on a way to prepare to create the politics of the kingdoms and empires in my novel I want to begin. I want my novel to take place in a sort of 1700s-1800s timeline, what could I do to make these nations as accurate as possible. So for instance. One of the most powerful nations would be the Lionite Empire, something like the British Empire in our timeline, I plan to have it as a constitutional monarchy, like Britain with a Parliament with houses. I have taken the liberty to studying politics but I would like to ask how to make it the most accurate. I am still working on the names and some of the nations still haven't been given a name or political structure yet.

Name Of the Nations and their Politics

Lionite Empire Constitutional Monarchy

King with some power

Prime Minister


Mislov Similar to Russia.

Absolute Monarchy

King with absolute power

Under the Tsar

Harpsburg Kingdom Similar to Hapsburg Austria

Absolute Monarchy

Lead by the Harpsburg Dynasty

Glorianas Reich Similar to Prussia

Absolute Monarchy

Jingoistic in nature

Jacobite Republic Revolutionary France.

Not to be confused with the real Jacobites.

Republican assembly with separate estates.

Post Revolution,still divided and torn

Lead by Consul Maurize Jacobite (Like Napoleon)

If this sounds too similar to Napoleonic Europe don't worry, the nations will be pitted against each other in different ways, I plan to do those later, but I wanted to use Napoleonic Europe as a base, so how does it look? Should I spend more time on the politics and structure them differently? Or are the nations here fine the way they are.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If you just want to know if the countries are believable, the answer is yes since they are very similar to their real world counterpart. $\endgroup$
    – Vincent
    Commented Apr 12, 2018 at 2:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am not sure what you mean by the king is under the tsar? These are 2 different persons ? What are their respective powers? $\endgroup$
    – Vincent
    Commented Apr 12, 2018 at 2:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Vincent the tsar and the king are the same people. I probably should have specified that more. But other than that I appreciate the assistance. $\endgroup$
    – Karkath
    Commented Apr 12, 2018 at 2:17

1 Answer 1


It really depends on how much you want to borrow from true history and how much time you might want to invest in developing the individual nations to that point.

Consider how each of those nations got where they got. I'm not a historian so obviously take this with a grain of salt but barring some interesting histories prior to that point, you've got them all at monarchies which is fine. Basic single-leader governments arising from what were originally tribes that needed single-leaders to make final decisions.

As various factors applied to those monarchies over the years, they evolved. Britain's monarchy was just a monarchy but the council that the king used to debate policy and such (really advisors) is what would eventually become Parliament but only through politicking (and maybe some coercion due to the fact that those council members were often influential or rich or both).

So, you could see a monarchy that has a ruling council or parliament being the result of a king (somewhere along the timeline of history) being at the whim of his or her lords. You could go with a parliament or you could have a ruling council (simpler version). It could allow for some subplots because of treacherous plotting of some northern lords or something.

Borrowing from our histories is often easier because it lends itself to the familiarity that comes with our knowledge of those structures and where they sprung from (assuming anyone remembers). It's a good starting point and a great foundation if you're just not interested in investing too much time in fleshing them out.

That said, it could be an interesting exercise to look at the map (in your head or on paper) of your world and consider how regional difference often separate "nations" and form the basis for countries. That plus resource needs can drive those single-leader nations down different paths.

For example: A tribe that formed in a mountainous region that struggled to find farmable land has a leader that turns out to be a strategic genius. That leader plus the tribe's familiarity with hunting and using trees and other strategic advantages to find food for generations enables them to drive towards the sea nearby, conquering several tribes. That combined with a sort of Spartan approach to egalitarianism enables them to conquer without a huge amount of resistance. Generations later, the richness of their spoils (sea + farmable land + mountains to protect them) enables future leaders to use their wisdom and lean on a council that represents the various sub-tribes which eventually become regional city-states. Years later, a weak leader having squandered resources to build a fleet in an attempt to invade a neighboring nation across the sea is faced with empty coffers and a much larger than anticipated enemy fleet and army. Out of desperation, the leader attempts to plot the assassination of several council members who refuse to fund continued war. But, the plot is discovered and the ruler is abolished. Today, the nation is ruled, unusually, by a council with no single leader able to make absolute decisions.

Just something to consider.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .