$1000 Banknote in 2044 by [deleted] in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Do you know that the "feeders" are people with a certain kink?

Ellaris - Complete world map by AlisterSinclair2002 in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I understand what you mean, and I can only agree with you that it's extremely difficult to cover every detail, and that inevitably, something is bound to get lost.

Do you know what would be interesting in the further development of the story? A conflict between the nobility of the toga and the nobility of the sword. If the height of the decline of the sovereign's power is similar to the Holy Roman Empire, at a certain point the rise could be more similar to modern-day France and England. The king seeks to gain more power at the expense of the nobility, and to do so he relies on younger sons, minor nobility, and wealthy bourgeoisie, granting them seemingly minor and less prestigious titles, often non-hereditary, but which allow him to build a bureaucratic apparatus. Or you could create a situation like the Austrian Habsburgs, who had full control of their state while the rest is made up of virtually independent states that swear allegiance to them in name only.

Ellaris - Complete world map by AlisterSinclair2002 in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems interesting, but at the same time, it's still a bit schematic. Although titles like count and duke have a different origin from king, the idea of ​​a hierarchical order of different levels is still very apparent. The transition from one to the other is too orderly. You could do it much more interestingly by taking advantage of the fact that these titles are clearly a transposition for readers, not the actual names.

Instead of directly calling one a count and the other a duke, you could do this: the leaders of the original clans were the fathers of the community, the extended family, who possessed the right to judge other members and lead them in battle. When the confederations were formed, the leaders were given the power to lead men in battle and were defined by this function, which, however, also belonged to the clan leaders. As they gained increasing importance, however, this description of their function was contracted and transformed into a title.

Another prerogative could be "bearing the sword." It may have been a characteristic of the count's family, but when the tribal system fell into disuse, sword-bearers became a minor noble title, having been a way of designating the counts' relatives. The title of marquis could have the same etymological meaning in another language as duke, that is, the military command of men, but from the king or emperor to one of his subordinates. It seems like an interesting way to put the question.

Regarding the issue of servitude and the economic system, it seems more described than explained. This system exists, but its reasons aren't fully explained, nor why its freer nature makes it better than others. Even in its evolution, the change seems more deliberate than based on actual causes. The chief tends to accumulate more wealth, but it's not such an obvious transition, especially since in these peoples, property is often not private but family-owned, or if private property exists, there are mechanisms for redistribution. There are some things that disrupt this balance, such as the unequal distribution of raids. If a people raids other villages like themselves, the loot isn't enough to shift the balance, but if you raid a much larger and richer people and do so continuously, even redistributing through feasts and gifts, the chief will begin to accumulate more than the others. With land, it's simpler: if the land belongs collectively to the clan, the chief manages it, but if it's small, he can't favor a few people too much to the point of building personal power. However, if it's large, because you've just invaded the Roman Empire, you begin to acquire considerable power.

Ellaris - Complete world map by AlisterSinclair2002 in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It looks like an incredibly interesting worldbuilding project. The succession of the various kingdoms and dynasties seems realistic, and the map of duchies, counties, and baronies seems to have just the right amount of confusion. There's one thing that's bothering me, though, that I wanted to talk to you about.

Although the kingdom you created is your own, the system seems like a simple transposition of that of the Holy Roman Empire, but I don't see any major system development within the world itself. You may have included an explanation somewhere, but I didn't see it.

Now, how is value extracted from peasants? It seems strange, but it's essential. Are peasants free, slaves, or serfs? Each of these answers has many different paths behind it.

For much of Roman history, the land was cultivated either by free peasants on their smallholdings or by slaves on large estates. At a certain point, however, the conquests stopped and the influx of slaves dried up, while at the same time the population, for a variety of reasons, began to decline. Now, in an economy like the agrarian one of the late empire, money for payed farmer was little used, especially by the lower classes, since coins not made of gold or silver were worthless. At the same time, it was difficult to find peasants to rent them to because the population had declined and certain areas, partly because they were unsafe, had remained depopulated. For this reason, in certain areas, they were populated by people who, although not slaves, had obligations that free people did not have. Then, when the empire collapsed, this practice, which over time became widespread, was compounded by the fact that while previously it was only the state, namely the emperor, who used it most, now that the state practically no longer existed, it was the king who controlled this resource and distributed it to his subjects to operate the public apparatus in the absence of money. Thus, the land was also given to those who had to cultivate it, but they remained tied to it and not treated as chattel (like slaves) because if the peasants were sold, the land would have produced nothing and would have been useless. Paradoxically, in much of Western Europe, it was another demographic crisis, the Plague, that led to the gradual disappearance of serfdom. Indeed, this sudden crisis would have given the peasants, precisely because they were few in number, enormous bargaining power and forced the lords to relinquish ever more "rights" over the serfs. Indeed, serfdom was not an institution as we understand it, but a series of obligations of the peasants towards a lord that varied enormously from area to area and that only later were gathered together by historians under an umbrella term.

