4
$\begingroup$

How to take over a throne at the same time keep the allies of the previous king despite cultural/religious differences

Like when Alexander the Great died, several regions were ruled by his generals. In a similar case, when one of the regions

  • (Region A) overthrow the general and with support of another kingdom.

  • (Region B) take over the Throne.

  • (Region C) how the power can be secured if the supporters of region C have a grudge with them.

  • (Region A and B) because lost the war/different religion etc?

My thoughts:

  • 1) They have no other choice as they are clearly outnumbered (bigger army diplomacy)

  • 2) They don't want a civil war.

  • 3) New king is generous and gives more land to the houses, confiscated from the ones who died at war in exchange for support.

Problem is, if the grudge is strong, nothing of that would justify them putting a smile on their face for years to come LOL unless... magic. But I'm thinking of a non-magic way.

Edit

To add more context like alternate history. If a a kingdom similar to Rome, who govern several places each can have their God, as long as pay taxes. Let's say a revolt happens, in a similar fashion as Jewish revolt against romans. However imagine they actually got support from an important kingdom rivals of the romans. Now they are armed and outnumber the romans. So we have an empire where the kingdom is assaulted, the king "of Rome" is dead. However, to avoid civil war they have to make terms with the houses defeated who supported the killed king. The guy in charge of the revolt could be a man like Saladin who conquered Jerusalem but did not butcher and slaved everyone (per the movie Kingdom of heaven). If there are difference beliefs of religion. The houses of the conquered kingdom will never open heartedly embraces the religion (or way of life) of the conquerors. However something prevents a civil war.

Thanks

$\endgroup$

closed as unclear what you're asking by Cyn, StephenG, elemtilas, Chickens are not cows, JBH May 17 at 2:30

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ Don't have time to answer this right now but the history books are full of effective techniques for subjugating conquered people. Many of the techniques are a little to graphic for the modern entertainment uses but if you are looking for realistic and effective techniques, check out what the Romans did. They were experts in the bloody art. $\endgroup$ – Henry Taylor May 16 at 20:55
  • $\begingroup$ @Mario I understand the generality of the question but the context is super important. Perhaps you could contextualize the situation a bit more? $\endgroup$ – Rob May 16 at 21:36
  • $\begingroup$ @Rob done. Hope its clearer now $\endgroup$ – Mario May 16 at 22:40
  • $\begingroup$ I'm confused: what's your actual question? $\endgroup$ – elemtilas May 16 at 23:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Our help center explains that "the goal of the site is to help you build your world, not to tell your story." Worldbuilding (on-topic) is about defining and using the rules and systems of a world wherein many stories can be told. Storybuilding (off-topic) is about circumstances, action, and plot. Though unclear, this appears to be storybuilding. (*continued*) $\endgroup$ – JBH May 17 at 2:29
3
$\begingroup$

Slavery. It's not pretty, but if you want the honest answer, that's it. The way ancient civilizations kept their conquered territories in check was they would replace all the new officials and anyone with power with their own people, so all the new officials of Region C would be from A and B. In addition, they'd take all the people who could actually fight back (i.e. healthy and young) and ship them off as slaves back into territory A and B. Mix it up with some heavy indoctrination on all the Region C youth, and you've got a decent recipe for keeping a hostile conquered populace in check. In other words, more force and violence. War's ugly and scars don't heal.

The reasons your suggestions don't work are more historic. A) - You will very rarely find that rebellions don't breakout just because the oppressed are outnumbered. See just about every rebellion in military history. B) - They do want a civil war, it's very hard not too when you've been conquered. Unless Region A can appeal to the masses, in which case Region B, still ruled by a general, would get nervous. C) - Giving land to people you conquered is a great way to get your own people mad at you and willing to kill you. The Brothers Gracchus were killed for trying to do that to Roman citizens, let alone trying to give land to the people Rome conquered.

Edit: Responding to your in-depth context: The situations you discuss here aren't great for context. When you say the Jewish revolt against Rome, that's a few different ones you could be discussing, though for simplicity's sake, I'll assume the one chronicled by Josephus. If they were backed by a powerful empire, they may have won the day, however, the Jews had no interest in conquering Rome, or even killing the Roman Emperor. (In fact, the Roman Emperor, Nero, committed suicide during this conflict, and Vespasian, the overseer of the war, was appointed Emperor next. An interesting coincidence, unless you don't believe in those.) They would have just settled for an independent state. The Jews would probably have had a brief civil war because there were a fair number who supported the Romans, but that aside, there wouldn't be an Empire, so no civil war. Rome did have a nasty habit of refusing to lose (see: Carthage) and hated successful rebellions (see: Bar Kochba revolt) , so the the Jewish / other Empire alliance would have to probably burn them to the ground. So, the best chance for lasting peace, under these circumstances is A) Do to the Romans what the Romans did to Carthage, or B) Set up an independent kingdom and break of all ties, hoping for the best. [In general, Rome wasn't great for making peace with. Their version of peace boiled down to 'It's fine, we'll conquer you next century'.]

Funny you mention Saladin, because that was back when the Muslims more or less had a 'convert or die' mentality, except when it came to Jews, who were 'People of the Book', and thus allowed to live. So, Saladin would be able to ally with the Jewish revolt, hypothetically. Islam wasn't around at that time.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ thanks for your input, I corrected item 3 to make myself more clear. The new ruler would give land from the dead to the actual nobles who supported the killed king. $\endgroup$ – Mario May 16 at 21:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Good answer. Beyond this, OP might be well-served asking on history.stackexchange.com (or reddit's r/askhistorians) how this was usually achieved historically. In general, I think there's always going to be some level of rebellion, insurrection, revolt, etc: keeping such things in check are part of the job of each government's national security arm. $\endgroup$ – Dewi Morgan May 16 at 21:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, more or less. Answer was added to. Also, giving the conquered people the land they used to consider theirs wouldn't be much of an appeasement. After all, before you conquered them, they already had it. It'd be useful for a few Quislings, but people hate Quislings. $\endgroup$ – Halfthawed May 16 at 23:55
2
$\begingroup$

You can deport the old elite to somewhere else in your empire and place another elite in the land of the elite that you deported. The assyrians did that a lot. The deported elite will be powerless because they will be in a foreign land without masses to support them. The new elite will be dependent upon the emperor because they will be hated by the locals.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Claim a return to the Status Quo

If Kingdoms A, B, and C were all originally part of one unified territory and split at some point, then you can claim a return to the Status Quo. Kingdom C is illegitimate and should have never existed in the first place. It's power structure should be molded back into the power structure of A.

Consider the Three Kingdoms period of China. The Kingdom of Wei was taken over by the Jin Dynasty, and they subsequently defeated the Kingdom of Wu.

The ruler of the the Wu surrendered and presented himself bound to the Emperor Sima Yan. Sima Yan unbound him, pardoned him, gave him a fiefdom to rule, and gave his sons junior administrative positions.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So it's similar to Tibet and China? China considers Tibet to be part of China not something separated. In my case then, it's like if Tibet got enough support to take over China and yet, had to rule with the Communist Party $\endgroup$ – Mario May 16 at 22:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Mario Tibet was a independent kingdom that got conquered by the Chinese form time to time, but at other points was a rival or at least raided into china. $\endgroup$ – Celestial Dragon Emperor May 17 at 1:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Mario Is Kingdom A totally foreign to Kingdom C? That's going to be a pretty short lived take over but you can look at the Crusader States - such as the Kingdom of Jerusalem. They largely survived by having powerful allies (big stick diplomacy) and replacing the local power structure with a Roman Catholic one. $\endgroup$ – knowads May 17 at 4:56

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.