Coup d'etat

[Gamblor]

Hello everyone,

Just wondering how to write a coup d'etat in a medieval city - wanted to share and gather up some opinions. It will obviously be useful for me but hopefully it will be for anyone else with the same questions.

So far I am thinking in order for a coup to happen in this sort of setting, the victor would need to quickly take control of the entrances/exits, the army, and perhaps to a lesser extent the money. They would also have to affect the arrest/murder of the opposing leader.

Does this cover it or am I missing anything?

Also from a POV stance - I am thinking a simple POV from one of the leaders of the opposing sides should be enough - it could possibly be too intense/complicated to try and get all of these things happening at the same time from different POV. Or am I being too pessimistic? I have been putting off writing this section because of this question.

Thanks to all for any learned input!

Gamblor

 

[Toby Frost]

Hmm. If I were a conspirator I think I'd do the following:

1) Arrange a time with my co-plotters to rise up, probably at night. Split into groups, each with its own plan.

2) Remove authority figures that could organise opposition. Chamberlains, noted loyalists, the King's Champion, the king's personal herald, etc. Preferably get them while they're asleep in their homes. Depending on ruthlessness, kill them or throw them into jail. Smart plotters would force some to appeal for calm, reassure the citizens etc. If there are particularly hated members of this group - secret police, inquisitors etc - make a note to deal with them publicly later on to win favour with the citizenry.

3) Get control of the military. Few medieval nations had standing armies in the modern sense, so this might not be too tricky. It might be more useful to have control of the city watch or the king's personal corps of guards. If there is a standing army, control of the generals would be useful! As soon as the new king is in charge, they need to swear an oath to him. This seems surprisingly effective.

4) Put out proclamations that everything is fine and that a group of villains has been deposed/defeated etc. The sooner it can go back to normal the better!

I think that's how I'd do it.

 

[The Judge]

The Secret Services put Toby on their watch list...

Not mediaeval, but have a read of I, Claudius and Claudius the God which deal with the machinations involved in Roman conspiracies.

 

[Gamblor]

Thanks to both,

This is a great help. Whether to be brutal or not...yeah why not ...but I suppose the victor would have to be careful to gage the public opinion...well that is if he wasn't a tyrant.

Interesting food for thought.

Thanks and best,

Joe

 

[chrispenycate]

Seems to me (though I'm no historian) most mediaeval society was sufficiently hierarchical that essentially all you had to do was knock off the man at the top; king, prince, duke and heirs, so there's no focus for a rebellion, perhaps one or two nobles, and it would be business as usual for the populace. Guilds, merchants, bankers as long as it's not too clumsily done, and you don't raise taxes too fast, won't even turn a hair at the change of authority. The church might (particularly if the local head is related to the old ruler, not uncommon) grumble a bit, but not issue a call to arms; social unrest is far more damaging than a change of faces. Similarly the high ranking soldiers; the few personally loyal to a ruler are probably members of his family anyway; the mercenaries have no objection to a new paymaster, and the rank and file? Who cares? Peasants, tradesmen, artisans you just ignore.

You do it fast, though, particularly so you can deliver your neighbours a fait accompli; civil disorder to be avoided wherever possible.

"Public opinion" in most societies – even republics like Venice – was a tiny section of the population - the hoi polloi are irrelevant. An aristocratic minority, normally in disagreement with each other and incapable of putting together a unified front against a new ruler (some will almost certainly support him), a few important churchmen, maybe a military hero or very rich trader, although these will not be considered 'serious' powers.

Anyone who would be seriously considered for the top spot would probably know all of them, most well.

 

[reiver33]

Check out The Prince by Machiavelli, which is late Medieval/early Renaissance, in which he advocates killing the outgoing ruler, his family, and basically anyone who might hold a grudge.

Spilling blood early on saves spilling more later.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Kill the monarch and his closest advisors. Once done , bribe the leaders of the armed forces. Then take out all possible dissenters at your leisure. If it fails , all is lost and things will end [retty quickly (and messily) for the traitors , if successful the previous ruler will already be sleeping with the fishes ; the secret is to keep them absolutely in the dark until the very last second.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Btw taking control of exists/entrances affects nothing unless you are allowing your forces into the city , but that is hardly a coup de'tat as the whole idea is that the enemy is already in your midst. It could be useful in stopping potential rivals escaping , but tbh if your enemies are running away from you , that isn't necessarily such a bad thing , as the populace is hardly likely to take kindly to someone who's running out on them.

I think one important aspect of a medieval city is that the genral populace probably doesnt even care who is inc charge ; peasants and their masters have little love or care for each other , and unless the usurper is particularly hated , or the incumbent ruler particularly loved , there probably wouldnt be that much dissent. Give them free food and chuck them a few coins and they'll happy cheer their new ruler.

