A Power Struggle Hypothetical

[Cerinda]

I'd go full Oliver Cromwell on them to be honest.

I like you.

Yay I'm glad someone does.

I wish it was this easy to make friends irl.

[Infected Mushroom]

She was sending you away from the capital so she could make moves here to increase her power base and influence the King

And then she allowed the army back into the capital. An Army that she thinks is loyal only because once she threatened it's highest ranking general and I didn't try to arrest her then. She should have killed me off or kept me busy in the pointless war.

You and also Purgatio keep thinking as the general I'm doing this coup on a whim. The moment she threatened me to reaffirm my loyalty I would have begun moving troops, started replacing Royal Guards in the Capital with soldiers from the army, and set up the planes to find a scapegoat for this coup. The Nobles trying to over through her first is great cause they've just made themselves the perfect scapegoats.

the scenario is written so that you have to make an off the cuff decision, no preparations in advance of it

before that happened, you're just a regular commander generally doing their job

if you coup the lord now, it has to be ad hoc (as in, if you suddenly kill them, you'd have to work with what you've got there)

the royal army as it currently stands, is largely experimental and has troops who are more primarily loyal to the local lords

in fact, if a war breaks out the royal army is expected to be supplemented by local lords raising banners

if you kill the other lords, there is a high chance that the relatives of those lords would start a war against you and that many in the royal army would leave because they are loyal first and foremost to the local lords

...

the best option, if you want to grab power, is to work with the lords (or Felicie) depending on who you want to back

trying to coup everyone just makes you the next big target

[Infected Mushroom]

Isn't this basically just a twist on (spoiler alert) what happened to that one guy in Game of Thrones?

...

It is indeed.

Good catch.

[Heloin]

And then she allowed the army back into the capital. An Army that she thinks is loyal only because once she threatened it's highest ranking general and I didn't try to arrest her then. She should have killed me off or kept me busy in the pointless war.

You and also Purgatio keep thinking as the general I'm doing this coup on a whim. The moment she threatened me to reaffirm my loyalty I would have begun moving troops, started replacing Royal Guards in the Capital with soldiers from the army, and set up the planes to find a scapegoat for this coup. The Nobles trying to over through her first is great cause they've just made themselves the perfect scapegoats.

the scenario is written so that you have to make an off the cuff decision, no preparations in advance of it

You just say that cause I think outside the box
Again the second I was threatened I would start the plans for my coup.

before that happened, you're just a regular commander generally doing their job

Which was leading the Army in a war I knew was pointless.

if you coup the lord now, it has to be ad hoc (as in, if you suddenly kill them, you'd have to work with what you've got there)

The lords coup is the best chance I have of having a scapegoat. If I attempt to take over in a few years time that'll only lead to a nation wide civil war. The other lords who didn't know about the coup will condemn what will be portrayed as a coup against the King as everyone quietly forgets Felicie ever existed. The Houses of the lords who killed Felicie either condemn there traitorous family members, fall apart to internal striff with there leader dead, and a few may try and revolt only to be crushed by the Royal Army and loyal Houses.

the royal army as it currently stands, is largely experimental and has troops who are more primarily loyal to the local lords

Who the hell am I if not the leader of the Royal army? How is this kingdom able to fight pointless wars without a proper Royal Army? What kind of idiot am I letting people in the Royal Army who aren't more loyal to the King then there stupid home counties?

in fact, if a war breaks out the royal army is expected to be supplemented by local lords raising banners

If that's the case why if there a royal army in the first place?

if you kill the other lords, there is a high chance that the relatives of those lords would start a war against you and that many in the royal army would leave because they are loyal first and foremost to the local lords

More likely they'd start internal civil wars with each other to try and take over there houses and lands.

the best option, if you want to grab power, is to work with the lords (or Felicie) depending on who you want to back

trying to coup everyone just makes you the next big target

But I didn't coup, I protected the king from a few traitorous nobles

[Infected Mushroom]

the scenario is written so that you have to make an off the cuff decision, no preparations in advance of it

You just say that cause I think outside the box
Again the second I was threatened I would start the plans for my coup.

before that happened, you're just a regular commander generally doing their job

Which was leading the Army in a war I knew was pointless.

