse the issue sovereignty is also a religious issue for these people with the rulers being often times considered at least mouth pieces of God if not demi-Gods themselves. Meaning that an uprising from the people, who have been taught this principle, would be unlikely.

The story's original intent will be a pulling down of the power structure and having the people rise up to power. What I have planned for this is that the protagonist, who is originally just a hired gun before he is a revolutionary, starts to tear down the idea that the rulers are chosen by God and then proceeds to inspire the idea of a representative republic. The republic will start in a single nation but will spread to every other nation as well like wildfire.

Also, magic is technically illegal, however the protagonist can control light and darkness and the rulers of these nations use his skills for thievery, assassinations and kidnappings. However, light and darkness cannot technically injure the target but hide the individual using them.

My question is this world so far believable? If there are parts that are not believable what would you do to improve them? Also how would you all further flesh out the governments at hand and what kind of republic would you have? I think it would be a federal system once all the countries are unified again, IE a system like the US or Germany. However, I think it will start off as a parliamentary system, IE UK and most other democracies. What do you all think?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

There aren't really enough specifics for me to comment on believability but the overall scenario is certainly plausible & that's all you need.

I like the protagonist. The magic system (his ability) does bring up some questions. First, even though magic may be illegal is it still relatively prevalent but hidden or extremely rare? Secondly, of I could control light & shadow I could certainly devise ways to use it is a weapon (i.e. blinding, driving to madness in perpetual darkness). So you will have to develop reasons why the protagonist can't do these things or the reader will question it as well. Draw up some well defined rules for magic in this world & stick to them. Make sure the power & it's limitations are plausible.

On other protagonist note, what are his motivations to go from mercenary rogue to inspirational freedom fighter? His character arc (how he grows during the story) will need to be well thought out. Motivation, especially with a character like this, is essential to gaining reader sympathy.

Other than that, the number of alliances, who succeeds who, ruling by divine right all have real historical context you can draw inspiration from. Use these to create conflict & you're golden.

Hope that helps.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I think that rebellion and governments are tricky things to write because they do not happen over night. For my work, I try to take a specific time period (in my WIP I am using 1575 Venice) and use most of the things which were happening at the time. Now right about then Venice had an outbreak of plague which I am omitting, but then I need to compensate for the effects that disease had on the politics.

With two neatly divided factions, I'm left wondering why there aren't more. This seems a perfect time for other groups to try to see their own agendas realized, but then I could be wrong. What is your societal structure? Are there high-ranking lords and then lesser nobility? Below them are there merchants who believe they have what it takes to carve out a piece of the world for themselves? What about guilds and taxes and clergy and yeoman farmers? Do you have serfs? These are all things which separate the 1200's from the 1600's, and unfortunately some people don't know enough about the differences when they begin building their own world. Something which may have been a common concept in the late Renaissance might have been as foreign as circumnavigating the globe in the 1200's.

I'd find something close to what you're trying to do in our history and use that to see what else you might have overlooked. Then at least if you choose to deviate from the historical events, you can be prepared to explain why something occurred which as readers might seem implausible.

Of course, I'm not saying fantasy history and Earth history need to be alike, just that we as modern people tend to relate to what we know, and there are several examples of thrones being fought for. Maybe read up a little of the War of the Roses and see if you can extrapolate anything from that to add depth and flavor to your story.

Best wishes.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

I'm trying to find a way to equalize the power between the governments and the people. It is generally thought that fire arms was the great equalizer what do you all think?

 

[Caged Maiden]

well again, what we need to know is time period. That will influence what technology will work. When firearms were first invented, they were unreliable, and only good for one or two shots, then you had to reload, carry powder and bullets, etc. They misfired and such, making swords still the weapon of choice for most people.

I'd say that of weapons technology before say the revolutionary war, crossbows did more to equalize warfare because suddenly men did not need to be trained archers. You could put a crossbow in the hands of a peasant and he could be quite effective as a soldier. Heavy artillery is also very effective, so does your world have cannons? Those are certainly more effective than flintlock pistols.