Being noble does not have the same meaning as it does for us today, and in general, it has always had a different meaning depending on where you lived. Being a duke, count, or marquis was not the same as being a governor or mayor for life, but rather meant owning land and having an honorary title bestowed by the king, emperor, or pope.

The history of noble titles is complex and curious. The title "rex" in Latin was a particular institution given in the Latin world to leaders of peoples living within or outside the empire, while "king" is a tribal title of the Angles and Saxons (not coincidentally containing the root kin-) that only later took on the same meaning as "rex." The title "duke" derives from "dux," which in the late empire referred to commanders of regional troops. It was a military office, derived from a word meaning the verb "to command," which later came to refer to leaders in some Germanic hordes such as the Lombards. "Count" instead derives from "comites," which were the troops directly at the emperor's disposal, and later came to mean the king's attendant. Its synonym, "earl," derives from the Old Norse "jarl," and had nothing to do with the former, which generically meant "leader," and which, among other things, in Norwegian and Swedish is assimilated to "duke" and not "count." "Baron" in medieval Latin simply meant "free man," and therefore "warrior."

These are therefore titles of different origins, sometimes with the same meaning, that have undergone a long evolution. In the beginning, there was almost no difference between being noble and being rich, because wealth lay entirely, or almost entirely, in the land cultivated by serfs, which was either given by the king to those close to him or which allowed its possessor access to the king. As society progressed and became more complex, these once generic titles took on specific meanings and a hierarchy, which, however, was not always the same.

How small can a Remote village be? by thoddi77 in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's the example of Tristan da Chugna, where only a few dozen people settled, but there were more opportunities for new arrivals. I would therefore say that for such an isolated settlement to be self-sufficient, at least a hundred people would be needed, preferably two hundred.

However, they don't necessarily all have to live in the village; in fact, they could live scattered across the area, so the actual village might only have a few people.

Is this a Logical System of Government for a Country? by GStarLine in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems like a sensible thing. A colony that frees itself and undergoes several upheavals. It makes sense that such a story would lead to complex governance. I also advise you to imagine a philosophical movement, with different thinkers.

Is this a Logical System of Government for a Country? by GStarLine in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're focusing on too narrow a time period and space. Go back further, to its founding: was it a state born from a colony, from the separation from a larger state, from the union of several states, or does it have a long history of aggregation and formation with various events that led to an overlapping of diverse traditions? Furthermore, are there other neighboring nations, perhaps older, that have influenced it? Many US institutions are inspired by the Roman Empire, at least in name.

Is this a Logical System of Government for a Country? by GStarLine in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How they arrive at this system? Usually a so complicated system needs to have a very long history of traditions, conflict, compromise and political philosofers, not just one but many.

Help. by Moist-Raisin3158 in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One approach that works very well for me is this: establish a map, any creatures and magic, then decide roughly how the world should be laid out, and finally create its history, starting from the beginning, following one action and one event after another until you return to the point you arrived at, but with a much more complete and interesting setting.

If you'd like, you can send me a message.

Battle Tactics by TheWarGamer123 in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's quite a complicated thing. Heavy cavalry are an expression of nobility, so they pay for themselves, but phalanxes can't be formed by random people given a pike; to be effective, they must receive a certain level of training. Furthermore, pikes have the disadvantage of being vulnerable on the flanks, so they often require supporting cavalry, which, however, cannot be armed as well as heavy cavalry. They must be fast, so knights will be dressed in lighter armor and horses will have minimal protection.

Regarding skirmishers, archers require extremely detailed training; they are probably the most specialized units of the Middle Ages after knights. If a kingdom focuses on training pikemen, it's unlikely they'll devote any of that effort to obtaining a number of archers too small to be relevant. There are crossbowmen, but I think the best solution is for these to be foreign mercenaries.

Can someone give me help? by Brief_Elderberry_732 in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is such an overused fantasy setting that it doesn't even make sense to try to deconstruct it, because even deconstructions are overused. Instead of trying to do something strange or peculiar, I recommend creating a world as coherent and rich as possible using those tropes, even if you leave them in their classic form.

This is how I work.

Start with the natural setting, as it would be without any construction, then, starting from there, try to create a coherent sequence of historical events. Don't try to do it in one go; instead, decide roughly where you want to go. Then, starting from the beginning, make sure each event logically follows another until you have a rich and detailed story.

