Magic in Battle

[evmdbm]

How do the Xularn emperors protect themselves against sorcerous usurpers? Or is that what they are themselves?

I was thinking about this too. It occurs that what people want is money, power, prestige, a sense that they are valued etc. If you have an elite group (and it is an elite group isn't it?) like sorcerers, you hug them close. You give them money, a sense of prestige, importance, the legal ability to order other people around and so on. If you are loyal to me, I will be loyal to you... and then even if some go rogue and fancy the imperial throne, there's probably enough loyalists to fight them off. After all, you can only have one emperor at a time. They can't all be emperor, so the usurper has to start offering bribes to peel his colleagues away from the throne.

I guess that is why in my head the Mellandic throne is more vulnerable. One really talented guy teaches himself and tries his luck. He has no real peer competitor in the Kingdom.

[Raphael]

How do the Xularn emperors protect themselves against sorcerous usurpers? Or is that what they are themselves?

I was thinking about this too. It occurs that what people want is money, power, prestige, a sense that they are valued etc. If you have an elite group (and it is an elite group isn't it?) like sorcerers, you hug them close. You give them money, a sense of prestige, importance, the legal ability to order other people around and so on. If you are loyal to me, I will be loyal to you... and then even if some go rogue and fancy the imperial throne, there's probably enough loyalists to fight them off. After all, you can only have one emperor at a time. They can't all be emperor, so the usurper has to start offering bribes to peel his colleagues away from the throne.

Hmmmmm. I guess that might work, but I'm not sure. Wasn't that what the Ottoman Sultans tried with the Janissaries?

[bradrn]

How do the Xularn emperors protect themselves against sorcerous usurpers? Or is that what they are themselves?

I was thinking about this too. It occurs that what people want is money, power, prestige, a sense that they are valued etc. If you have an elite group (and it is an elite group isn't it?) like sorcerers, you hug them close. You give them money, a sense of prestige, importance, the legal ability to order other people around and so on. If you are loyal to me, I will be loyal to you... and then even if some go rogue and fancy the imperial throne, there's probably enough loyalists to fight them off. After all, you can only have one emperor at a time. They can't all be emperor, so the usurper has to start offering bribes to peel his colleagues away from the throne.

I admit that my knowledge of history isn’t great, but my understanding is that most real-world monarchies haven’t been all that stable, despite all this being true. No matter how much prestige there is already, there’ll always be some people who want even more…

[evmdbm]

How do the Xularn emperors protect themselves against sorcerous usurpers? Or is that what they are themselves?

I was thinking about this too. It occurs that what people want is money, power, prestige, a sense that they are valued etc. If you have an elite group (and it is an elite group isn't it?) like sorcerers, you hug them close. You give them money, a sense of prestige, importance, the legal ability to order other people around and so on. If you are loyal to me, I will be loyal to you... and then even if some go rogue and fancy the imperial throne, there's probably enough loyalists to fight them off. After all, you can only have one emperor at a time. They can't all be emperor, so the usurper has to start offering bribes to peel his colleagues away from the throne.

I admit that my knowledge of history isn’t great, but my understanding is that most real-world monarchies haven’t been all that stable, despite all this being true. No matter how much prestige there is already, there’ll always be some people who want even more…

Fair point. I'm not saying there'll never be a coup or attempted coup, but if I'm the emperor what else I am going to do? Just one more threat for the man with a target on his back...

[Ares Land]

I admit that my knowledge of history isn’t great, but my understanding is that most real-world monarchies haven’t been all that stable, despite all this being true. No matter how much prestige there is already, there’ll always be some people who want even more…

Monarchies can be stable. The French monarchy kept the same dynasty (taken in the wider sense) for nearly a millenium.
I think it depends on the source of legitimacy; the dynastic principle, the feudal system in the Middle Ages, then the religious legitimacy meant just not everyone to be a claimant. You needed a religious crisis, or a serious claim to the thrones, plus a significant share of the stakeholders on your side to make a bid. I don't think even supernatural powers would've cut it. (Though a credible claim on the throne plus sorcery would have!)

[Travis B.]

One thing to remember is that in monarchies disputes over the throne were very commonly between members of the same dynasty, which enabled the same dynasty to stay in power for very long periods of time even if succession disputes and like were rather common. This has resulted in things like crown princes seeking to imprison/kill all of their potential competitors from within the same royal family to ensure their own power.

[Raphael]

I admit that my knowledge of history isn’t great, but my understanding is that most real-world monarchies haven’t been all that stable, despite all this being true. No matter how much prestige there is already, there’ll always be some people who want even more…

Monarchies can be stable. The French monarchy kept the same dynasty (taken in the wider sense) for nearly a millenium.

It was a close call during the Hundred Years War, though.

[Ketsuban]

Monarchies can be stable. The French monarchy kept the same dynasty (taken in the wider sense) for nearly a millenium.

Although the fact this is called "the Capetian miracle" speaks to how likely it is for a monarchy to be stable.

[evmdbm]

think it depends on the source of legitimacy; the dynastic principle, the feudal system in the Middle Ages, then the religious legitimacy meant just not everyone to be a claimant. You needed a religious crisis, or a serious claim to the thrones, plus a significant share of the stakeholders on your side to make a bid. I don't think even supernatural powers would've cut it. (Though a credible claim on the throne plus sorcery would have!)

Just thinking about China where peasants could and did grab ultimate power (but only after ridiculous bloodshed). The pact to keep the people safe and end the chaos is often good enough for legitimacy.