 

[Ursa major]

Also from a POV stance - I am thinking a simple POV from one of the leaders of the opposing sides should be enough - it could possibly be too intense/complicated to try and get all of these things happening at the same time from different POV. Or am I being too pessimistic? I have been putting off writing this section because of this question.

Do you mean one POV from each side or a single POV?

Are the mechanics of the coup very important to the plot? If not, a single POV from the side being overthrown might see (and/or hear of) only some of the details, and often these may be erroneous (due to panic, misinformation, and people seeing a bit of one of the actions and rationalising what's happening). On the other hand, a POV on the overthrowing side may know a lot about some activities but next to nothing about others (due to their position in the coup leadership, or a policy of need-to-know to forestall the current regime's investigations).

If you do want to go into a lot of detail, but stick to one limited POV, most of what the reader will discover would be through seeing the plans beforehand and seeing reports of how successful (or not) they've been.

 

[Gamblor]

Btw taking control of exists/entrances affects nothing unless you are allowing your forces into the city , but that is hardly a coup de'tat as the whole idea is that the enemy is already in your midst. It could be useful in stopping potential rivals escaping , but tbh if your enemies are running away from you , that isn't necessarily such a bad thing , as the populace is hardly likely to take kindly to someone who's running out on them.

I think one important aspect of a medieval city is that the genral populace probably doesnt even care who is inc charge ; peasants and their masters have little love or care for each other , and unless the usurper is particularly hated , or the incumbent ruler particularly loved , there probably wouldnt be that much dissent. Give them free food and chuck them a few coins and they'll happy cheer their new ruler.

Yeah I agree - I thought the exits and entrances strategy would be useful because potential hostile elements could be arrested thus stunting any efforts at organising the oposition has. Modern day coups usually take the airports...no?

 

[Gamblor]

Do you mean one POV from each side or a single POV?

Are the mechanics of the coup very important to the plot? If not, a single POV from the side being overthrown might see (and/or hear of) only some of the details, and often these may be erroneous (due to panic, misinformation, and people seeing a bit of one of the actions and rationalising what's happening). On the other hand, a POV on the overthrowing side may know a lot about some activities but next to nothing about others (due to their position in the coup leadership, or a policy of need-to-know to forestall the current regime's investigations).

If you do want to go into a lot of detail, but stick to one limited POV, most of what the reader will discover would be through seeing the plans beforehand and seeing reports of how successful (or not) they've been.

Thanks Ursa, I think this is a valid point - it would be from one point a view and so due to this, i think the information that the reader gets will necessarily be limited - so the mechanics are not so important - perhaps, like you say, a plan before to inform the reader, would work.

Thanks greatly

 

[Gamblor]

Seems to me (though I'm no historian) most mediaeval society was sufficiently hierarchical that essentially all you had to do was knock off the man at the top; king, prince, duke and heirs, so there's no focus for a rebellion, perhaps one or two nobles, and it would be business as usual for the populace. Guilds, merchants, bankers as long as it's not too clumsily done, and you don't raise taxes too fast, won't even turn a hair at the change of authority. The church might (particularly if the local head is related to the old ruler, not uncommon) grumble a bit, but not issue a call to arms; social unrest is far more damaging than a change of faces. Similarly the high ranking soldiers; the few personally loyal to a ruler are probably members of his family anyway; the mercenaries have no objection to a new paymaster, and the rank and file? Who cares? Peasants, tradesmen, artisans you just ignore.

You do it fast, though, particularly so you can deliver your neighbours a fait accompli; civil disorder to be avoided wherever possible.

"Public opinion" in most societies – even republics like Venice – was a tiny section of the population - the hoi polloi are irrelevant. An aristocratic minority, normally in disagreement with each other and incapable of putting together a unified front against a new ruler (some will almost certainly support him), a few important churchmen, maybe a military hero or very rich trader, although these will not be considered 'serious' powers.

Anyone who would be seriously considered for the top spot would probably know all of them, most well.

Check out The Prince by Machiavelli, which is late Medieval/early Renaissance, in which he advocates killing the outgoing ruler, his family, and basically anyone who might hold a grudge.

Spilling blood early on saves spilling more later.

Thanks to both. I will do some reading up on Machiavelli as this is a name I have heard before in politics studies.

I think that everyone is in agreement that the commons are not so important when the elites are making their plans for overthrowing their current regime.

The church is another question - one I have not thought about much. Would they have that much of a say?

