Point or order: it is ENTIRETY possible to forgot a war from 300 years ago. The entire Assyria Empire was destroyed twice and years later the locals had no idea what happened. 99% of American's couldn't tell you about the wars in North America except the AMI and the ACW.
@@andrewdiaz3529 definitely more than just possible in a pre industrial society of it mimics human progression and preservation of knowledge. Let alone that the average joe relied on oral tradition and had no idea how to read.
Yeah, i feel like without our global academic community the entire idea of a massive war would be sureal. Like... "oh it was like a fight between a few hundread people" "no a few thousand on both sides" "pfff what could be worth that kind conflict" "you have never seen the inside of the king's castle, you know he eats good meat every night, right?" ... "why didnt more people in our town disappear?" "Because we grow the wheat? I dunno. The town a days walk south of here is basically deserted, if you want to go look." "I cant go, ive got to grow the wheat" "yeah, funny how that works out"
@@andrewdiaz3529 Depends on what's happened since. To use an example, the War of Spanish Succession (almost exactly 300 years ago) was a pretty huge war for the time, and had some decently big repercussions. But it's not really remembered outside of history, because it's *way* overshadowed by wars after it (eg, the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian War, the World Wars). The 7 years war from a few decades later is also often ignored
If it‘s the citizens of the empire that call it „The Empire“ that makes a lot of sense, as it is a way of claiming rulership over the entire world (there is only one true empire and it‘s ours). The Brits liked to just say „The Empire“ a lot.
@@hannahgoldkamp8888 maybe not but still seems a bit odd everyone only says the "empire". People will refer to their nationality or country name once or twice at least I hear it day to day. It would be very jarring if I never heard the country name just 'the nation', 'the country', 'the empire or 'the commonwhealth'.
@@bielpr2009 If the assumption is that you hear them speaking in their native language and not a translation of a story written down a long time ago in a place far far away you'd never hear that name in universe.
An excellent example is the German name for Germany, “Deutschland” which etymologically means “Land of people”. (From the Old High German adjective _deutisk/theutisk_ meaning “of people”)
to call it otherwise would mean we have to drop the pretense of being anything other then many littler countries stacked in a trench coat trying to look like a massive country
I live in the United States too. Maybe the name is too generic. The most unique thing about the US is that it is the first country to establish democracy that is currently running. It was like this from day 1. The founders took the democracy of the anchient Greeks and Roman's and improved on it. This more modern time was after the Renaissance. US has a lot of patriotism with values of democracy, freedom and equality. Maybe a better name for the country is the Reborn Democracy or something like that. The reply mentions France. I thought of something. The three major revolutions that stand out to me in history is the American, French and Russian ones. I wondered about Russia, so I googled it. It was called Soviet Union after its revolution. Union is like United. Soviet means council. The name refers to the collection of councils that represented the worker class people. They took over Russia and experimented with communism. The name does sound really generic, once I learn the meaning. I don't think Russia is the only nation in history to have united councils. It is probably better with the more unique sounding name of Russia.
@@sylviadailey9126The US achieved universal suffrage later than more than 50 other nations. So, I don't know, something else. As far as I know, the USA was the first nation to span a continent laterally, having coasts on two separate oceans. So, Coastland?
@@sylviadailey9126 Well, it's the United States of America, so that differentiates it a bit more. Also, the Founders specifically did NOT make us a democracy (they regarded such things as being prone to tyranny of the majority). We're a democratic republic. That is, the government is run by representatives, who are elected via democratic methods. But the democratic parts are balanced by several factors to prevent majority tyranny: - The electoral college is setup to make it so states elect the President, not just citizen votes. Each state determines how to allocate its electors. Most of them do so via winner-take-all popular vote, a few award their votes representatively. (The number of electors a state has is equal to the number of represenatives + the number of senators.) - Each state has 2 senators regardless of population. (Senators also used to be elected directly by state legislators, though a later amendment changed it to popular vote.) - Each state has representatives apportioned by population. They have always been elected by popular vote in their individual districts. Anyway... you didn't ask for a political science lesson. But a true democracy is a very different beast... and there really aren't any in the world at the moment. They're very difficult to operate on a large scale... a city-state is about as big as they've ever managed, and Athens still had problems with it that led to the appointments of multiple dictators.
@@johannageisel5390 Rome was neighbors with another empire and traded with farther flung ones. It's called the 'Empire' because the word wasn't used yet as a classification. It's like 'emperor' wasn't a 'king of kings' so to speak back then either. It was more like "really awesome general', which went along with Roman emperors not wanting any of their titles associated with outright royalty; still pretending they were a republic and all that.
I see no reason to dislike 'The Empire' any more than 'The Federation', 'The Confederacy', 'The Union', and so on. Especially if there's only one around.
I hate how some books would have huge time gaps where nothing happened Like how there was a war with some aliens a hundred years ago and then nothing important happened after that.
Yeah, you would THINK during that time, there would be an era of instability or reconstruction, but I guess then, that just provides some handwavium to clear out 20-30 years. "dA gOoVerNmEaNts WerE toO unShTaBle sO tHeRe WeRe nO wRitINgs!"
Don't even get me started on Ravnica from Magic the Gathering. The city of Ravnica (which spans the entire plane of existence by the way) had 10,000 years of peace! Bull shit! No guilds rose or fell? Art and and architecture never changed? No one challenged ideas or virtues? No one did anything stupid? It's one of my favorite fantasy worlds while having some of the worst world building I've ever seen.
One complaint I do have on this genre is that technology is always stagnant. We rarely see civilization advance further. The rare instances it does happen are my favorite.
I believe that happens because people believe fantasy have to be per industrial. So to much tech confuse people and lead them to see the work as nit fantasy but one of the varies punks works.
One of the coolest parts about the world building in Attack on Titan in this. Paradis slowly evolves in technology as the story goes on. Thunder Spears are built to deal with the Armoured Titan, ODM gear is equipped with special guns designed to take out humans rather than Titans, Iceburst Stone is used in lights to illuminate homes and create beacons. The technology is constantly evolving in a natural way.
Civilization advancing has been a torturously slow process in real life until the last 300 years or so. It's also not an absolute. The English sailors who landed in North America found plenty of tribes who hadn't found a practical use for the wheel.
The King "retiring" could be an excellent idea, both in universe and story-wise. It's similar to the Japanese system whet Emperor's "retired" from official duties and therefore didn't have to spend half their time on ceremonial stuff. They still had power, people still did what they said, even if technically their son was in charge. They knew the political situation and how it got that way. Best of all they weren't technically responsible for anything. In fact having a "retired" king resolve situations the "real" king can't could be a great idea. Afraid a neighboring kingdom or questionably loyal noble is planning an attack but don't want to spark a war by sending troops? Dad wanders up there with a few hundred elite bodyguards. Want to investigate powerful people without spending them and their friends? Dad got curious that's all is not an inquiry. They old king is a walking deniability zone. If anyone questions his motives just say he's bored or senile. But I hey the impression that the writer did nothing with this concept, which is wiser than having a bad concept.
Might be similar to the Roman tetrarchy, though, uh... that sorta collapsed after Diocletian left. But it's cool to imagine such a system actually persisting for a few rounds until it became customary to expect, and what repercussions that'd have.
Dude this system is the very definition of fantastical. You gotta be really naive or very slow to think your dad isn’t going to conspire with disloyal nobles after you forced him to retire his throne to persist a system that has no real benefits for the kingdom at large. Also love the dumb idea that your dad would just show up to a neighboring kingdom declare war in your name without you being held responsible for that. It’s not like your neighbor would know who was the previous ruler(your dad) is or the politics of that nation that they planned to attack. Try reading the Byzantine Civil Wars to get a real idea on why you can’t trust your fam so much when it comes to being a ruler. In reality this system sucks more then socialism it’s just another highly idealized concept that barely works.
@@ItsJustCartier doesn’t mean it can’t work. Look at the Ottomans (who, to be fair, also suffered from “family problems” ), specifically the Crusade of Varna, where Sultan Mehmed II (later known as “the conqueror”) recalled his father, previously abdicated sultan Murad, to lead the armies against the crusaders. Upon his death only a few years later, Mehmed reassumed his title with no issues. I get that an ex-king leading armies independent from his country is going a bit far, but as a previous ruler one would still have plenty of political clout left, perhaps even to the point of being able to influence high-standing figures in other states. In fact, the “showing up with a few hundred bodyguards” example could instead be used to deter an uppity noble when the current king is not able to deal with him (either due to lack of power or because his focus currently lies somewhere else); direct confrontation may not even be needed, a show of force could be enough.
@@ItsJustCartier " You gotta be really naive or very slow to think your dad isn’t going to conspire with disloyal nobles after you forced him to retire his throne to persist a system that has no real benefits for the kingdom at large. " Why would he? He still has power, possibly more than you, and you're still his son. The disloyal nobles have no reason to believe he would be on their side, so how are they going to approach him? " Also love the dumb idea that your dad would just show up to a neighboring kingdom declare war in your name without you being held responsible for that. " Which I didn't propose. What I proposed was sending a few hundred armed me to the border so that you have some forces, but aren't officially sending troops to the border. The fact that the retired king can't start a war is why it makes sense. If you send the troops you could be about to attack. At the very least you are definitely expecting a war, which makes a war more likely. "It’s not like your neighbor would know who was the previous ruler(your dad) is or the politics of that nation that they planned to attack. " Of course they would. The retired king ruled for years or even decades. They know who he is. They know the basics of your country if they're close enough to attack it and you know enough about them to know when they are massing forces. If several hundred armed people are publicly announced to be heading towards the border, someone in your command structure is going to know what it means. I mean someone in your country knows how the king retiring works. Unless your system is amazingly bad at communicating with underlings (which is possible) they're going to know this isn't a prelude to an attack. "Try reading the Byzantine Civil Wars to get a real idea on why you can’t trust your fam so much when it comes to being a ruler. " Yeah but that involved family that might get their hands on the big job, the retired kings can't. They endorsed the system when they took the throne. Much of the Byzantine problems came because whoever lost the power struggle died. But if the kings retire when their son hits 30 then they aren't going to be killed when they lose power are they?