if you coup the lord now, it has to be ad hoc (as in, if you suddenly kill them, you'd have to work with what you've got there)

The lords coup is the best chance I have of having a scapegoat. If I attempt to take over in a few years time that'll only lead to a nation wide civil war. The other lords who didn't know about the coup will condemn what will be portrayed as a coup against the King as everyone quietly forgets Felicie ever existed. The Houses of the lords who killed Felicie either condemn there traitorous family members, fall apart to internal striff with there leader dead, and a few may try and revolt only to be crushed by the Royal Army and loyal Houses.

the royal army as it currently stands, is largely experimental and has troops who are more primarily loyal to the local lords

Who the hell am I if not the leader of the Royal army? How is this kingdom able to fight pointless wars without a proper Royal Army? What kind of idiot am I letting people in the Royal Army who aren't more loyal to the King then there stupid home counties?

in fact, if a war breaks out the royal army is expected to be supplemented by local lords raising banners

If that's the case why if there a royal army in the first place?

if you kill the other lords, there is a high chance that the relatives of those lords would start a war against you and that many in the royal army would leave because they are loyal first and foremost to the local lords

More likely they'd start internal civil wars with each other to try and take over there houses and lands.

the best option, if you want to grab power, is to work with the lords (or Felicie) depending on who you want to back

trying to coup everyone just makes you the next big target

But I didn't coup, I protected the king from a few traitorous nobles

so there is a royal army, but its an experimental national army comprised most of troops with regional loyalties to various lords

its not intended to be a huge standing modern army, the royal army is in fact relatively small and is expected to be supplemented by local armies which are then called in from the various houses sworn to the king

so in your foreign war, you would have your royal army, and then the troops independently commanded by the other lords but coordinating with you

...

I'm saying you can more safely rule the country WITHOUT killing the lords (since they already largely support you)

killing them is a risk because the surviving lords and their relatives would likely side against you

[Heloin]

You just say that cause I think outside the box
Again the second I was threatened I would start the plans for my coup.


Which was leading the Army in a war I knew was pointless.


The lords coup is the best chance I have of having a scapegoat. If I attempt to take over in a few years time that'll only lead to a nation wide civil war. The other lords who didn't know about the coup will condemn what will be portrayed as a coup against the King as everyone quietly forgets Felicie ever existed. The Houses of the lords who killed Felicie either condemn there traitorous family members, fall apart to internal striff with there leader dead, and a few may try and revolt only to be crushed by the Royal Army and loyal Houses.


Who the hell am I if not the leader of the Royal army? How is this kingdom able to fight pointless wars without a proper Royal Army? What kind of idiot am I letting people in the Royal Army who aren't more loyal to the King then there stupid home counties?


If that's the case why if there a royal army in the first place?


More likely they'd start internal civil wars with each other to try and take over there houses and lands.



But I didn't coup, I protected the king from a few traitorous nobles

so there is a royal army, but its an experimental national army comprised most of troops with regional loyalties to various lords

its not intended to be a huge standing modern army, the royal army is in fact relatively small and is expected to be supplemented by local armies which are then called in from the various houses sworn to the king

so in your foreign war, you would have your royal army, and then the troops independently commanded by the other lords but coordinating with you

...

I'm saying you can more safely rule the country WITHOUT killing the lords (since they already largely support you)

killing them is a risk because the surviving lords and their relatives would likely side against you

Good job IM, it's taken you 8 pages, the removal of my army, and a whole lot of bullshit, but I'm not going to kill the other noble lords, yet.

Then I reform the Royal army, call it something like oh I don't know, the New Model Army. Once we have a well trained, effective fight force we can slowly centralise the state and start removing these pesky lords and there houses from power. Raise the Burghers, Merchants, and Earls into higher positions of society, end serfdom, and adopt this exploding powder from the east into new weapons for our army.

[Infected Mushroom]

so there is a royal army, but its an experimental national army comprised most of troops with regional loyalties to various lords

its not intended to be a huge standing modern army, the royal army is in fact relatively small and is expected to be supplemented by local armies which are then called in from the various houses sworn to the king

so in your foreign war, you would have your royal army, and then the troops independently commanded by the other lords but coordinating with you

...

