Two nations

[Garren Jacobsen]

Here is an interesting question I had after reading through the HP series for the I would say thirdish time. It is this. Assumung that a magical community were to be in hiding and that said community had significant numbers and resources why wouldn't they try to rise up and shake themselves from this tyranny of silence?

Further once the rebellion is completed what would the world be like? Personally I believe that the world would be divided between the magical and the non-magical in the terms of nation-states. With a very shaky truce holding them both at bay.

This idea by the way is the premise for a bookseries that I intend on writing and I am interested to hear other fantasy lovers opinions on this

 

[BeigePalladin]

Assumung that a magical community were to be in hiding and that said community had significant numbers and resources why wouldn't they try to rise up and shake themselves from this tyranny of silence?

because that dosen't make as good of a story...

also, is the hiding forced or willing, as that comes up as a major reason for lack of independance.

If they do rise up and take over, then then two nations thing would make sense - and considering the history, will probably be openly hostile to one another - and one would probably experiance an explosive advancement in millitary technology, due to the need for defence.

another possible example, based on concouring them, is the Bartemius trilogy (though it is aimed at a younger audiance, as a warning)

 

[Dante Sawyer]

I actually think that would make a pretty interesting story. “If Harry Potter Rose Up…” Yeah, that’d be something I’d read. Palladin does make a point about how weapons would have to be increased, and much technological advancement would have to be made. I would think, even with such advances, that the magical world would have the blatant upperhand. I would recommend, if you were to do this, to make it something of a post-apocalyptic novel revolving around normal people trying to survive. Think of a fantasy version of Terminator.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

So Beige what I am gathering from your post is that the question is more of history than of anything else. So if the hiding were forced on the magicky people due to a previous conflict in whcih they lost the hurt would still be pretty bad though most of the population forgot the specifics, which would be the impetus for rebellion and war. A recent evidence of this would be Rwanda when the conflict started there it was based off of millenia old grudges and power stuggle exaserbated by British colonial policies. No offence to any of my British fantasy friends.

The second point you raise would be based upon the limitations of magic. So for example how far can a spell be used? Are the offensive spells for CQB or can they go on to artillery range? In my estimation offensive spells would be for the close quarters combat. Like room to room building to building stuff we see in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can a spell be used on a scale of destuction comparable to biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks? This is where my book series really gets the divergence between the magical and non-magical. The non-magical are more capable at one shot mass destuction attacks. During the conflict a biological agent derived from mutated werewolf virus DNA, I consider werewolfism to be a viral disease that affected only the magical people first then jumped to non-magical people in France during the middle-ages.

 

[Helbrecht]

I'm too sleepy to offer a lucid, detailed response right now, but something to consider if you're writing something like this: Rowling has went on the record saying that if a wizard with a killing curse was facing down a muggle with a shotgun, the muggle would win.

If the worlds of magic and technology were kept separate, there would be a certain disparity between methods of combat in each. Combatant wizards would likely be taught to fight other wizards, just like soldiers are trained to fight other soldiers, not Gandalf. But while a spell might disable a wizard, a bullet will kill a man whether he has a wand or not. If offensive magic is kept to an anti-personnel level as in the Potter books, the non-magical folk would have a massive advantage.

If the wizards can mess around with the laws of physics, however, we'd be pretty much bummed. For example: if they could alter the chemical propellant used in bullets so that it doesn't ignite at the normal temperature, we would lose the crucial advantage of firearms. That way, they wouldn't even have to fight us.

Do your research into the technologies we rely on and figure out how magic could royally screw it up in interesting ways.

 

[BeigePalladin]

hmmm, if the non-mages have the ability to make a biological weapon you might need to swap around the attackers, since that'd imply they'd also understand automatic weapons - which, due to their instant nature, range, and ease of use, would logistically be a stronger force than most spells...

A recent evidence of this would be Rwanda when the conflict started there it was based off of millenia old grudges and power stuggle exaserbated by British colonial policies. No offence to any of my British fantasy friends.

that... and you didn;t tell us why they'd been hiding so it could;ve been voluntary then they just decided to attack...

also, you'd all be happy if you'd just stayed as part of ten british empire

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

I think I have it designed well enough for the combat to be fairly balanced especially in terms of air combat. Jet's will have a hard time targeting and locking onto human sized targets but jets are of course a lot faster than the magic people who can fly, as a for instance. The difference are in the style of combat. Like the elemental mages cause problems by using shadows and other elements o screen movements then they attack upclose and hide. Or the wizards manipulate the fabric of reality itself in various but limited ways.