Writing Empire and Colonialism - Worldbuilding 101
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ค. 2024
- Twitter: / worldbuildsage
Discord Server: / discord
Chapters:
00:00 Introduction
00:42 Point 1
03:14 Point 2
06:05 Point 3
08:29 Bonus Point
Music: Witcher 3 - CD Project Red, Civilization V - 2k Games, Civilization VI - 2k Games
#worldbuilding #setting Creating a World, Creating a World for Book, Creating a World for #dnd , #dnd5e Worldbuilding, #ttrpg #writing #dungeonsanddragons #pathfinder Worldbuilding, #penandpaper Worldbuilding, #books Worldbuilding, #booktube , #DnDtube , Setting creation, How To Create a Setting, How to Write a Setting, How To Create a World, Creating a World for DnD, Creating a World for my Book, Creating a Setting for DnD, Creating a Setting for my Book, Campaigns, #fantasy #rome #empire #imperium #imperiumofman #caesar #writing #colonialism #villain - บันเทิง
![[TH] VCT Pacific Stage 2 - Playoffs Day 1 // GEN vs RRQ | TLN vs TS](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JhkzKOhvOps/mqdefault.jpg)
Counting Thatcher as a dark lord is pretty based.
I had a spark of genius when I did this
@@worldbuildingsageYes, but it's kinda ironic you did it. Considering you are German xd
@@Pigraider268german, the nationality, is not inherently evil, whilst Thatcher, the person was
My favorite "accidental empire" was Athens after the Persian Wars. They gave their landless citizens the right to vote since they were the rowers on the triremes that brought them victory at battles like Salamis. These landless citizens would fight on sea, but the landed wealthy would fight on land as hoplites. And since few would face the Athenian navy, these landless citizens would happily vote for wars where they would share in the plunder but face little risk. At the height of this avarice, it's estimated that a third of folks living in Athens were slaves.
Accidental, for sure, but their 'underlings' in the Delian league hated the Athenian's more and more, especially during the Peloponnesian war.
It's not evil if you win.
me when Israel 🇮🇱
@@somedesertdude1308 Me when literally any living organism:
anover banger
Thaaanks
@@worldbuildingsage like the habsburgs conquered an empire by expansion banging
Reasons for conquest: Crests.
Lmao
I am happy my writing already has all this and more
0:00 the lite version of that is when the empire can't conquer you but you can't defeat them so you meet in the middle and he becomes tour sezerain but you are internally independent(i.e. what happened to the danubian principalities/Romania) or more simply put "you are a tributary,a vassal and a march of defense… which is better than a prevince).
P.S.: that is the reason why Romania didn't need to pay the blood tax to the turks like the rest of the balkans
Yeah, that's probably one of the best outcomes for both. Especially if you seem to be tenacious and there's other land they might rather throw their manpower into.
@@worldbuildingsage yes,it could also help in the story because you have something with very obvious reasons to be against the greater power while having some power to help other rebels (as i know albanian and other intelectuals from the minorities of the Ottoman empire were residing in Romania which made being in contact with the home front easier).
I will defend the imperium of man unironically until my final hour tolls.
For the emperor! For the golden throne!
Mon-keigh!
I have multiple empires and smaller states in my world. Military conquest is very common, even among the smaller kingdoms. They don't generally see this as inherently evil. It's just a common method. For one of the empires, some eastern provinces rebelled during a transfer of power to the heir and these rebellions were crushed. There was some military conquest in the immediate aftermath. Crushing the rebellion was easy and swift considering their knights could be taken by train now. In recent times, some countries in the westernnear the border requested and even rushed to join the empire and/or become willing protectorates for protection from another empire that sought to not just conquer, but erase the practices of the region.
rome always defended ,the empire was a total accident. what is also interesting the romans were way more aggressive without a rex ahem i mean first citizen who is definitly NOT A KING, most expansion wars were fought under the respublica
The Romans defending is pretty much a convoluted legalist myth of the senate because they weren't legally allowed to be an aggressor. I'd only agree that the first steps into the Eastern mediterranen were an "accident", however, since they had no ambitions in the east until the Diadochi Kingdoms suddenly started bugging the romans like an annoying mosquito.