I'm saying you can more safely rule the country WITHOUT killing the lords (since they already largely support you)

killing them is a risk because the surviving lords and their relatives would likely side against you

Good job IM, it's taken you 8 pages, the removal of my army, and a whole lot of bullshit, but I'm not going to kill the other noble lords, yet.

Then I reform the Royal army, call it something like oh I don't know, the New Model Army. Once we have a well trained, effective fight force we can slowly centralise the state and start removing these pesky lords and there houses from power. Raise the Burghers, Merchants, and Earls into higher positions of society, end serfdom, and adopt this exploding powder from the east into new weapons for our army.

Sounds good to me

So you’ll not back Delacroix (let her die), use the lords for now to get Hand if the King, and then quietly reform the New Model Army before making a new play after some time?

Basically a Heloin variation of Cromwell?

[The Free Joy State]

so there is a royal army, but its an experimental national army comprised most of troops with regional loyalties to various lords

its not intended to be a huge standing modern army, the royal army is in fact relatively small and is expected to be supplemented by local armies which are then called in from the various houses sworn to the king

so in your foreign war, you would have your royal army, and then the troops independently commanded by the other lords but coordinating with you

...

I'm saying you can more safely rule the country WITHOUT killing the lords (since they already largely support you)

killing them is a risk because the surviving lords and their relatives would likely side against you

Good job IM, it's taken you 8 pages, the removal of my army, and a whole lot of bullshit, but I'm not going to kill the other noble lords, yet.

Then I reform the Royal army, call it something like oh I don't know, the New Model Army. Once we have a well trained, effective fight force we can slowly centralise the state and start removing these pesky lords and there houses from power. Raise the Burghers, Merchants, and Earls into higher positions of society, end serfdom, and adopt this exploding powder from the east into new weapons for our army.

So... (after some finagling) the powerful commander in the King's army... erm... no longer has an army?

The army will no longer obey your every command and back your every decision?

Business as usual here, I see.

In that case, I must resort to my business as usual: free the serfs and empower the peasants! Vive la Republique!

[Infected Mushroom]

Good job IM, it's taken you 8 pages, the removal of my army, and a whole lot of bullshit, but I'm not going to kill the other noble lords, yet.

Then I reform the Royal army, call it something like oh I don't know, the New Model Army. Once we have a well trained, effective fight force we can slowly centralise the state and start removing these pesky lords and there houses from power. Raise the Burghers, Merchants, and Earls into higher positions of society, end serfdom, and adopt this exploding powder from the east into new weapons for our army.

So... (after some finagling) the powerful commander in the King's army... erm... no longer has an army?

The army will no longer obey your every command and back your every decision?

Business as usual here, I see.

In that case, I must resort to my business as usual: free the serfs and empower the peasants! Vive la Republique!

But why?

The current system favors you and your family’s interests

[Infected Mushroom]

I’m still very surprised at the landslide vote results in letting Delacroix die

I wonder how it can be explained

I was certainly expecting a much closer poll

[The Free Joy State]

So... (after some finagling) the powerful commander in the King's army... erm... no longer has an army?

The army will no longer obey your every command and back your every decision?

Business as usual here, I see.

In that case, I must resort to my business as usual: free the serfs and empower the peasants! Vive la Republique!

But why?

The current system favors you and your family’s interests

My plan was always to overthrow the current system for a better one. Originally -- with an army to support me -- I planned to do this by removing the nobles, letting Delacroix have an accident and keeping the King as a puppet monarch (while deeply sedated and powerless) until the people realised they didn't need a monarch (when the monarch would be allowed to retire somewhere rural, as just a normal man, perhaps run a hobby farm).

Now, I no longer have my army, so... I guess I must do this the old-fashioned way.

As for why... my character truly believes it's better for the country to not have a fairer society. My character could have stayed and lived a lazy, cushy life, but my character can't see people suffer being deprived under serfdom and live in poverty as peasants.

And, back to RL, there is historical precedent for nobles helping the serfs -- some members of the gentry joined the 1381 Peasants' Revolt, Elizabeth I freed all remaining serfs in 1574 and Tsar Nicholas II emancipated all serfs in Russia in 1861.