One thing to remember about the medieval conception of Emperor is that there was always only supposed to be one - the Roman Emperor. There was a huge amount of prestige in managing to tie yourself to that most ancient of legacies and once 'the Empire' was established, it made sense that you could only have one. That only really changed in the early modern era when Napoleon crowned himself emperor of France, the Austrians then piled up on it, and so on and so on and eventually everyone was Emperor.
Where is the number of 500.000 from? Even if we assume a generous 30 Legions a 6000 Men and nearly the same amount of auxiliary forces we only get to about 350.000. Also the maxium population is estimated to possible have been as high as 60 to 70 milion
At the highpoint of the roman empire there were no fulltime soldiers that were fodder barbarians with little training and bad equipment that I can remember... the auxilia certainly were not that. Maybe you could call the foederati that but they werent romans and that was past the prime of the Empire
@@jakobschoning7355 I found specifically in the year 211 the roman legion had 450,000 men. Most of them being full time legionaires and auxiliary units. Even the average auxiliary at this time would be a force to be reckoned with, they were well equip and supplied with the mostly the same equipment of standard roman legionaries. However numeri used weapons and tactics their culture was familiar with as they were simply foreign mercanries. The auxilary were nothing like cannon fodder, and some of the more elite units would be barely distinguishable from a professional legionary. I belive you are mistaking "Numeri" for auxiliary units numeri were mercanaries from outside the empire that were ocassinaly hired. So how many of these 450,000 men in 211 were legionaries and not auxiliary? In the year 211 the Roman empire had 33 legions. a roman legion during the empire period was 5,200 strong not including 120 auxiliary that were attached to the unit. So if we do the math and for the sake of argument assume each unit is full strength that gives us 171,600 legionaries. That's a pretty enormous army. Although Roman auxiliary would still drastically outnumber them obviously. So of that initial 450,000 men about 270,000 would be auxiliaries and the rest full time legionaries. However this was the peak of Roman troop numbers so obviously not consistant throughout roman history. None the less roman troop to auxiliary ratio maintained about the same ratio of 3/5th auxilary. As for their efficiency roman auxilary provided new troop types or otherwise troop types the roman legions did not have or field in great number. For example. Cavalry was primarily auxilary. Slingers were entirely auxilary Archers were primarily auxilary etc.
@@richhartnell6233 I think I might have missunderstood the OP. I thought he meant the highpoint of the Roman empire, which might not be true, but based on that I was considering the first and most of the second century A. D. until the reign of Marcus Aurelius. I believe that Tacitus tells us that at that time the auxilia made up only about half of the military forces. What I was talking about were generally not numeri but the regular auxiliary forces, organised into cohorts and alae, that where granted citizenship at the end of their 25 year service. They indeed were the main source for cavalry and ranged troops (even though the 120 riders attached to a legion were in fact not auxiliaries but roman citizens, I believe, but they probably only had a very limited battlefield function anyway, also it is sometimes claimed that all legionaries were supposed to be trained as slingers as well). However the destinction between numeri and auxiliaries is often difficult (especially as an auxilia-subunit can also be called a numerus from the third century onwards) so I am not sure how sensible it is to differentiate in this case, seeing as while sometimes they were indeed from outside the empires borders they were not always (for example the prolific Archers from the roman province of syria) and often they were used in exactly the same way as auxiliary cohorts expecially ones that were stationed in forts at the Rhine and Danube Ripa and at the Limites. I also considered the foederati of late antiquity because the second post talked about "cannon fodder barbarians", these were troops of foreign - mostly germanic - rulers that fought for the romans in exchange for compensation (money, land etc.) but they were not actually part of the roman army.
Not to be too pedantic here; you question the fact that most people don't know about a massive war from only 300 years ago ( 4:13 ), but if you asked most people about the Great Northern War, or the War of Spanish Succession, they'd probably just stare at you blankly. That's even true to some extent of the Napoleonic Wars.
@@lelduck6388 Everyone knows about Napoleon. Very few random people off the street could tell you anything about the Napoleonic Wars beyond that Napoleon was in them.
Which "most people" are you talking about? Most Americans don't know anything about the Great Northern War or the War of Spanish Succession because those aren't part of their history. It really depends on how big of a war it was, how much it impacted your country's history, and how much the current cultural zeitgeist has picked up on it. The war mentioned in the video sounds like it was something of an apocalyptic event, in which case it should be remembered (and twisted) in the popular imagination for a very, very long time.
@@5h0rgunn45 okay, then rather than the US let’s look at Europe. The War of Spanish Succession mentioned several times here already greatly shaped the fates of several nations, including France, Spain, and Austria, yet you’d find few people in those countries today who’d be able to tell you much about it beyond that it happened (if even that), and that war was 300 years ago. For America, let’s look at the French-Indian War (part of the Seven years war as it is known to most other countries). Pretty important, it greatly shifted the power balance on the continent, leaving Great Britain as the clear hegemon and relegating the French to the back seat as far as north American colonial ventures were concerned. Most Americans, again, couldn’t tell you much, if anything, about it, other than that Washington was part of it. Finally, let’s look at a much more ancient, but also much more nebulous conflict: the Bronze Age collapse. The destruction wrought by that conflict was so total that, for a long time, archaeologists were unsure what exactly happened, as almost no historical records survived, with some vague inscriptions in Egypt (the only great power that managed to make it through that era without collapsing) about “Sea Peoples” being the only thing that would have been available to people in the centuries following the collapse. Many of the insights we have today come from soil samples and archaeological digs (from places that would’ve already been ruins in the decades after the collapse), in other words, not things that people from back then had access to. With such a complete collapse of society in most places, I would not be surprised if knowledge of the conflict became lost or mythologized once the generations that witnessed it had died out. In fact, if a war (along with any additional calamities, like severe droughts or natural disasters) ends up wreaking such complete destruction, it would actually seem more believable that people could no longer remember it three centuries later, especially if no texts survive and few people could read and write (there was actually a great decline in literacy after the Bronze Age collapse)
I mean in his defence we can attribute conflicts like world war 1 and 2 to agree with his point. Even though most people despite knowing what it is don't know too much in depth we do indeed know of the conflict existing because it was such a major thing, so even in 200 to 300 years into the future people may still know that the conflict existed even if they don't know the inner workings of it. The American civil war is also a better example because even outside of school education, people still know about it to a fair bit, even those outside of the U.S. I agree with you but there are various other examples that do exist to defend his argument. In all fairness howver to go against his point there is also the fact that these things are remembered whole heartedly in education, holidays and such, so that is indeed a factor. Still it wouldn't be too hard for people to think that there was a conflict weather or not they actually knew what it was a out.
If you have an amazing world idea but only vague ideas of what story to set in it, try running the setting as a D&D or other TTRPG game. With creative enough players your epic adventure will have written itself!
Not to mention running a TTRPG forces you to think about a lot of smaller stuff that you probably never would if you were just writing. That makes the world feel a lot more lived-in
@@SergioLeonardoCornejo Same here, if I want to write a major character I take their concept and put them into DnD first. It's an amazing way of forming their personality and how they act.
I've seen a lot of people say that writers should run RPG campaigns in their worlds to get ideas for plots, but I have no idea how I would go about selling my players on my wack-ass hard magic system when they refuse to even try a campaign based on PF 2e instead of D&D 5e. I do know that some authors use dice or roleplaying as part of their own private writing process. (A well-known example in the webbier circles: Wildbow supposedly rolled dice to decide who died in the Leviathan fight in Worm.)
@@KorbentMarksman Yes tbh. You as the author need to know that stuff, but a lot of what is going on should happen behind the screen. Info dumps- they are bad m'kay.
A lot of authors of fantasy and sci-fi fail to take into account that soldiers are people who also need a good reason to fight and die for someone, You can't just say ruler rules through pure military might without giving a reason as to why that military is so loyal considering that they as a whole are technically the ones with all the power.
It’s really not that complicated. People in history *wanted* to go to war. It was seen as an adventure, a heroic calling. What man wouldn’t want to defend his country?
I know you were talking about power structures, but that brings up the point of troop morale. In hopilite and pike and shot warfare victory was achieved almost exclusively through morale.
"percy Jackson is perfect" I love this series but my man percy Jackson dont have a fantasy world it happened in our world with minor change... He dont have much to mess up so it not a huge feat.
Hold up, now. Just about every criticism of the Inheritance Cycle's worldbuilding here is wrong, or at least based on faulty premises. The Brodding Kingdom IS mentioned in the books, not just in expanded materials. It's called "the Empire," because Galbatorix added a few territories (like Vroengard) that weren't traditional human holdings to the BK. There's no other empire in Alagaësia, so having more to the name isn't really necessary. King Palancar brought nearly his entire people (the Broddings, hence the name of the kingdom) with him, and it wasn't the only migration, either: the dark-skinned peoples of Alagaësia came later and separately. Humans were able to expand across the continent so quickly because A. there were many large territories that hadn't been claimed by any other race, and B. the dwarves and elves reproduce at extremely slow rates. In fact, the reason why humans were allowed to become Dragon Riders in the first place was because the leader of the Riders saw human expansion throughout Alagaësia as inevitable given their rapid population growth. There was never a series of wars between humans and elves: there were three small battles, all easily won by the elves, and that was a conflict that the human nobles didn't even want. In fact, they cooperated with the elves to dethrone Palancar after he started those battles, and afterwards, humans and elves were at peace until Galbatorix showed up. Even then, human armies have never commanded "fear" among the races of Alagaësia: the elves have won every battle they fought with them. The only thing making the Empire so powerful is Galbatorix. The elves and the dwarves did not sit out the war between Galbatorix and the Riders: both helped the Riders, and they simply lost the war. Both sustained heavy losses against Galbatorix, including the elven king and an entire clan of dwarves. The elves and dwarves are not "hiding in the wilderness." The dwarves have lived in the Beor Mountains for thousands of years, and the elven cities in Du Weldenvarden long predate Galbatorix's empire. The only territories of theirs that Galbatorix were able to take were those that were bordered or surrounded by human settlements, such as the elven city that used to exist by the lake near Surda. It's even mentioned that Galbatorix would conquer Du Weldenvarden if he could, but the elven kingdom is still strong enough to fend him off; it's not some tiny rump state completely dominated by the Empire.