I like your more nuanced and objective take on empires in fiction. It's frustrating and boring when most fiction writers devolve into the "evil empire" trope so much. It definitely works but it's too overdone and makes no sense. Heck! I'm Nigerian and i can tell you that based on history, the British empire (for all their flaws) was one of the better things to happen in my part of Africa. They are the reason my country exists. They are the main reason slavery that predated their coming was abolished here. They even laid the foundations for economics, civic nationalism and overall nation building in much of Africa. Empires, like any other sociopolitical system are not just black and white.
The British weren't saviours, but their parliamentary system and their rather liberal notions during the early 19th century definitely did a favour to the world, compared to other Imperial powers during that time. Though they could have worked harder than putting a non binding clause to abolish slavery eventually in the Treaty of Vienna after the Napoleonic wars.
Despite their liberal notions, they were still terrible in their own way. Especially in Asia.
@@worldbuildingsage you said it. In life, most great people are not saints or perfect. There is more grey and nuance to these things. The British were not saintly but what they left was better than what existed before. I hope to see more of this kind of nuance in fantasy fiction.
I'd definitely say that the Africans would be better off without colonialism without question, but it was better than when the Portuguese or other colonial powers were extracting the slaves off the African west coast by dealing unequal treaties with the local rulers.
@@worldbuildingsage yeah, believe me, it would be nice if no colonialism happened but the sad and undeniable reality is that colonialism is as much an aspect of human history as other things. Even before the Europeans ever set foot in Africa, local African tribes and kingdoms were colonising and conquering each other here. For example, the Dahomey slavers frequently raided and captured people of the Oyo tribe in my country. My own ancestors were also brutal expansionists. Plus, the Arabs came in later with their own colonialism. Even Ethiopia that was never colonized by Europeans came into being via tribal conflicts and hegemony being established, mainly by Menelik II who conquered other tribes. That being said, there is still much nuance to be had. If the colonising force is actually bringing something better or replacing what they removed with better things (socioeconomic, political and cultural systems) then the colonialism can be viewed in slightly better light. For example, Sudan and many sub-Saharan African countries colonised by Arabs are unstable messes where discrimination (native Christian Sudanese were discriminated against for decades), slavery and poor nation building was left. Comparatively, most countries here that were colonized by the British tend to do well socioeconomically, politically, and culturally mainly due to them utilizing the systems left by the British e.g. Democracy, capitalism, liberalism, industrialization etc. At the end, there is more nuance to the subject than many realize.
@@orboakin8074 i think what was more devasting to africa was not the direct colonialism but the slave trade with the europeans, the slave trade was so profitable it literally made the biggest suppliers of slaves to the europeans the most powerful african empires so much so that these empires laserfocus on the slave trade and neglated other areas, the moment when the british abolish slavery they just nuked the entire economy model of these african kingdoms that built themselves on that profit and made them collapse quickly.
Gotta love the bri'ish slander
A necessary thing.
Just to be clear, there is no such thing as an underdog empire. An empire requires having foreign territories colonized and/or peoples conquered. The whole point of this expansion is resource acquisition, though the resource(s) in question and the motivation(s) for it can be just about anything. That said, it is rarely, if ever, NOT done in an exploitative manner. Perhaps there are some examples that do not engage in exploitation at first, but if so, none have lasted to the end without eventually engaging in it at some point.
Regardless, it requires a sufficiently strong and expansive military force, one big and strong enough to secure new lands while still maintaining security in the native lands. Any nation, empire or not, that has this can never be a true underdog. Granted, there can empires of varying sizes, some bigger or smaller than others, existing at the same time, and as mentioned earlier, they do not have to expand through military conquest - we only need to look at European history to see this having been the case - but the idea that they are some sort of underdog, some entity that can inspire due to seemingly lacking sufficient power at the start, is a myth, whether or not the empire in question is good or evil, which is much more nebulous of a divide than most would like to think of any nation, let alone empire.
In fairness, an empire may not be evil during a certain period. There are two things that an empire can at least somewhat reliably do, at least for the native lands (though it can extend to the colonies to varying degrees). Those things are nation-building and crisis response, but as mentioned, these might only be somewhat reliable, and how reliable it might be depends on the empire in question.
Though it never truly became an empire, Nazi Germany demonstrated the nation-building aspect, some well and others... not. The Autobahn? A brilliant public works, so monumental that General Eisenhower wanted to have it copied for the US. The concentration camps and the "Final Solution"? 😬...Yeah, not exactly a lot of building going on there.