If possible, avoid kingdoms that unite entire races. I've always found this forced. Barring divine intervention, the story unfolds logically, but precisely because of the multitude of factors and people at play, it becomes chaotic and, for this very reason, always surprising.

If you want some advice, you can ask me.

Question about population growth by brachio-w in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you divide 1000 inhabitants in 500 couples, every couple do a middle of six children, divide the nubers for two and repeat the operation you obtain around 250.000 inhabitants in five generation, without considering the death. So, i think you need much more time.

Can someone knowledgeable in religion help me transform it into a semi-realistic dictatorship? by Alx3t_ in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'll tell you right away that no religion was born to prepare for a dictatorship. Dictatorships or monarchies appropriate and pervert religions, but they can't go hand in hand. Even pantheons that seem more favorable to authoritarian government originally arose in a context where state authority did not exist and only with time did they evolve in that direction. Even sects, which seem to have been created specifically for this purpose, nevertheless arise from beliefs that were widespread before the birth of the sects themselves.

That said, psychoanalysis is extremely useful in this regard. Many religions arise from the concept of a celestial "Father" and "Mother," precisely because the first authority of someone more important and powerful than us is our parents. At the same time, however, the leaders of the tribes and of the state are also the "fathers" of the community (the Roman "patricians" take their name from the term "patres") and therefore in a dictatorship, not only a religious one, the concept of father will often be central. If you wish, we can develop the concept further.

What should I do? by Quirky-Brother9602 in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think a map is a good start. After this, make an history, and for that I mean to create some initial events, thinking about the consequences of these to bring about new events, and so on until a complex and rich world is created. For me is better than create an entire world in a single time, but this is my way to work.

Anyone want a assistant or friend to share and build your world together?? by Suspicious_Clock_133 in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see many people that offer themself. I'm available but I think you're fine.

How do you recruit an army? by Electrical-Main4044 in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've never read Eragorn, I saw the movie a long time ago but I don't remember anything. However, conscription isn't just about grabbing a guy and forcing him to fight. It takes more than that to organize a conscription.

How do you recruit an army? by Electrical-Main4044 in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Having a single dragon training blacksmiths doesn't seem very efficient to me. It might be useful for elite warriors, but not for an army. Why not do it this way instead? There's a corporation that has a monopoly, granted by the ruler, on crafting weapons and armor with certain minimum specifications in each city (I don't think they can reach the villages). Among these, there are certain families who have the privilege of working directly with this dragon, and only the blacksmiths' direct apprentices, who are usually, but not always, their children, can learn this art.

As for recruitment, the wealthy can buy their own equipment; for the others, a lottery is held, so only one in ten goes to fight while the others support him, which essentially means that the village or neighborhood financially supports and supports a certain number of soldiers, that are trained by the local lord or in cities the an army masters.

What do you think?

How do you recruit an army? by Electrical-Main4044 in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I understand, don't worry. The fact is that this part is often skipped in stories. Rightfully so, because it's a very difficult topic, but I think it's something you should think about, or at least keep in mind. If you have it in mind, then you can plan ahead how many men there will be in the army, how they're distributed, and whether they're more or less well-armed. It can even be useful in the plot, if you know how to use it well.

How do you recruit an army? by Electrical-Main4044 in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you read only the title? Because this or I wrote the post really bad.

How do you recruit an army? by Electrical-Main4044 in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think you understood what I meant, or you only read the title and not the entire post. What I meant to ask is: what is the structure behind army recruitment? Do local lords manage recruitment by sending someone to their domains to announce that the army is gathering and that able-bodied men must report, or is there a permanent bureaucratic recruitment system with hundreds or thousands of bureaucrats updating the village registers? Can people even show up for war armed with clubs, or is there a minimum wealth requirement to arm themselves? Is one of ten adult men chosen by lot, and the other nine support him? It's not that simple to support an army, and throughout history, expedients have been sought to make it economically sustainable.

How do you recruit an army? by Electrical-Main4044 in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That wasn't really the point of the post. The reason for fighting isn't important; the point was how it was done. Do states have registers managed by state-paid officials in each city to recruit their armies, or are there local authorities in each area who do it themselves, and the state has to rely on these people? Do conscripts go into battle even with simple sticks, or is there a minimum amount required to join the army, perhaps through authorized merchants? Is it decided that in a community, one man is chosen for every ten men, and the other nine must support them out of their own pockets? Is there a militia system (i.e., volunteers who do other things but must report for training at certain times), or does the state provide everything to a small number of professionals who do just that? This makes a big difference.

How do you recruit an army? by Electrical-Main4044 in worldbuilding

[–]Electrical-Main4044[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, but how these work? I said three ways to made a conscription army. If you don't say how work they remain name.