It is also implied that galbatorix could overtake surda if he wanted to, but he didn't want any more war, so a song as they didn't cause trouble he wouldn't invade. Which did let them grow in strength, team up with the dwarfs and the elves, and a dragon rider, to make them capable of causing a big problem when they did start to cause problems.
5:38 Meh, people, especially politicians and the media constantly refer to their home country as "the nation" or "the country", especially if that country is politically and/or culturally dominant. The British for example referred to their empire as "The Empire" constantly, because what other empire could they possibly mean? Being apparently the largest nationstate in Alagaësia, it's pretty reasonable that people would just call it "the Empire" in their day to day. And given that administration is distant and general education levels low I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of peasants didn't even know the full name. It is kind of weird that it literally never comes up in the series though and not just this one but so many other fantasy novels especially YA, even ones that actually go into like international politics where you would really expect some specificity.
I have to admit that it is an awesome part of worldbuilding. Just like in early imperial Rome people referred to Rome itself as either Eternal City or just The City. Cause everyone knew that if you said "The City" you could only refer to one place- the most glorious city, so glorious that in fact it does not even require a name, it is simply implied. That is a sign of total dominance. If I say "Empire" and you instantly know who I am talking about. Quick test World Superpower. Of course your mind instantly flashed "USA" in your head.
@@PhileasLiebmann Not from US either...and yes it did. Name another country with fifteen floating super fortresses the seize of cities that can project their power anywhere in the world and literally say "You know what...f it" and destroy the world. For majority of people all around the world American Empire is current day THE EMPIRE. Edit Like name me one thing that give you more of the Imperial star destroyer wibe than a Carrier battle group.
@@JM-mh1pp Uhm, no it didn't. The US is lacking the economic and political capital to undertake effective force projection and it has been like this basically since the end of the Cold War. As an empire and a political entity the US are held together entirely by the duct tapes of civilian goodwill and thickheadedness. And even if that wasn't the case, the first thing that comes to my mind when people say "the Empire" in the real world is still the fucking British Empire, mostly because encompassed nearly a quarter of the planet's land surface.
5:37 I mean I'm french and when referring to our country with fellow french people, we sometimes just say "la République" because everyone knows which République we're talking about and it's actually more precise than saying "la France" because France has been around for about a millenia, while a Republic has been on and off for 2 centuries and THE Republic (the fifth) has been going on for 50 years. So it's not that weird to think that a country that is literally the size of the only known continent and has known a few different powers before would refer to itself as the empire
@@tomthestone1470 It’s literally one of my favorite book series next to the Codex Alera by Jim butcher and LOTR 😊 I highly recommend giving it a read. The sections with Roran’s POV really flesh it out
@@Lilasaurus just checked the Wiki for Codex Alera and it turns out the book series was made from a bet that the author couldn't make a good book out of a lame idea, From the Wiki The inspiration for the series came from a bet Butcher was challenged to by a member of the Del Rey Online Writer's Workshop. The challenger bet that Butcher could not write a good story based on a lame idea, and he countered that he could do it using two lame ideas of the challenger's choosing. The "lame" ideas given were "Lost Roman Legion", and "Pokémon".[1]
Though many still had nicknames, other sayings (for example many Romans could simply or would simply say Rome as an alternative to the Roman Empire) and outsiders and people who were recently conqoured didn't always call it the Empire. I think he means the fact that there was no name at all nit the fact that the people referenced it as the Empire.
Abandoning the sorceresses at sea makes sense to me. You want them dead, you can't literally kill them but abandonment in a place they will die is OK. It's basically the same trick Oedipus's dad used to avoid being technically a kin slayer. Of course anyone with an ounce of genre saviness knows what happens next.
What does breaking the rules mean in the face of being certain that everyone is now safe? This reminds me of a quote from "A Law Abiding Citizen", it went something like: "You can't outwit him in his game. You want to win? Shoot him in the face."
@@VIixIXine Well the rules are there for a reason. If you break the rules there could be negative effects, social, magical or political. it's worth a small risk to not do that. We know it fails because we know the story exists, which it wouldn't if it worked.
@@VIixIXine breaking the rules can have terrible consequences. Just look at Robert the Bruce: he started his path to kingship by killing his rival in a church, a big no-no for the time. As a result, many Scottish nobles would turn against him, and though he eventually managed to reconcile with the clergy and emerged victorious, things looked very bleak for him for quite a while, and there was no way of knowing whether the risk of breaking the rules had been worth the backlash.
@@jordinagel1184 We don't know who started that fight. What we know is that there was an argument between Bruce and his mates and some other lord and his mates, and someone pulled a sword. Yadda yadda, other lord is dead and Robert the Bruce needs to become King or he's definitely going to be executed.
When the Riordanverse popped up I was like, wait. Then I remembered some pretty bad worldbuilding in the early books. I love Uncle Rick's stories, but feel free to point out the flaws in the worldbuilding.
@@RunaSunset stuff like the Greeks having no idea about the Romans, and the reverse. Pretty obviously a retcon. And general stuff like why do no Einherjar come to help against Gaia or Apophis, both of whom almost destroyed the World. it's sort of explained away as "oh they don't like meddling in each other's business". stuff like the Sea of Monsters being dangerous for demigods, being the same sea everyone has to sail through for quests, up until like the third book when they never mention it again and sail and fly all over the place just fine
@@TMTM7 Not to mention the stuff with the Tartarus, through which the monsters are supposed to cross in order to reborn. So Percy and Annabeth did, UNTIL Nico takes his sister and bring her back from the death and never mention how exactly did they achieve that and, yeah, plot
@@RunaSunset Let's start by focusing on the first big event of The Lost Hero: Jason is apparently another son of Zeus/Jupiter, but... in all the fist 5 books, the prophesy about the doom of the Olympians was all around the main three gods' children so, if it was the major plot and problem to deal with, nor Thalia or any god thought it would be a good idea to mention there was another chosen one candidate btw?
Galbatorix side effects include nausea, light-headedness, and death. Please contact your doctor before taking Galbatorix if you’re pregnant or have high blood pressure. Galbatorix. Take your life back :).
I've been thinking about this a lot and I've come to the conclusion that the illusion of consistency and an internal logic is more important then being actually realistic.
Worldbuilding is really only important as far as the story goes. If it supports the story and enhances the reader’s experience, then its done it's job. If it interrupts the reader and makes them question the whole thing, then its bad. Most worlds fall apart with scrutiny, but that's because they aren't built to hold up under it. They're made to enhance a story, which is the real thing that has to hold up under scrutiny.
I’m gonna have to disagree with what you said about the Inheritance Cycle. I can agree with what you said about “The Empire” being a bit of a lazy name for a kingdom, and it definitely should have been referred to as the Broddring Kingdom more often, but your other complaints are things that the series does explain. First of all, the elves did try to defeat Galbatorix after the Riders were destroyed, but they were beaten and their ruler, King Evandar, was slain. And the dwarves didn’t help because, as the election in the third book establishes, a large portion of their population is isolationist and xenophobic, and many of them want nothing to do with dragons or the Dragon Riders. Speaking of the Riders, they are the answer to how the human population grew so large in such a short period of time. As well as being a police force, they also acted as healers, which means that epidemics of diseases such as smallpox and polio would be resolved quickly with their help, thus allowing the population to grow beyond what it would be in a world without magic.
There actually was one dwarven clan that helped and it got almost completely destroyed (leaving only one of their leaders and her guards who then had to rebuild the clan in 100 years afterwards). I forgot their name, but they are the guys who are opposing Eragon the most because they became really bitter towards the Riders because of it.
I have a slight issue for that Riders acting as healers part. How many Riders were there that they were able to take care of several hundred thousand people at best enough for them to grow steadily to a population of a few million? Mind you, I'm not questioning it, I literally am just curious since the Eragon was on my radar for a while now.
@@claudiu-mihaipuiu1221 The books never mention exactly how many Riders there were, but if I were to make an educated guess I would there was maybe 200-300.
@@F4UCorsair1942 Then there's definitely not enough Riders to cater to the entire population and heal them of all their wounds. Even if we say that there were 300 Riders and 300.000 people, that would still mean that each rider would have to treat 1000 people each if they got sick or wounded or anything like that. Plus, I also assume Riders had other things to do as well other than just being doctors for the populace and whatnot.
Video title: Fantasy worldbuilding is the opposite of good. What the title should be: Fantasy worldbuilding that is the opposite of good. See what I did there? I changed the title from something that sounds like a critique of the genre into a description of what your video is actually about. You don't have to thank me, you can use the edited title for free.
Oromis explain the reason why It's called just the Empire. Also, calling it only the Empire is like when the lord Ruler called his the final empire. Both overlords don't think there is any other one but theirs
The way I write: 1. Write the entire story outline. 2. Write lore to fill in the blank/come up with references I can add in dialogue later. 3. Write the story.
@@orangesoul4289 Multiple stories, all interconnected in the same universe. Something I've been working on since 2014, and it'll be my main effort once I'm out of the Army. The main Saga is already worked out, so I'm just filling in the blanks before it gets fleshed out.
The Fifth Sorceress is a literary masterpiece rivaled only by the Eye of Argon, and I am vindictively furious at your gross misunderstanding of such art. My wife (and former sister) would agree.