So how about we use an actual empire? Let's start with the Spanish. For centuries, the doubloon was the international trade currency, demonstrating an arguable good from an empire. However, the Spanish also introduced the concept of white supremacy (well, that was more from the Catholic Church, but they were intertwined with Spain at the time) and quite possibly exterminated more people in the Western hemisphere than any other nation (including the modern US), so, I repeat: 😬... yeah.
Is it possible to write a "good" empire? Technically, yes. Can it be done and in a believable way? Speaking personally, I think so. Are there examples of this? I can only speak for myself, and admittedly, I am not exactly a database on this, but so far, I have yet to find one. How the empire is written to operate is entirely up to the author(s), but unless you don't mind having your empire serve as little more than a mid/final boss, good frickin' luck.
I talked about the underdog Kingdom in the beginning, to separate it from the attacking Empire!
I'm not sure if you can actually write a 'good' Empire though. There's always some aspect of it that becomes evil or oppressive, once you're ruling over other people that aren't a fully integrated part of your society.
@@worldbuildingsage That's also why I specified that an empire does not necessarily have to be the largest or even large, nor that there could only be one. Maybe I should have started my OP with that.
But yeah, I just do not see any empire remaining "good." When you put that much power into the hands of only a few people, if not just one person, things are going to get bad really quick. Can it make for quick (though not necessarily easy) storytelling? Sure. Can it be compelling? If written well, sure. Can one empire be better than another? That depends on the criteria used, but theoretically, sure, at least when speaking strictly in comparison. In the end, it comes down to the same thing as everything else in worldbuilding: the creativity, imagination, and consideration of the author(s).
To write a good empire is to have a world that is far less safe outside of the borders of the Empire. Lets say a family lives in the region were it is total mad max anarchy or a blade runner corperate hell. And this family is trying to get by and it is really hard since food, medicine, and education is too hard or expensive to come by. But then the "good empire" comes in and takes over and thus brings piece and prosperity. Now that family has food, medicine, and an education thanks to the Empire. Also, in the story the writer needs to prove to the reader that the Emperor is doing this for moral reasons because he wants to uplift innocent people out of chaos. All the land and resorce gains are just a bonus.
@@squillamsquallace2468 All of those hypotheticals are certainly possible, at least for storytelling, but then they raise all of the other critical questions, including but not limited to:
• What kind of world is it? Fantasy? Magical? Earth-like? Something else?
• What kind of society became the empire in question? How are the people organized? What is the social mobility, if there is any? How are people treated, and is it general or class-based?
• What is going on outside of this empire? What kind of external forces do they face? Is there some internal threat beyond the usual political intrigue?
• How did the foreign lands that later became part of the empire join it? Is it the same for new lands? Is there something going on that could generate animosity or something else?
• If the empire is "good," then how does it remain "good"? What kind of systems help correct it, and do they correct it to the best direction? Have there been instances when it failed at something big or small?
Like I said, writing a "good" empire is possible, but there is a whole lot that has to be answered, especially if you want to make it believable, and these questions barely even scratch the surface. If you think you can come up with something, then have at it (I'm not insinuating that you can't, just that I'm not going to stop you or anyone from trying), and, as I closed in my OP, good frickin' luck.
@@PartovtheFurniture Maybe it's because I'm not that familiar with Elder Scrolls lore, but that does highlight the last set of questions I brought up. Regarding those questions, I think of Nilfgaard from The Witcher 3. The empire and certainly the emperor are not exactly good, but the emperor does try to bring about some measure of goodness. Still, he recognizes that even if he successfully brought about that goodness, he could never continue reigning from that point on. Thus, he counts on such a reign coming from Ciri, and depending on your choices as Geralt, she does become the genuinely good successor that the emperor wanted.
Viewed objectively, that is an incredibly risky plan, but technically, it is about as valid as any plan or system could be. So while I pose the questions above (and more), depending on the world and whatever the author(s) in question have in mind, literally anything can go. It is just a matter of figuring out how to make it compelling while bearing in mind what the desired outcome and reception of it is.
this is why we need communism
xd
To BE rid of imperialism you need imperialism but red
Except that the two largest examples of communist [supposedly and only on paper] governments were decidedly as imperialistic and colonial as they accused the US of being. And still are.
Galactic Empire done nothing wrong