Not sure a sorcerous dynasty is credible. I mean even if a great sorcerer seized the throne and talent runs in the family/is genetic, not everyone in the family will be highly talented. Some might not be talented at all and even if you have a talented crown prince, I can imagine that training to govern - diplomatic mission to neighbouring empire here; governorship of a province there; punitive expedition against the desert nomads today; learning the judicial ropes tomorrow - pushes out time to learn sorcery. Only 24 hours in the day. I imagine after a hard day negotiating a trade agreement, doing mental exercises and learning sorcery techniques might not be high on your agenda, as opposed to a nice dinner, some drinks and a relax.

[zompist]

Just thinking about China where peasants could and did grab ultimate power (but only after ridiculous bloodshed). The pact to keep the people safe and end the chaos is often good enough for legitimacy.

Who are you thinking of? That more or less fits the Míng's founder Zhū Yuánzhāng, but peasant-to-emperor was pretty rare otherwise.

Not sure a sorcerous dynasty is credible. I mean even if a great sorcerer seized the throne and talent runs in the family/is genetic, not everyone in the family will be highly talented. Some might not be talented at all and even if you have a talented crown prince, I can imagine that training to govern - diplomatic mission to neighbouring empire here; governorship of a province there; punitive expedition against the desert nomads today; learning the judicial ropes tomorrow - pushes out time to learn sorcery. Only 24 hours in the day. I imagine after a hard day negotiating a trade agreement, doing mental exercises and learning sorcery techniques might not be high on your agenda, as opposed to a nice dinner, some drinks and a relax.

That's all true of standard military training too, and yet the most common route to kingship, worldwide, is military. Few dynasties last more than a few centuries.

In our world kingship has mostly been about raw power. The king can be educated, hardworking, even religious; but he'd be a fool not to understand what his power is based on and, more importantly, what others will do to replace him.

[keenir]

I guess that is why in my head the Mellandic throne is more vulnerable. One really talented guy teaches himself and tries his luck. He has no real peer competitor in the Kingdom.

No tradition of assassination for the Mellandic throne? Thats good news, imho.

So I throw a fireball when I am able to use my aetheric body to put together enough phlogiston to produce a fireball the size I want. The effort of consciously controlling your aetheric body to either move through the aetheric plane or to produce these physical effects is pretty mentally tiring

That's why I was thinking along the lines of just combining fireball guys (say) with more conventional medieval soldiers in combined arms tactics essentially. It becomes a question of how those tactics work now.

hmm...sounds like sorcerers would want to have as many mental exercises as possible...flower arranging, chess, architectural planning, etc. and the higher-ranking sorcerers would probably want to have more elaborate ones, even if for no other reason than to boast of their complexity and superiority over their lessers.

How do the Xularn emperors protect themselves against sorcerous usurpers? Or is that what they are themselves?

I was thinking about this too. It occurs that what people want is money, power, prestige, a sense that they are valued etc. If you have an elite group (and it is an elite group isn't it?) like sorcerers, you hug them close. You give them money, a sense of prestige, importance, the legal ability to order other people around and so on. If you are loyal to me, I will be loyal to you... and then even if some go rogue and fancy the imperial throne, there's probably enough loyalists to fight them off. After all, you can only have one emperor at a time. They can't all be emperor, so the usurper has to start offering bribes to peel his colleagues away from the throne.

Hmmmmm. I guess that might work, but I'm not sure. Wasn't that what the Ottoman Sultans tried with the Janissaries?

mmm...the Janissaries were raised and trained to be knights, essentially -- unlike the Aztecs, they didn't make a play for the throne themselves...but they did end up being kingmakers, chosing which Ottoman noble took the throne.

I admit that my knowledge of history isn’t great, but my understanding is that most real-world monarchies haven’t been all that stable, despite all this being true. No matter how much prestige there is already, there’ll always be some people who want even more…

Possibly more like Japan: one royal family, but many dynasties of kingmaker and powers-behind-the-throne.

[Travis B.]

In our world kingship has mostly been about raw power. The king can be educated, hardworking, even religious; but he'd be a fool not to understand what his power is based on and, more importantly, what others will do to replace him.

As pointed out, there have been exceptions, such as the emperors of Japan, where in many periods the emperors were and are quite weak, with true power being held by shoguns, the Fujiwaras, in recent times the prime minister and National Diet, and like, yet one dynasty has monopolized the imperial throne for well over a millennium.

[zompist]

In our world kingship has mostly been about raw power. The king can be educated, hardworking, even religious; but he'd be a fool not to understand what his power is based on and, more importantly, what others will do to replace him.

As pointed out, there have been exceptions, such as the emperors of Japan, where in many periods the emperors were and are quite weak, with true power being held by shoguns, the Fujiwaras, in recent times the prime minister and National Diet, and like, yet one dynasty has monopolized the imperial throne for well over a millennium.

Sure, and those things are related: the imperial dynasty has lasted so long in part because for much of that time it was nominal. Nor is this idea limited to Japan; cf. the Merovingian dynasty of France.

[evmdbm]

Just thinking about China where peasants could and did grab ultimate power (but only after ridiculous bloodshed). The pact to keep the people safe and end the chaos is often good enough for legitimacy.

Who are you thinking of? That more or less fits the Míng's founder Zhū Yuánzhāng, but peasant-to-emperor was pretty rare otherwise.

That's basically who I was thinking of. Obviously doesn't fit the Yuan or the Qing say... can't immediately remember the origins of the Song

[zompist]

That's basically who I was thinking of. Obviously doesn't fit the Yuan or the Qing say... can't immediately remember the origins of the Song

The Suí (who actually reunified China) were founded by a general who deposed a child emperor. The general was married to the crown prince's daughter, so he was very well placed for this.

The Táng were founded by a general.

The Sòng ended another divided period; their founder was the army commander for a northern kingdom, and was acclaimed emperor by his troops.

For completeness: the Hàn founders (early and late Hàn) started out as low-level officials and became generals. Not peasants, though.