You *Fool* Dont you dare use the words "Literary masterpiece" unless its only in reference to Reapers Creek by our lord and savior Onion boi. Anything else lessens the true value of such a title.
>actually writing a story with worldbuilding instead of just spending all your time making the world as detailed as possible until it consumes all of your creative efforts people do this? Imagine actually writing a story
What you said was an exaggeration, all worldbuilding has at least some holes you can poke through. Most authors realize they can’t replicate a perfect alternative world and just do the best they do. That doesn’t they don’t focus on their world and they can add little details like holidays, food, or what day of the week people work in.
I mean most of this just felt like really pedantic nitpicking.... Like it seems like either your a fan who got far too into this or that you dont like them and are looking for more ways to hate on things.... and this is from someone with no familiarity with any of the source material.
His whole channel is like this. Its terrible. I really wish someone would make a video on how bad this guy is, he gives writing advice yet doesnt have any worthwhile writing of his own
A pre industrial society can maintain an army the size of the entire adult population for a battle, but they all have to go home and be farmers after the battle. So its not a standing army its a shadow army.
No they can't, not even china with its massive centralisation and administrative systems could maintain its entire adult population. You need a tail of support workers to make the weapons, clothe the army, administer the army and thats not even going in to the number of people who'd straight up refuse...
I am just going to point out that there are two countries in this world which are very frequently referred to simply as "The United Kingdom" and "The United States". When we're talking about politics within the island of Ireland we usually just say "The North" and "The Republic". Sometimes names really are just that generic. I still think "The Empire" sounds shit. It's just not unrealistic.
Also Hong Kong's language is literally called 'Cantonese' as in the language spoken in the British Kanton. As well as the fact that Japan's capital of 'Kyoto' literally meaning capital city until it was moved to a different city that was renamed to the same thing but with the 2 syllables being switched making 'Tokyo' which means eastern capital. Also there's a river in Russia that's just the word for river in 3 different languages.
I personally obsess over world-building to such an extent that I dont expect authors to hold the same standards as I do (I for example obsess of historical maps where the names of places come from; probably a byproduct of playing to many paradox grand strategy games). I dont need every author to explain the linguistic roots of the name of a city (even if I want that that), but some basics are necessary. tldr: dont overthink things, but consider the implications of the mayor elements in your world-building and try to keep it coherent. also: totally agree on the fantasy trope of a missing government. It 1) is very unrealistic and 2) strips you of having great sub-villains, or plots about infighting in both sides, betrayal etc. Give us some magistrates, chancellors and dukes damn it !
I just realize the parallel universe in the second season of "Dirk Gently's Hollistic Detective Agency" was basically the setting of a self-insert power famtasy where the Mary Sue character never arrived, so the bad guy won and everything became dark and gritty
Skulls bay actually sounds pretty similar to the actaual pseudo pirate nation of Nassau during the golden age of piracy. And like in the book it frequently raided the near by expansionist empire, which in their case was England. It went exactly as James said it would and only lasted from 1706-1718.
They lasted "that long" because they raided more than one empire. The english, the spanish and the frech hated each other, so, if a spanish colony or ship fell victim to the pirates, the british and french benefited, and vice versa. The pirates downfall came after the spanish lost some of theyr teritories to france and england, as theyr hunting waters became british empire waters.
@@carloshenriquezimmer7543 Yep. After England took noticed they even tried to stop attacking English vessels to portray themselves as some sort of pseudo Privateers but of course that didn’t work. And with the ongoing pardon to pirates in the Caribbean many retired, or even turned on their fellow pirates like in the case of Benjamin hornigold.
I don't think the "first people to do this thing" concept is that bad, it wouldn't be a notable event in a story if it was a regular thing to do and went as well as it normally does. It's important to consider why it's the first time something was tried, though - it doesn't need to be a complicated reason, "it was far away and no one thought it was worth trying yet," works for most situations, but just taking a moment to think through the events which lead up to it can really help a story.
i don't know all of the books you're talking about, but i have an explanation that might help with some: narrator. example to show what i'm on about: the hobbit and the lord of the rings the hobbit is in a colorful world and lots of interesting things happen, some of them being dangerous, but generally, things seems pretty fun. 8/10, would recommend going to middle earth. the lord of the rings is in a dark world, riddled with horrible beasts and some powerful heroes. everything sucks there btw. except of course, the king and his friends, who had a heroic story, where they bested all odds. these two don't seem to fit together. but they do. IIRC, it is mentioned that the books are 2 parts/chapters of the "there and back again" book, written by bilbo and frodo (the books have been some time ago, but if not, at least it's in the movies). Bilbo is a fun individual, who tries to tell fun stories and chill with his friends. Frodo is depressed and his mind suffered greatly from the ring. But he did hear the stories of the people who weren't with him. Man, these guys did heroic stuff. Not Sam and Frodo though, they just hid away in a desolate and evil world, trying to reach their destination. All the non "Frodo and Sam" stories are just the stories others have told him about his friends. Or Aragorn is a tyrannical leader and forces the story to be told in this way. Trusting these 2 guys with explaining the world, especially as Frodo doesn't have any idea what is going before Rivendell, and Bilbo not having any idea at any point ever, makes the whole narration unclear. Also, about the "empire" stuff, i think it's important to note that in history, we often had further explanation lost. There was a big trade partner of egypt, which is only mentioned in name, but not in position, because everyone knows where that place is, so why bother ever talking about that. And i'm pretty sure during the roman times, rome was often referred to as "the empire" from many positions, as empires don't tend to come in multiples. also, this "non-specificity" stuff can be really interesting to go into. for example, the romans had saltwater proof concrete, for which they had a recipe historians didn't understand for decades. until someone came along and said: they probably didn't waste their drinking water on buildings, after which they realised the concrete was mixed with saltwater, not regular water, which didn't need to specified on the recipe. just imagine where we will go in 100-200 years if people stop drinking dairy products. look at it, in this recipe it says "300 dl of milk", obviously this must be human milk. I mean, how could you otherwise explain they had these huge breasts? (shows a picture of anime)
I'm working on my own world to run RPGs in and such like that, but I also focus on this not only for immersion sake, I also just love cooking and food history/anthropology.
Agree with your points apart from Eragon's 'The Empire'. The mostly german Holy Roman Empire of medieval to enlightenment times was often referred to as 'The Empire' during much of it's fairly long history. And it's armies and agents often referred to as imperials.
In seventh grade, I started a painfully derivative fantasy story. Last year, I took a few characters I still like, aged them up, ditched the plot and setting, and started writing it again. I think it's better this time 😂
Doesn't it say in the books that Surda's breakaway is condoned? Operating in a sort of client kingdom way in order to maintain the concept of freedom and its only with the rebel support that Surda is actually able to directly confront the empire.
"what happens if a large empire is attacked by a small country off it's coasts, it won't have a country anymore" Roman could barely hold onto Britain and eventually just abandoned it, The Indonesia isles were a blockade for Mongols, Chinese and Japanese until the 20th century were tech was advanced enough to bypass it, Cyprus was literally within like 20 to a few 100 miles from the Ottoman empire's coast and what do all these islands have in common? They were all extremely close to powerful empires and most would frequently pick at the major empires near by? You know why? Cause having an Island is actually really fucking powerful, the Ocean especially back then is a dangerous place and a fucking hassle to invade as your essentially trapping your troops on a small space with little way of resupply while the enemy has an entire island they can exploit and been using for years. Geography is important for nations and there are examples of nations that were literally within empire and enemy borders but reminded independent (or at least managed to make merge on their own accord and with benefits FROM THE EMPIRE). also it's good to consider the fact that a land-bound empire isn't going to be as good at naval travel/combat than a nation that's on an island (again look at Britain, Indonesia, and even the Pacific islands.)
Similar to how Flintlock Fantasy is becoming a sub-genre, is there a possibility that in the future there will be high fantasy stories with settings inspired by the 20th century?
His Dark Materials and the Worlds of Chrestomanci series are sort of Edwardian/1920s type settings. There's also Onward (not particularly good worldbuilding, but it's there), or Bright (again, terrible, but it exists). You could also count Diskworld, although its period is basically "whatever Terry wants to take the piss out of."
Full Metal Alchemist kind of fits this niche, with Alchemy being their form of magic. It takes place in a sort-of WWI-era themed world. I can definitely see other stories taking place in worlds with this level of technology, mixing it with various kinds of magic.
I don’t think it really fits to accuse Tolkien’s elves of being an overpowered magical race limited by a low birth rate. Their only notable difference from humans is seemingly lifespan, they seem to reproduce at a similar rate, and the reason they’re so rare is because they can migrate to a deathless paradise land whenever they feel like it.
The estimated world population in 1 AD was ~230 million, in 1000 AD it was ~268 million, but in 1500 AD it was ~438 million, that rose to ~556 million in 1600, ~603 million in 1700, over a billion by 1820, etc. so it's not like the major rise in population started with the growth of industry.
Two tropes that always bug me are a) when you have a mix of different sentient species that are somehow all bound to a human monarch, and b) when you have a community of magicians or magical creatures who could easily seize control of the kingdom/empire but don't for some reason. These are things which would require some heavy explaining to make sense, but many authors just don't bother.
Im only 5 minutes in and i thought me internally debating the legal aspects of multiple universes markets was excessive, but with how detailed you are it sounds like i need to get back on that
"Or maybe i just obsess over small details as away to distract myself from the unending sie of the void between stars". And u got me there, and i liked, commented and suscribed, and now let's see what this video is about. Damn i get carried away by amazing one-liners.
« Imagine if France was called ‘The Country’ » Oh boy, that was a bad example :| We don’t call it « the country », but « The Republic » is actually something we do, and something we used to do a whole lot when the first Republic was around. And not even « the fifth republic », despite it being the fifth. It’s like how our flag is called « the tricolor flag », which is... I mean it’s pretty hilarious considering the amount of tricolor flags there are, but it makes sense given how our previous flags had either one, two, or far too many colors depending on what you want to say was the country’s flag. So yeah... Not the greatest example ^^
Also empires just being called "Empire" existed, even when they were aware of the existance of other empires, their egos were big enough to just call their empire as "The Empire". But it is questionable that people outside it doesn't give it any other name.