There's more to life than what directly impacts (general) you.

[Infected Mushroom]

But why?

The current system favors you and your family’s interests

My plan was always to overthrow the current system for a better one. Originally -- with an army to support me -- I planned to do this by removing the nobles, letting Delacroix have an accident and keeping the King as a puppet monarch (while deeply sedated and powerless) until the people realised they didn't need a monarch (when the monarch would be allowed to retire somewhere rural, as just a normal man, perhaps run a hobby farm).

Now, I no longer have my army, so... I guess I must do this the old-fashioned way.

As for why... my character truly believes it's better for the country to not have a fairer society. My character could have stayed and lived a lazy, cushy life, but my character can't see people suffer being deprived under serfdom and live in poverty as peasants.

And, back to RL, there is historical precedent for nobles helping the serfs -- some members of the gentry joined the 1381 Peasants' Revolt, Elizabeth I freed all remaining serfs in 1574 and Tsar Nicholas II emancipated all serfs in Russia in 1861.

There's more to life than what directly impacts (general) you.

You have a very bleak view of life as a peasant/serf

[The Free Joy State]

My plan was always to overthrow the current system for a better one. Originally -- with an army to support me -- I planned to do this by removing the nobles, letting Delacroix have an accident and keeping the King as a puppet monarch (while deeply sedated and powerless) until the people realised they didn't need a monarch (when the monarch would be allowed to retire somewhere rural, as just a normal man, perhaps run a hobby farm).

Now, I no longer have my army, so... I guess I must do this the old-fashioned way.

As for why... my character truly believes it's better for the country to not have a fairer society. My character could have stayed and lived a lazy, cushy life, but my character can't see people suffer being deprived under serfdom and live in poverty as peasants.

And, back to RL, there is historical precedent for nobles helping the serfs -- some members of the gentry joined the 1381 Peasants' Revolt, Elizabeth I freed all remaining serfs in 1574 and Tsar Nicholas II emancipated all serfs in Russia in 1861.

There's more to life than what directly impacts (general) you.

You have a very bleak view of life as a peasant/serf

So does history. I'll be lazy and pull up the wiki:

As with slaves, serfs could be bought, sold, or traded (with some limitations as they generally could be sold only together with land, with the exception of the kholops in Russia and villeins in gross in England who could be traded like regular slaves), abused with no rights over their own bodies, and could not leave the land they were bound to. Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the lord of the manor who owned that land. In return they were entitled to protection, justice, and the right to cultivate certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence.

Some right when people could be literally traded like cattle.

Economically:

In addition to service, a serf was required to pay certain taxes and fees. [...] Fees were usually paid in the form of agricultural produce rather than cash. The best ration of wheat from the serf's harvest often went to the landlord. [...]On Easter Sunday the peasant family perhaps might owe an extra dozen eggs, and at Christmas a goose was perhaps required too. When a family member died, extra taxes were paid to the lord as a form of feudal relief to enable the heir to keep the right to till what land he had. Any young woman who wished to marry a serf outside of her manor was forced to pay a fee for the right to leave her lord, and in compensation for her lost labour.

Often there were arbitrary tests to judge the worthiness of their tax payments. A chicken, for example, might be required to be able to jump over a fence of a given height to be considered old enough or well enough to be valued for tax purposes.

So... that sounds pretty grim. And that's apart from the disease and short lifespan of the period.

[Heloin]

My plan was always to overthrow the current system for a better one. Originally -- with an army to support me -- I planned to do this by removing the nobles, letting Delacroix have an accident and keeping the King as a puppet monarch (while deeply sedated and powerless) until the people realised they didn't need a monarch (when the monarch would be allowed to retire somewhere rural, as just a normal man, perhaps run a hobby farm).

Now, I no longer have my army, so... I guess I must do this the old-fashioned way.

As for why... my character truly believes it's better for the country to not have a fairer society. My character could have stayed and lived a lazy, cushy life, but my character can't see people suffer being deprived under serfdom and live in poverty as peasants.