 

[chrispenycate]

Over a large portion of the mediaeval period the Church was something between an extension of secular society and a parallel power structure; and it was international (based on a European model here, but Islam was very similar, perhaps even more so, and the Eastern Orthodox countries made up another block)

The risk of excommunication of a ruler could actually generate civil disorder and destabilisation, exactly what we're trying to avoid. So you couldn't just go out and kill an archbishop; you had to hope the church would recognise you as the official ruler, which would normally be the case; no interference with civil society.

But a lot of younger children from noble families went into the church; after the military, it was a legitimate pursuit for an aristocratic scion (and any pretenders to the family name were guaranteed bastards). Strange as it may seem, they tended to rise in the organisation faster than those of common birth, and it was not uncommon to have a Cardinal brother to a duke, for example.

The mass murder of siblings and cousins might tend to arouse disaffection in these, quite powerful (the church was officially apolitic, right. But anyone representing a force that wide, that rich, has power and influence, and rather more protection than is immediately obvious.) citizens, and through them to the masses, that up until now we've assumed we could ignore.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

If you plan to follow the medieval European model closely, the Church most definitely would have a say. It was very powerful, and very much involved in the politics of the day.

Yet the powerful men of the Church were, for the most part, easily appeased. Promise to uphold their existing rights and privileges, make a public display of piety, donate some golden candlesticks for the cathedral and promise to commission some frescos or a magnificent stained glass window, and they would be highly unlikely to interfere, unless the local bishop or archbishop has close family ties to the individual being deposed.

Otherwise, I agree with chris.

Keep in mind that in a city the people are more independent than in the countryside. They don't owe anyone feudal service. If the city is under attack from without, then they will defend it. But if a change at the top of the local power structure is not likely to impact their own daily lives, then it is unlikely they would take arms. Particularly if they don't know about the change until it's already accomplished. Act swiftly and secretly, take out the most powerful people before anyone knows what is happening, and it's done.

 

[J-WO]

I'd wait until all the city's authority figures were in one place and throw all my dice on one swift decapitation strike. Something like a feast, masked ball, wedding etc. For a start, the exits of one building are far easier to control than those of an entire city. Less people involved, too--less to give the game away.

And from a literary point of view, it'd be pretty effective. Your POV character will see a lot of whats going down, whichever side they're on, by simply being in the room/ courtyard etc. All the neccesary characters will be present too, ready to say their piece and act out their part. Its a scene that drips dramatic potential, IMHO, and one that can evoke a lot about your fantasy world, given that the victims are in the middle of some festival, celebration, historical anniversary etc.

Anyway, that's my two pennies-worth. Now I'm off to usurp Prince Charles' greenhouse...

 

[R M Tobias]

Is it more action or dialogue driven.

You cold take the shakesperian path and just have the central actors in the throne room saying
"Aha, I have taken yon kingdom verily from beneath you King Bradley."

and then commence with the story from there.


Seriously though, it depends on the system of governance. You would need muscle to back you up, and grease palms of officials in high places. There would also need to be generally only a few who are all in the know, otherwise loose lips...

Also those behind the coup would either need popular backing to hold the seat or enough military support through generals or captains or Lords or Knights to ensure they can hold the population.

Also you would have to consider the pecularites of character for he/them at the head of the coup. Are they ruthless and bloodthirsty enough to eliminate everyone, or will they allow members of the former reigme to leave?

 

[The Judge]

I'd wait until all the city's authority figures were in one place and throw all my dice on one swift decapitation strike. Something like a feast, masked ball, wedding etc.

Or just in church for High Mass - which is when the Pazzi family struck against the Medicis Pazzi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Boneman]

If you wanted to be really machievellian, you could have your bad guys kill the king and family, prime ministers, figures of authority, and then have some 'good guys' (who you also control) slaughter all the bad guys and you end up the hero of the day, and take control because you've proved you can deal with plotters,assassins and the like. That way, you wouldn't have to deal with anyone who was dissaffected with you killing a (possibly) popular monarchy - you'd be the good guy, they'd insist you took over.
Naturally in the interests of the story there's gotta be someone who knows the truth/hides behind a curtain/survives one of the massacres, and will come back to haunt you later in the book...

 

[Toby Frost]

Fantastic! I was thinking along the lines of the Stauffenberg plot in my list, but the Pazzi murder makes a lot of sense. It doesn't take much history to find something really interesting.

 

[Ursa major]

It's almost a shame that the word, patsy, didn't arise from that incident, given that others wanted the same thing as the Pazzis.


One phrase from the Wiki article caught my eye:

...the Pope was reported to have said, "I support it — as long as no one is killed."

One wonders how the ends might have been achieved without that means; one further wonders whether that Pope would have been naïve enough to believe it could. Sounds a bit like spin to me.


(And as a further aside - sorry, Gamblor - it's a shame the title, Mad Men, has already been used. It would have been appropriate for a dramatisation of this incident, given the derivation of the family name.)