Regarding standing army size- medical army's were small yes, but aincent armies? The crazy Romans had a 500000 soldier standing army and could raise additional troops. Red cliffs in china had 850000 soldiers involved - on sea. *The Muraya had over 600000 standing infantryman*
Some medieval armies also had massive numbers, just mostly outside of Europe. I think he was referring to standing professional soliders rather then a temporary army. In ancient China for example armies in the hundreds of thousands weren’t all that uncommon well into the Middle Ages.
you're not mentioning that those numbers are highly inflated, Red Cliffs absolutely did not have 850,000, anything thousands of years old typically will have highly inflated numbers. A ton of chinese generals would say the enemy had 6x or 10x more men than them to boast.
5:40 ...If France were the ONLY large and organized country in scope, I could see them being called something related to 'the country'. Is that not basically the case here? It's been ages since I read the Paolini Inheritance cycle, but as I remember it, none of the other nations and principalities they dealt with operated as organized empires per se.
In fact, stuff like that was normal: People in Roman Empire called it "The Empire" People in medieval/Early Modern catholic Europe usually called Holy Roman Empire "The Empire" People in the Eastern Roman Empire often called it's capitol "The City" And if we are talking about China... There hasn't been even specific name for what we today understand as China. All names used for it didn't have exact same meaning and were super generic sounding.
I feel there is a HEAVY oversaturation of medieval European worlds. I feel like there are a lot of other time periods and regions that could be explored that could inspire a fantasy setting. This is one thing I try to avoid.
Well... inspired by Medieval Europe, more like. Honestly, a more accurate depiction of that would be a nice change too. But yeah, I would love a fantasy world were basically all pre-gunpowder civilisations exist (some representation of them, obviously). Graeco-Roman, Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Chinese, feudal Japanese, Mali, Zande, Zulu, Inca, Maya, Aztec, Iroquois, Plains tribes, Mongol, Polynesian, Fenician... and blending. No one-on-one transplantation, but take things from different cultures that work together. There's insane amounts of potential.
Ooof calling me out in the first minute with that void between stars thing....that particular anxiety takes up a not inconsiderable amount of my brain space.
IDK relatively rapid population growth seems not all that implausible if you're moving into virgin territory with high agriculture potential. Industrialization allows you to exploit land more efficiently, but by 1000 AD most of the primo farming real estate, barring the Americas, had long been occupied and systems of subsistence elsewhere were pretty well established. Still sounds like way too little time for even explosive growth to get those numbers though.
You should check out the fantasy novel "From Blood and Ash" because I've love to see someone do a critique of its worldbuilding. I'm currently reading it and it is a Struggle, I tell you.
3:16 In my fantasy world, if any fucker tried to conquer a city, sorcerer(s) or not, they would get fucking blasted by either Blunderbusses (pre 15th century) or a fuck-ton of Plinkers (post 15th century) and get their heads mounted on a wall. They would have to try and sabotage the army first if they wanted to stand any chance against *strategy and technology*
That throne of glass map is kind of hilarious because there is a whole area called "The Deserted Land" with multiple named landmarks, but then the whole middle of the map is just barren.
6:54 "A few hundred years ago, a nobleman named Palencar [sp?] sailed there with his house." I know what you meant but for a moment I was imagining someone sailing with a literal building.
There are 2 types of writers Ones witch plan out the story before hand to know what there writing about And others writers who just go straight in without planing anything These writers sometimes also have there stories reflect the mood when there writing Or just never finish the story even when the main arch ends No they will just keep writing forever to the point where the main villain in the story is long gone
It may seem silly for the empire to be called "the Empire", but things like that happen all the time. I mean, just think of how we generally mean the USA when we're talking about "America" or "US/United States" even though America as a continent has more countries than just the USA and the USA isn't the only country made out of several states. And while it's not common in everyday speech, calling Germany "the republic" if you're in need of a synonym and the republic you're talking about is obvious is definitely a thing that happens. Granted, it probably wouldn't be the official name and mentioning the actual name somewhere would be a nice touch, but it's far from the worst offense one could commit.
14:41 She has fey ancestry? The first thing I thought is that she has advantage on saving throws aganist being charmed and magic can't put her to sleep. :)
If Fantasy Worldbuilding can be tricky sometimes, Real History is even worse, and sometimes inconsistent. No real character arcs, illogical situations that... somehow worked because, reasons?
In a functioning feudal Society, a standing army is literally both impossible to maintain and would make no sense to wish for. The standing armies that came into existence in modern times were only possible because feudalism had become cruel and infunctional through absolutism.
Well, while I do agree with most of this video I have to say there are some things that are just too nitpicky, or that are at least plausible. 1) The whole idea of a king/emperor/nation ruler purposely leaves his position (retiring, if you will) and handles it to his son/daughter/heir/successor/whatever is not that weird - actually, there are some examples of that happening in the real world. There are a number of reasons as to why this could happen: the retired king could keep having influence in his realm, but as an advisor or tutor to the new king. He does it because this could be some old tradition and custom (or perhaps, even, part of the whole politics and government system of that world) that old kings are complied to do. Perhaps this happens because the king would be considered to old to govern and it'd be better to just let his heir govern instead. I agree that's something that should not be left unexplained, and, well, as you said, the guy who wrote that book was simply throwing things without explanation, but overall this idea sounds plausible to me. 2) The Roman Empire, as many here have already said, was usually just called "The Empire". Hell, the USA is literally a country named after two generic names. So a nation simply called "The Empire" would be okay to me. 3) I don't like Throne of Glass either (well, I read one the first three books, but I doubt if I kept reading I'd change my opinion). However, the whole thing about half-fey and marriage between humans and feys sounds way too simplistic on how you're putting it. What if humans didn't want to marry with Fae? As far as I know, there's quite a strong anti-magic sentiment on that world, and interspiecies marriage seems to be a taboo (at least, to humans). Also, What if fey wouldn't want to marry with humans? If I'm not mistaken, weren't they hunted down like mad dogs by humans? So I doubt they'd agree with that as well.
![On Worldbuilding - Island Civilisations! [ GoT | Japan | Ghibli ]](/img/n.gif)
Point or order: it is ENTIRETY possible to forgot a war from 300 years ago. The entire Assyria Empire was destroyed twice and years later the locals had no idea what happened. 99% of American's couldn't tell you about the wars in North America except the AMI and the ACW.
Well a war that big would be harder to forget, but yeah still possible.
@@andrewdiaz3529 definitely more than just possible in a pre industrial society of it mimics human progression and preservation of knowledge. Let alone that the average joe relied on oral tradition and had no idea how to read.
Yeah, i feel like without our global academic community the entire idea of a massive war would be sureal.
Like...
"oh it was like a fight between a few hundread people"
"no a few thousand on both sides"
"pfff what could be worth that kind conflict"
"you have never seen the inside of the king's castle, you know he eats good meat every night, right?"
... "why didnt more people in our town disappear?"
"Because we grow the wheat? I dunno. The town a days walk south of here is basically deserted, if you want to go look."
"I cant go, ive got to grow the wheat"
"yeah, funny how that works out"
Okay how to forget about the war don't talk about it most commoners can't read so if grampa no talk about the war I don't know it happened
@@andrewdiaz3529 Depends on what's happened since. To use an example, the War of Spanish Succession (almost exactly 300 years ago) was a pretty huge war for the time, and had some decently big repercussions. But it's not really remembered outside of history, because it's *way* overshadowed by wars after it (eg, the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian War, the World Wars). The 7 years war from a few decades later is also often ignored
If it‘s the citizens of the empire that call it „The Empire“ that makes a lot of sense, as it is a way of claiming rulership over the entire world (there is only one true empire and it‘s ours). The Brits liked to just say „The Empire“ a lot.
It just gets a bit weird when one country is ''the Empire'' and there's only one Empire
@@belablanck well if it is the only empire then you don‘t need to specify further, no? Because it would be obvious what polity you‘re talking about.
@@belablanck Because when you are really good at empiring there is only ONE empire.
@@hannahgoldkamp8888 maybe not but still seems a bit odd everyone only says the "empire". People will refer to their nationality or country name once or twice at least I hear it day to day. It would be very jarring if I never heard the country name just 'the nation', 'the country', 'the empire or 'the commonwhealth'.
@@harry_ord In most of british papers in XIX century journalists used the term "empire" to refer to british empire almost constantly.
The empire being called “the empire” is nitpicky. In the real world citizens of an empire tend to call the empire they reside in “the empire”.
Usually that was the case and for other nations they had nicknames like empire of the east or syrian kingdom, kingdom of god etc
@Digicraftmon the Crystal Gem what?
@Digicraftmon the Crystal Gem im not 100% sure what are you talking about but that would be to large of name for a nick name
@Digicraftmon the Crystal Gem I demand to know the title of the book with Interplanetary Communist Republic...for research.
The empire might still be named, if a short. The federation
Labels like "the Empire", "the country" or "the people" (for your own ethnicity) are actually quite common in history.
Yeah, I dunno who this guy is, but seems whoefully uninformed.
But they will generally refer to it in their language, essentially giving it a name other people can use
@@bielpr2009
If the assumption is that you hear them speaking in their native language and not a translation of a story written down a long time ago in a place far far away you'd never hear that name in universe.
An excellent example is the German name for Germany, “Deutschland” which etymologically means “Land of people”. (From the Old High German adjective _deutisk/theutisk_ meaning “of people”)
@@heilmodrhinnheimski
Or Istanbul.
It would be like referring to a country made up of united states as "The United States".