I guess there's a lot that goes into this. If you have one side with cannons, and one side with the prettiest knights the world has ever seen, it's no contest. While the cavalry and artillery worked together, there were many battles won and lost by what kind of men a general brought. SO with every new technology invented, warfare changed. Knights used to wear full plate to protect from sword cuts, but it did not stop an arrow fired from a long bow. There was no armor to stop a bullet, so speed was preferred and men wore clothing during the civil war. These are all things to consider. Mobility, technology, weight, maintenance. It takes 50 peasants working hard to support one armored mounted knight in the field. What kind of troops could your populations support?

Under the feudal system, nobles were required to raise troops from their own people to give to the king for his wars. DO you have a feudal system or are your soldiers volunteer militia like the Americans had in 1775? Do you have musketeers or mercenaries, elite pikemen or peasants with axes? For every technology you have, there is a counterpart. Knights vs. pikemen, Foot soldiers with broad swords vs. Archers, cannons vs. light cavalry, etc.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

I wouldn't call the system feudal. People owned their own land and what not they just had to pay taxes to the nobility. Conscription was centralized as well. I am thinking it will be a mandatory conscription of about two years for each first born son. This is due to the continually tense situation between the two alliances. Some of these sons do continue in their military service but that is not particularly common, neither though is it extremely rare military service gets nice benefits with potential advancement into the ranks of the lesser nobility. What I am thinking of doing is having firearms become a recent addition. A godsend for when the assassin becomes a revolutionary leader. He sees this as revolutionizing warfare and making it so his band of rebels can effectively fight against the tyrant. However, victory on the battlefield will be somewhat less important to winning the war. Eventually I think he will need to find a way of undercutting the idea of the Divine right of Kings.

Although I like the idea of the powder based weaponry already being in limited use but an inventor that is a member of the lower class rebels making it really and truly functional in combat.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

T. Allen As far as your question goes about magic it is an antiquated law dating from the wars within the empire. Really so far as the people and rulers know this character is the only one that can do this. Sometimes the ability pops up here and there but most of the time those people are executed. However, there are rumors that a group of mages survived the war against them and are in fact in hiding across the Rift, that is more or less a miles wide chasm engulfed in swirling darkness this is a place where all sorts of nasty creatures dwell. That point though will not be important until later into the work. Also I suppose I should clarify that he cannot use his ability to be lethal

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I know you say he can't use his ability to be lethal. The problem is that your readers will need a reason why he can't.

If you don't provide reasoning they won't find the use of his magic as plausible. They will just say "Why doesn't he just blind the bad guy?"

This is one of the core elements in developing a magic system. Set the range of power & it's limitations on use. You can't just say that's the way it is. Especially with a POV character. You have to provide the reasoning why that's the way it is.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

I note your concern however blinding isn't exactly what kills someone. What I mean when I say lethal is that he can't create a knife made from pure light or darkness and use it to shank someone. He can shroud lethal objects in light or dark thus turning them invisible, for all intents and purposes.

My reasoning for this is simple darkness is not physical in the sense that metal is physical. He can however manipulate and expand it and even in some limited way make it semi permanent. The same rule applies to light he cannot make something physical of it but he can make it semi-permanent. So if he wanted to he could make floating orbs of pure light in his house to light his way rather than torches.

 

[Saigonnus]

One thing I wanted to comment on was sucession, during the medieval times, renaissance and before generally the eldest child would inherit the throne even if their father/mother didn't specifically point to them and give them the power. I am sure there are plenty of examples of the eldest son knowing his brother would be inheriting the throne and would assassinate their father or dispose of the brother who will inherit so they could have the power for themselves.

"Rebellions" generally don't come about in a situation like that, it would be more like a "civil war" if each of the heirs have their own forces to work with, With that and conscripting forces from their lands it would give each of the heirs a considerable force to work with.

 

[Devor]

I'm trying to find a way to equalize the power between the governments and the people. It is generally thought that fire arms was the great equalizer what do you all think?

Two words: Printing Press.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Sai thanks for pointing that out. However, I didn't really consider that hole. However, I filled that problem with the society of the empire being built entirely off of merit. If you were good you advanced no matter what family you are from. The emperor normally would name his or her successor. The children had all proven themselves worthy and that is what prompted the civil war. However, the story is set years into the future where the magic users are eliminated from the picture and no one alive for two generations ever saw the last emperor alive.

Devor I am interested on why you think the printing press would be an equalizer.