And, back to RL, there is historical precedent for nobles helping the serfs -- some members of the gentry joined the 1381 Peasants' Revolt, Elizabeth I freed all remaining serfs in 1574 and Tsar Nicholas II emancipated all serfs in Russia in 1861.

There's more to life than what directly impacts (general) you.

You have a very bleak view of life as a peasant/serf

And your view on peasant life has no bearing on reality. And as someone told you several times in the last thread Peasants are not Serfs.

[The Free Joy State]

You have a very bleak view of life as a peasant/serf

And your view on peasant life has no bearing on reality. And as someone told you several times in the last thread Peasants are not Serfs.

Partly my mistake; I keep talking about both in the same segment.

IM, Serf comes from "servi" (which, looking it up, appears to be a form of servus: slave, servant, serf). They're not the same as peasants. Peasants could leave the land, at least legally (practically was a different matter). Serfs were tied to the land and could be bought and sold.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

You have a very bleak view of life as a peasant/serf

So does history. I'll be lazy and pull up the wiki:

As with slaves, serfs could be bought, sold, or traded (with some limitations as they generally could be sold only together with land, with the exception of the kholops in Russia and villeins in gross in England who could be traded like regular slaves), abused with no rights over their own bodies, and could not leave the land they were bound to. Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the lord of the manor who owned that land. In return they were entitled to protection, justice, and the right to cultivate certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence.

Some right when people could be literally traded like cattle.

Economically:

In addition to service, a serf was required to pay certain taxes and fees. [...] Fees were usually paid in the form of agricultural produce rather than cash. The best ration of wheat from the serf's harvest often went to the landlord. [...]On Easter Sunday the peasant family perhaps might owe an extra dozen eggs, and at Christmas a goose was perhaps required too. When a family member died, extra taxes were paid to the lord as a form of feudal relief to enable the heir to keep the right to till what land he had. Any young woman who wished to marry a serf outside of her manor was forced to pay a fee for the right to leave her lord, and in compensation for her lost labour.

Often there were arbitrary tests to judge the worthiness of their tax payments. A chicken, for example, might be required to be able to jump over a fence of a given height to be considered old enough or well enough to be valued for tax purposes.

So... that sounds pretty grim. And that's apart from the disease and short lifespan of the period.

So what will happen? Establish the Wessex Soviet Socialist Republic in 1281?

"...And the sweet princess Juliet entered the ballroom, where gently dancing like peacock are the Earl of Melbourne, the Duchess of Cambria, and the General Secretary of the Central Committe of the Communist Party..."

[The Free Joy State]

So does history. I'll be lazy and pull up the wiki:

As with slaves, serfs could be bought, sold, or traded (with some limitations as they generally could be sold only together with land, with the exception of the kholops in Russia and villeins in gross in England who could be traded like regular slaves), abused with no rights over their own bodies, and could not leave the land they were bound to. Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the lord of the manor who owned that land. In return they were entitled to protection, justice, and the right to cultivate certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence.

Some right when people could be literally traded like cattle.

Economically:

In addition to service, a serf was required to pay certain taxes and fees. [...] Fees were usually paid in the form of agricultural produce rather than cash. The best ration of wheat from the serf's harvest often went to the landlord. [...]On Easter Sunday the peasant family perhaps might owe an extra dozen eggs, and at Christmas a goose was perhaps required too. When a family member died, extra taxes were paid to the lord as a form of feudal relief to enable the heir to keep the right to till what land he had. Any young woman who wished to marry a serf outside of her manor was forced to pay a fee for the right to leave her lord, and in compensation for her lost labour.

Often there were arbitrary tests to judge the worthiness of their tax payments. A chicken, for example, might be required to be able to jump over a fence of a given height to be considered old enough or well enough to be valued for tax purposes.

So... that sounds pretty grim. And that's apart from the disease and short lifespan of the period.

So what will happen? Establish the Wessex Soviet Socialist Republic in 1281?

"...And the sweet princess Juliet entered the ballroom, where gently dancing like peacock are the Earl of Melbourne, the Duchess of Cambria, and the General Secretary of the Central Committe of the Communist Party..."

How did a princess or an Earl get into my republic? You can't get good guards these days...