Absurdity. I'm glad we Americans don't do that.
to call it otherwise would mean we have to drop the pretense of being anything other then many littler countries stacked in a trench coat trying to look like a massive country
Or calling an amalgamation of eg. duchies the United Kingdom
I mean it was between that and Fredonia.
or worse, calling a country "the land of scots" or "the land of english people" or "the land of finnish people".
"Imagine if France was just called The Country"
*sweats in lives in The United States*
France is also referred to 'the republic' meaning the French Republic.
I live in the United States too. Maybe the name is too generic. The most unique thing about the US is that it is the first country to establish democracy that is currently running. It was like this from day 1. The founders took the democracy of the anchient Greeks and Roman's and improved on it. This more modern time was after the Renaissance. US has a lot of patriotism with values of democracy, freedom and equality. Maybe a better name for the country is the Reborn Democracy or something like that. The reply mentions France. I thought of something. The three major revolutions that stand out to me in history is the American, French and Russian ones. I wondered about Russia, so I googled it. It was called Soviet Union after its revolution. Union is like United. Soviet means council. The name refers to the collection of councils that represented the worker class people. They took over Russia and experimented with communism. The name does sound really generic, once I learn the meaning. I don't think Russia is the only nation in history to have united councils. It is probably better with the more unique sounding name of Russia.
@@sylviadailey9126The US achieved universal suffrage later than more than 50 other nations. So, I don't know, something else. As far as I know, the USA was the first nation to span a continent laterally, having coasts on two separate oceans. So, Coastland?
@@sylviadailey9126 the Icelandic Althing has been in continuous existence since around 930AD
@@sylviadailey9126 Well, it's the United States of America, so that differentiates it a bit more. Also, the Founders specifically did NOT make us a democracy (they regarded such things as being prone to tyranny of the majority). We're a democratic republic. That is, the government is run by representatives, who are elected via democratic methods. But the democratic parts are balanced by several factors to prevent majority tyranny:
- The electoral college is setup to make it so states elect the President, not just citizen votes. Each state determines how to allocate its electors. Most of them do so via winner-take-all popular vote, a few award their votes representatively. (The number of electors a state has is equal to the number of represenatives + the number of senators.)
- Each state has 2 senators regardless of population. (Senators also used to be elected directly by state legislators, though a later amendment changed it to popular vote.)
- Each state has representatives apportioned by population. They have always been elected by popular vote in their individual districts.
Anyway... you didn't ask for a political science lesson. But a true democracy is a very different beast... and there really aren't any in the world at the moment. They're very difficult to operate on a large scale... a city-state is about as big as they've ever managed, and Athens still had problems with it that led to the appointments of multiple dictators.
The romans never called it the “Roman Empire” it was just “The Empire”. Just a minor nitpick but in the real world names like that have been used.
Yeah, I thought so.
When there is only one Empire you know about in your world, there is no reason to not call it just "the Empire".
@@johannageisel5390 Rome was neighbors with another empire and traded with farther flung ones. It's called the 'Empire' because the word wasn't used yet as a classification. It's like 'emperor' wasn't a 'king of kings' so to speak back then either. It was more like "really awesome general', which went along with Roman emperors not wanting any of their titles associated with outright royalty; still pretending they were a republic and all that.
@@osoisko1933 And yet when roman said that he is citizen of the empire everyone understood that he is not talking about Egypt.
@@JM-mh1pp because as the person you're replying to said. It wasn't a classification at the time.
Didn’t they practically invent the word, though? And the era that Eragon inhabits seems like it didn’t exactly invent Empires
I see no reason to dislike 'The Empire' any more than 'The Federation', 'The Confederacy', 'The Union', and so on. Especially if there's only one around.
it's just laziness if the author has given no actual name
I hate how some books would have huge time gaps where nothing happened
Like how there was a war with some aliens a hundred years ago and then nothing important happened after that.
Everyone said: “okay, time-out”
Yeah, you would THINK during that time, there would be an era of instability or reconstruction, but I guess then, that just provides some handwavium to clear out 20-30 years.
"dA gOoVerNmEaNts WerE toO unShTaBle sO tHeRe WeRe nO wRitINgs!"
Yep, one of my main issues with Middle Earth are lack of any development on such large timescale.
lmao, One Piece literally had a Void Century where the World Government had erased every trace of history that happened in that century.
Don't even get me started on Ravnica from Magic the Gathering. The city of Ravnica (which spans the entire plane of existence by the way) had 10,000 years of peace! Bull shit! No guilds rose or fell? Art and and architecture never changed? No one challenged ideas or virtues? No one did anything stupid? It's one of my favorite fantasy worlds while having some of the worst world building I've ever seen.
'i don't wanna talk about how much incest is involved in the villain's plan so let's keep going'
wait what no go back
Lmao same the pfp you got also works perfectly with this
One complaint I do have on this genre is that technology is always stagnant. We rarely see civilization advance further. The rare instances it does happen are my favorite.
I believe that happens because people believe fantasy have to be per industrial. So to much tech confuse people and lead them to see the work as nit fantasy but one of the varies punks works.
One of the coolest parts about the world building in Attack on Titan in this. Paradis slowly evolves in technology as the story goes on. Thunder Spears are built to deal with the Armoured Titan, ODM gear is equipped with special guns designed to take out humans rather than Titans, Iceburst Stone is used in lights to illuminate homes and create beacons. The technology is constantly evolving in a natural way.
This is why Terry pratchet is the best
Civilization advancing has been a torturously slow process in real life until the last 300 years or so. It's also not an absolute. The English sailors who landed in North America found plenty of tribes who hadn't found a practical use for the wheel.
@@megashark1013 and the technology stagnation that occured is also explained
The King "retiring" could be an excellent idea, both in universe and story-wise. It's similar to the Japanese system whet Emperor's "retired" from official duties and therefore didn't have to spend half their time on ceremonial stuff. They still had power, people still did what they said, even if technically their son was in charge. They knew the political situation and how it got that way. Best of all they weren't technically responsible for anything.
In fact having a "retired" king resolve situations the "real" king can't could be a great idea. Afraid a neighboring kingdom or questionably loyal noble is planning an attack but don't want to spark a war by sending troops? Dad wanders up there with a few hundred elite bodyguards. Want to investigate powerful people without spending them and their friends? Dad got curious that's all is not an inquiry. They old king is a walking deniability zone. If anyone questions his motives just say he's bored or senile.
But I hey the impression that the writer did nothing with this concept, which is wiser than having a bad concept.
Might be similar to the Roman tetrarchy, though, uh... that sorta collapsed after Diocletian left. But it's cool to imagine such a system actually persisting for a few rounds until it became customary to expect, and what repercussions that'd have.
Dude this system is the very definition of fantastical. You gotta be really naive or very slow to think your dad isn’t going to conspire with disloyal nobles after you forced him to retire his throne to persist a system that has no real benefits for the kingdom at large. Also love the dumb idea that your dad would just show up to a neighboring kingdom declare war in your name without you being held responsible for that. It’s not like your neighbor would know who was the previous ruler(your dad) is or the politics of that nation that they planned to attack. Try reading the Byzantine Civil Wars to get a real idea on why you can’t trust your fam so much when it comes to being a ruler. In reality this system sucks more then socialism it’s just another highly idealized concept that barely works.
@@ItsJustCartier doesn’t mean it can’t work. Look at the Ottomans (who, to be fair, also suffered from “family problems” ), specifically the Crusade of Varna, where Sultan Mehmed II (later known as “the conqueror”) recalled his father, previously abdicated sultan Murad, to lead the armies against the crusaders. Upon his death only a few years later, Mehmed reassumed his title with no issues.
I get that an ex-king leading armies independent from his country is going a bit far, but as a previous ruler one would still have plenty of political clout left, perhaps even to the point of being able to influence high-standing figures in other states. In fact, the “showing up with a few hundred bodyguards” example could instead be used to deter an uppity noble when the current king is not able to deal with him (either due to lack of power or because his focus currently lies somewhere else); direct confrontation may not even be needed, a show of force could be enough.
@@ItsJustCartier " You gotta be really naive or very slow to think your dad isn’t going to conspire with disloyal nobles after you forced him to retire his throne to persist a system that has no real benefits for the kingdom at large. "
Why would he? He still has power, possibly more than you, and you're still his son. The disloyal nobles have no reason to believe he would be on their side, so how are they going to approach him?
" Also love the dumb idea that your dad would just show up to a neighboring kingdom declare war in your name without you being held responsible for that. "
Which I didn't propose. What I proposed was sending a few hundred armed me to the border so that you have some forces, but aren't officially sending troops to the border. The fact that the retired king can't start a war is why it makes sense. If you send the troops you could be about to attack. At the very least you are definitely expecting a war, which makes a war more likely.
"It’s not like your neighbor would know who was the previous ruler(your dad) is or the politics of that nation that they planned to attack. "
Of course they would. The retired king ruled for years or even decades. They know who he is. They know the basics of your country if they're close enough to attack it and you know enough about them to know when they are massing forces. If several hundred armed people are publicly announced to be heading towards the border, someone in your command structure is going to know what it means. I mean someone in your country knows how the king retiring works. Unless your system is amazingly bad at communicating with underlings (which is possible) they're going to know this isn't a prelude to an attack.
"Try reading the Byzantine Civil Wars to get a real idea on why you can’t trust your fam so much when it comes to being a ruler. "
Yeah but that involved family that might get their hands on the big job, the retired kings can't. They endorsed the system when they took the throne. Much of the Byzantine problems came because whoever lost the power struggle died. But if the kings retire when their son hits 30 then they aren't going to be killed when they lose power are they?
There are some great ideas in this thread, which I will unashamedly steal.
The HRE was referred to only as "The Empire" for most of its existence by inside and outside forces
But it wasn't really an empire. Or holy. Or Roman
@@newperve Its leader had been officially crowned Roman Emperor by the pope, that's more than enough to justify it.
One thing to remember about the medieval conception of Emperor is that there was always only supposed to be one - the Roman Emperor. There was a huge amount of prestige in managing to tie yourself to that most ancient of legacies and once 'the Empire' was established, it made sense that you could only have one. That only really changed in the early modern era when Napoleon crowned himself emperor of France, the Austrians then piled up on it, and so on and so on and eventually everyone was Emperor.
@@newperve shut up
"the overly feudalistic hodgepodge of tiny kingdoms over that way"
The Roman Empire had on it's Highpoint an Army of nearly 500.000 fulltime soldiers. But they also had more then 50 Million people in the Empire.
Dont forget most of those men is just a cannon fodder barbatian with little training and bad equipment
Where is the number of 500.000 from? Even if we assume a generous 30 Legions a 6000 Men and nearly the same amount of auxiliary forces we only get to about 350.000. Also the maxium population is estimated to possible have been as high as 60 to 70 milion
At the highpoint of the roman empire there were no fulltime soldiers that were fodder barbarians with little training and bad equipment that I can remember... the auxilia certainly were not that. Maybe you could call the foederati that but they werent romans and that was past the prime of the Empire
@@jakobschoning7355 I found specifically in the year 211 the roman legion had 450,000 men. Most of them being full time legionaires and auxiliary units. Even the average auxiliary at this time would be a force to be reckoned with, they were well equip and supplied with the mostly the same equipment of standard roman legionaries. However numeri used weapons and tactics their culture was familiar with as they were simply foreign mercanries. The auxilary were nothing like cannon fodder, and some of the more elite units would be barely distinguishable from a professional legionary.
I belive you are mistaking "Numeri" for auxiliary units numeri were mercanaries from outside the empire that were ocassinaly hired.
So how many of these 450,000 men in 211 were legionaries and not auxiliary?
In the year 211 the Roman empire had 33 legions. a roman legion during the empire period was 5,200 strong not including 120 auxiliary that were attached to the unit.
So if we do the math and for the sake of argument assume each unit is full strength that gives us 171,600 legionaries. That's a pretty enormous army.
Although Roman auxiliary would still drastically outnumber them obviously. So of that initial 450,000 men about 270,000 would be auxiliaries and the rest full time legionaries. However this was the peak of Roman troop numbers so obviously not consistant throughout roman history.
None the less roman troop to auxiliary ratio maintained about the same ratio of 3/5th auxilary.
As for their efficiency roman auxilary provided new troop types or otherwise troop types the roman legions did not have or field in great number. For example.
Cavalry was primarily auxilary.
Slingers were entirely auxilary
Archers were primarily auxilary etc.
@@richhartnell6233 I think I might have missunderstood the OP. I thought he meant the highpoint of the Roman empire, which might not be true, but based on that I was considering the first and most of the second century A. D. until the reign of Marcus Aurelius. I believe that Tacitus tells us that at that time the auxilia made up only about half of the military forces.
What I was talking about were generally not numeri but the regular auxiliary forces, organised into cohorts and alae, that where granted citizenship at the end of their 25 year service. They indeed were the main source for cavalry and ranged troops (even though the 120 riders attached to a legion were in fact not auxiliaries but roman citizens, I believe, but they probably only had a very limited battlefield function anyway, also it is sometimes claimed that all legionaries were supposed to be trained as slingers as well).
However the destinction between numeri and auxiliaries is often difficult (especially as an auxilia-subunit can also be called a numerus from the third century onwards) so I am not sure how sensible it is to differentiate in this case, seeing as while sometimes they were indeed from outside the empires borders they were not always (for example the prolific Archers from the roman province of syria) and often they were used in exactly the same way as auxiliary cohorts expecially ones that were stationed in forts at the Rhine and Danube Ripa and at the Limites.
I also considered the foederati of late antiquity because the second post talked about "cannon fodder barbarians", these were troops of foreign - mostly germanic - rulers that fought for the romans in exchange for compensation (money, land etc.) but they were not actually part of the roman army.
Not to be too pedantic here; you question the fact that most people don't know about a massive war from only 300 years ago ( 4:13 ), but if you asked most people about the Great Northern War, or the War of Spanish Succession, they'd probably just stare at you blankly. That's even true to some extent of the Napoleonic Wars.
Aside from the Napoleonic wars You’re right
@@lelduck6388 Everyone knows about Napoleon. Very few random people off the street could tell you anything about the Napoleonic Wars beyond that Napoleon was in them.
Which "most people" are you talking about? Most Americans don't know anything about the Great Northern War or the War of Spanish Succession because those aren't part of their history. It really depends on how big of a war it was, how much it impacted your country's history, and how much the current cultural zeitgeist has picked up on it. The war mentioned in the video sounds like it was something of an apocalyptic event, in which case it should be remembered (and twisted) in the popular imagination for a very, very long time.
@@5h0rgunn45 okay, then rather than the US let’s look at Europe.
The War of Spanish Succession mentioned several times here already greatly shaped the fates of several nations, including France, Spain, and Austria, yet you’d find few people in those countries today who’d be able to tell you much about it beyond that it happened (if even that), and that war was 300 years ago.
For America, let’s look at the French-Indian War (part of the Seven years war as it is known to most other countries). Pretty important, it greatly shifted the power balance on the continent, leaving Great Britain as the clear hegemon and relegating the French to the back seat as far as north American colonial ventures were concerned. Most Americans, again, couldn’t tell you much, if anything, about it, other than that Washington was part of it.
Finally, let’s look at a much more ancient, but also much more nebulous conflict: the Bronze Age collapse. The destruction wrought by that conflict was so total that, for a long time, archaeologists were unsure what exactly happened, as almost no historical records survived, with some vague inscriptions in Egypt (the only great power that managed to make it through that era without collapsing) about “Sea Peoples” being the only thing that would have been available to people in the centuries following the collapse. Many of the insights we have today come from soil samples and archaeological digs (from places that would’ve already been ruins in the decades after the collapse), in other words, not things that people from back then had access to. With such a complete collapse of society in most places, I would not be surprised if knowledge of the conflict became lost or mythologized once the generations that witnessed it had died out. In fact, if a war (along with any additional calamities, like severe droughts or natural disasters) ends up wreaking such complete destruction, it would actually seem more believable that people could no longer remember it three centuries later, especially if no texts survive and few people could read and write (there was actually a great decline in literacy after the Bronze Age collapse)
I mean in his defence we can attribute conflicts like world war 1 and 2 to agree with his point. Even though most people despite knowing what it is don't know too much in depth we do indeed know of the conflict existing because it was such a major thing, so even in 200 to 300 years into the future people may still know that the conflict existed even if they don't know the inner workings of it. The American civil war is also a better example because even outside of school education, people still know about it to a fair bit, even those outside of the U.S. I agree with you but there are various other examples that do exist to defend his argument. In all fairness howver to go against his point there is also the fact that these things are remembered whole heartedly in education, holidays and such, so that is indeed a factor. Still it wouldn't be too hard for people to think that there was a conflict weather or not they actually knew what it was a out.
If you have an amazing world idea but only vague ideas of what story to set in it, try running the setting as a D&D or other TTRPG game. With creative enough players your epic adventure will have written itself!
Not to mention running a TTRPG forces you to think about a lot of smaller stuff that you probably never would if you were just writing. That makes the world feel a lot more lived-in
I actually use RPGs, JRPGs in particular, combined with research, for world building.
@@SergioLeonardoCornejo Same here, if I want to write a major character I take their concept and put them into DnD first. It's an amazing way of forming their personality and how they act.
@@TheCraftySam I hope to see the results of your artistry in the future.
I've seen a lot of people say that writers should run RPG campaigns in their worlds to get ideas for plots, but I have no idea how I would go about selling my players on my wack-ass hard magic system when they refuse to even try a campaign based on PF 2e instead of D&D 5e.
I do know that some authors use dice or roleplaying as part of their own private writing process. (A well-known example in the webbier circles: Wildbow supposedly rolled dice to decide who died in the Leviathan fight in Worm.)
"No man rules alone."
CGP Grey sends his regards
This is pure genious at work🤣🤣🤣
PanzarHawk Yeah 😂
Some authors who get so into their world, they forget they are writing a story!
You could've just @ed me
I'm in this picture and I don't like it.
The Cardinal rule of worldbuilding is that the reader should know only the absolute minimum amount of lore required to support the narrative.
@@priceofiron6900 nah tbh
@@KorbentMarksman Yes tbh.
You as the author need to know that stuff, but a lot of what is going on should happen behind the screen.
Info dumps- they are bad m'kay.
A lot of authors of fantasy and sci-fi fail to take into account that soldiers are people who also need a good reason to fight and die for someone, You can't just say ruler rules through pure military might without giving a reason as to why that military is so loyal considering that they as a whole are technically the ones with all the power.
It’s really not that complicated. People in history *wanted* to go to war. It was seen as an adventure, a heroic calling. What man wouldn’t want to defend his country?
@@theatheistbear3117 Yep... Propaganda helped a lot
I know you were talking about power structures, but that brings up the point of troop morale. In hopilite and pike and shot warfare victory was achieved almost exclusively through morale.
Patriotism, you'd be surprised.
I mean look at all authoritarian regimes and their propaganda.
"percy Jackson is perfect"
I love this series but my man percy Jackson dont have a fantasy world it happened in our world with minor change... He dont have much to mess up so it not a huge feat.
"It happens in our world (...) so its not much to mess up"
- *Germany enters the chat.*
Sometimes, barely doing anything with the setting is a goodcway to build a setting. Just like how free market is better than a planned economy.
@@mshaqed2538 agreed but Im this list this is the only one that happened in a real world so its "not fair"
@@maayanlaufer821 Yeah, I guess
Hold up, now. Just about every criticism of the Inheritance Cycle's worldbuilding here is wrong, or at least based on faulty premises.
The Brodding Kingdom IS mentioned in the books, not just in expanded materials. It's called "the Empire," because Galbatorix added a few territories (like Vroengard) that weren't traditional human holdings to the BK. There's no other empire in Alagaësia, so having more to the name isn't really necessary.