[Infected Mushroom]

And your view on peasant life has no bearing on reality. And as someone told you several times in the last thread Peasants are not Serfs.

Partly my mistake; I keep talking about both in the same segment.

IM, Serf comes from "servi" (which, looking it up, appears to be a form of servus: slave, servant, serf). They're not the same as peasants. Peasants could leave the land, at least legally (practically was a different matter). Serfs were tied to the land and could be bought and sold.

but serfs were involved in the feudal code of protection right?

[The Free Joy State]

Partly my mistake; I keep talking about both in the same segment.

IM, Serf comes from "servi" (which, looking it up, appears to be a form of servus: slave, servant, serf). They're not the same as peasants. Peasants could leave the land, at least legally (practically was a different matter). Serfs were tied to the land and could be bought and sold.

but serfs were involved in the feudal code of protection right?

Do you mean: did serfs have to fight for the land they were owned by? If so, yes.

Would they fight? Yes. Because... you know, they had to obey and they didn't want their family to be sold again if their landowner/owner lost.

Also, some serfs earned their freedom that way... so, there's that.

Did they fight for "honour" or "duty" or "fealty" or that kind of crap... Doubtful. Very doubtful.

[Big Jim P]

I arrest everyone in the room. Felicie poisoned the King and that can not go unpunished. The Lords are attempting a coup, and that can also not go unpunished. I declare myself Lord Protector and take over the kingdom.

I would go with this, without declaring myself lord and protector. My loyalty would be fist to the country and then, by extension, to the King.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

Let's be honest, most will probably follow this path:

1. Become Lord Protector
2. Land reform, establish parliament, etc
3. Things go south
4. Implement the "Cromwellian Solution"
5. ????
6. Profit
7. Conquer everything west of the Oder and declare yourself Supreme Caesar, install your nephew as Pope, etc, get a cool uniform

[Infected Mushroom]

Let's be honest, most will probably follow this path:

1. Become Lord Protector
2. Land reform, establish parliament, etc
3. Things go south
4. Implement the "Cromwellian Solution"
5. ????
6. Profit
7. Conquer everything west of the Oder and declare yourself Supreme Caesar, install your nephew as Pope, etc, get a cool uniform

That may well be a long term plan and it may well happen (the King is an idiot and the other lords like you so you could end up running things effectively and push things in that direction if you're careful, consistent, patient, and a good player)

But what I'm really interested in (or at least the OP was hoping to get at), was whether you would tell the guards right now (as you stand) to protect the woman or not. In light of this long term plan (if that's what motivates you) and in light of the fact that it may take years/decades to plot/manoeuvre things in that direction after this mess here... which side do you back FOR NOW?

I mean surely you wouldn't want to just kill everyone because that would just lead to civil war once the other regional lords retaliate and remove their troops from the royal army right?

At least for me... the point of great interest is... given what you know about this Miss Delacroix but also given that you have sworn an oath of loyalty to the King (and the Hand of the King is supposed to represent the King), do you or do you not obey her command that you defend her right now?

(do you put your career or your oath of loyalty first might be another way to see this)

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Am I the only person who has the most sensible solution?:

Both are in the wrong in this case: Felicie for executing lords for no reason, the the lords for accusing her of crimes without evidence. Both will be put on trial.

IM you should really have an "Other" option in your hypotheticals' polls.

IM please do what the last sentence says.

[Infected Mushroom]

Am I the only person who has the most sensible solution?:

Both are in the wrong in this case: Felicie for executing lords for no reason, the the lords for accusing her of crimes without evidence. Both will be put on trial.

IM you should really have an "Other" option in your hypotheticals' polls.

IM please do what the last sentence says.

I want to do it (its a good idea) but I know that if you add an option (or remove one) from a Poll all previous votes completely disappear

(unless someone can confirm otherwise????)

I can't be sure everyone will add their votes back =(

I mean, if you're arresting her and the lords then that sounds like a variation of... ... Option 2? Protect then arrest? I don't know... its a bit... hmmmm

what should I do?

[Infected Mushroom]

Ahh the old 'redheaded women are evil temptresses' trope and a bit of good ole classism too.

Joke's on you. I've been working with her in secret for years now.

Good old classism?

what classism?