King Palancar brought nearly his entire people (the Broddings, hence the name of the kingdom) with him, and it wasn't the only migration, either: the dark-skinned peoples of Alagaësia came later and separately. Humans were able to expand across the continent so quickly because A. there were many large territories that hadn't been claimed by any other race, and B. the dwarves and elves reproduce at extremely slow rates. In fact, the reason why humans were allowed to become Dragon Riders in the first place was because the leader of the Riders saw human expansion throughout Alagaësia as inevitable given their rapid population growth.
There was never a series of wars between humans and elves: there were three small battles, all easily won by the elves, and that was a conflict that the human nobles didn't even want. In fact, they cooperated with the elves to dethrone Palancar after he started those battles, and afterwards, humans and elves were at peace until Galbatorix showed up. Even then, human armies have never commanded "fear" among the races of Alagaësia: the elves have won every battle they fought with them. The only thing making the Empire so powerful is Galbatorix.
The elves and the dwarves did not sit out the war between Galbatorix and the Riders: both helped the Riders, and they simply lost the war. Both sustained heavy losses against Galbatorix, including the elven king and an entire clan of dwarves.
The elves and dwarves are not "hiding in the wilderness." The dwarves have lived in the Beor Mountains for thousands of years, and the elven cities in Du Weldenvarden long predate Galbatorix's empire. The only territories of theirs that Galbatorix were able to take were those that were bordered or surrounded by human settlements, such as the elven city that used to exist by the lake near Surda. It's even mentioned that Galbatorix would conquer Du Weldenvarden if he could, but the elven kingdom is still strong enough to fend him off; it's not some tiny rump state completely dominated by the Empire.
It is also implied that galbatorix could overtake surda if he wanted to, but he didn't want any more war, so a song as they didn't cause trouble he wouldn't invade.
Which did let them grow in strength, team up with the dwarfs and the elves, and a dragon rider, to make them capable of causing a big problem when they did start to cause problems.
Americans call their country “the states” and lot of other people do as well, despite there being many other states in the world.
Many People say América referring only to USA
Hector Morales
"How dare Americans refer to their own country their own way and not the way I prefer? That makes me so angry!"
Yeah, like the United States of Mexico (the first half is usually omitted, for obvious reasons)
Some of them make might call it "the states" when abroad but at home it's almost always referred to as America
@@hubbablahloo1843 interesting. That hasn’t been my experience when talking to Americans in the USA or abroad, but I’m not American.
5:38 Meh, people, especially politicians and the media constantly refer to their home country as "the nation" or "the country", especially if that country is politically and/or culturally dominant. The British for example referred to their empire as "The Empire" constantly, because what other empire could they possibly mean?
Being apparently the largest nationstate in Alagaësia, it's pretty reasonable that people would just call it "the Empire" in their day to day. And given that administration is distant and general education levels low I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of peasants didn't even know the full name.
It is kind of weird that it literally never comes up in the series though and not just this one but so many other fantasy novels especially YA, even ones that actually go into like international politics where you would really expect some specificity.
I have to admit that it is an awesome part of worldbuilding. Just like in early imperial Rome people referred to Rome itself as either Eternal City or just The City. Cause everyone knew that if you said "The City" you could only refer to one place- the most glorious city, so glorious that in fact it does not even require a name, it is simply implied.
That is a sign of total dominance. If I say "Empire" and you instantly know who I am talking about.
Quick test
World Superpower.
Of course your mind instantly flashed "USA" in your head.
@@JM-mh1pp Not from the US, so no it actually didn't.
@@PhileasLiebmann Not from US either...and yes it did. Name another country with fifteen floating super fortresses the seize of cities that can project their power anywhere in the world and literally say "You know what...f it" and destroy the world.
For majority of people all around the world American Empire is current day THE EMPIRE.
Edit
Like name me one thing that give you more of the Imperial star destroyer wibe than a Carrier battle group.
@@JM-mh1pp Uhm, no it didn't.
The US is lacking the economic and political capital to undertake effective force projection and it has been like this basically since the end of the Cold War. As an empire and a political entity the US are held together entirely by the duct tapes of civilian goodwill and thickheadedness.
And even if that wasn't the case, the first thing that comes to my mind when people say "the Empire" in the real world is still the fucking British Empire, mostly because encompassed nearly a quarter of the planet's land surface.
@@JM-mh1pp no, I actually thought about China
Next video: "okay guys fine I concede the empire thing holy shit you win"
Hilarious comment.
5:37
I mean I'm french and when referring to our country with fellow french people, we sometimes just say "la République" because everyone knows which République we're talking about and it's actually more precise than saying "la France" because France has been around for about a millenia, while a Republic has been on and off for 2 centuries and THE Republic (the fifth) has been going on for 50 years. So it's not that weird to think that a country that is literally the size of the only known continent and has known a few different powers before would refer to itself as the empire
France 🤢🤮
"He just threw things together like he was writing a Kingdom Hearts spinoff game"
I died
“Orthodox vs Reformed member of the fandom” was a damn good line...
Already started with The Fifth Sorceress.
I guess James wanted to get rid of that unholy abomination faster as possible...
Eragon sometimes wants to be Middle-Earth, sometimes wants to be a fairy tale, and sometimes wants to be dark and serious.
Pendleton Ward approves.
Is that book actually decent? I read it and eldest but I don’t remember much other than the lashing scene.
@@tomthestone1470 It’s literally one of my favorite book series next to the Codex Alera by Jim butcher and LOTR 😊 I highly recommend giving it a read. The sections with Roran’s POV really flesh it out
@@Lilasaurus honestly roran was a better character than eragon imo, series actually might have been better with him as the main character
Except when it wants to be Star Wars.
@@Lilasaurus just checked the Wiki for Codex Alera and it turns out the book series was made from a bet that the author couldn't make a good book out of a lame idea,
From the Wiki
The inspiration for the series came from a bet Butcher was challenged to by a member of the Del Rey Online Writer's Workshop. The challenger bet that Butcher could not write a good story based on a lame idea, and he countered that he could do it using two lame ideas of the challenger's choosing. The "lame" ideas given were "Lost Roman Legion", and "Pokémon".[1]
A lot of people called the empires they lived in: "the empire"
And we talk about what is going on in the country all the time.
Though many still had nicknames, other sayings (for example many Romans could simply or would simply say Rome as an alternative to the Roman Empire) and outsiders and people who were recently conqoured didn't always call it the Empire. I think he means the fact that there was no name at all nit the fact that the people referenced it as the Empire.
I'm always down for any hot take by James.
Agreed!! Especially about fantasy
Agree or disagree, the way he speaks always makes his videos amusing.
As long as he's correct. The comment section of this video says otherwise.
“The reason we have names is to differentiate things”
But there is nothing to differentiate. There is no other empire. It’s the only one.
I've also never heard anyone complaining that The Galactic Empire in Star Wars is only called by its whole name like twice lol
Abandoning the sorceresses at sea makes sense to me. You want them dead, you can't literally kill them but abandonment in a place they will die is OK. It's basically the same trick Oedipus's dad used to avoid being technically a kin slayer. Of course anyone with an ounce of genre saviness knows what happens next.
What does breaking the rules mean in the face of being certain that everyone is now safe? This reminds me of a quote from "A Law Abiding Citizen", it went something like:
"You can't outwit him in his game. You want to win? Shoot him in the face."
@@VIixIXine Well the rules are there for a reason. If you break the rules there could be negative effects, social, magical or political. it's worth a small risk to not do that. We know it fails because we know the story exists, which it wouldn't if it worked.
@@VIixIXine breaking the rules can have terrible consequences. Just look at Robert the Bruce: he started his path to kingship by killing his rival in a church, a big no-no for the time. As a result, many Scottish nobles would turn against him, and though he eventually managed to reconcile with the clergy and emerged victorious, things looked very bleak for him for quite a while, and there was no way of knowing whether the risk of breaking the rules had been worth the backlash.
@@jordinagel1184 We don't know who started that fight. What we know is that there was an argument between Bruce and his mates and some other lord and his mates, and someone pulled a sword. Yadda yadda, other lord is dead and Robert the Bruce needs to become King or he's definitely going to be executed.
Is that the one where the guy is supposed to kill his dad and marry his mom?
When the Riordanverse popped up I was like, wait. Then I remembered some pretty bad worldbuilding in the early books. I love Uncle Rick's stories, but feel free to point out the flaws in the worldbuilding.
Yeah. They were all pretty much entirety inconsequential to the story, but a few of the inconsistencies really pulled me out of it for a few moments.
@@electroflame6188 like what? genuine question, i have bad memory and miss if theres any inconsistencies
@@RunaSunset stuff like the Greeks having no idea about the Romans, and the reverse. Pretty obviously a retcon. And general stuff like why do no Einherjar come to help against Gaia or Apophis, both of whom almost destroyed the World. it's sort of explained away as "oh they don't like meddling in each other's business". stuff like the Sea of Monsters being dangerous for demigods, being the same sea everyone has to sail through for quests, up until like the third book when they never mention it again and sail and fly all over the place just fine
@@TMTM7 Not to mention the stuff with the Tartarus, through which the monsters are supposed to cross in order to reborn. So Percy and Annabeth did, UNTIL Nico takes his sister and bring her back from the death and never mention how exactly did they achieve that and, yeah, plot
@@RunaSunset Let's start by focusing on the first big event of The Lost Hero: Jason is apparently another son of Zeus/Jupiter, but... in all the fist 5 books, the prophesy about the doom of the Olympians was all around the main three gods' children so, if it was the major plot and problem to deal with, nor Thalia or any god thought it would be a good idea to mention there was another chosen one candidate btw?
I mean the Brits referred to themselves as “The Empire” when they were a global superpower, it’s not a rule that someone has to say the full name.
Galbatorix sounds like a new rheumatoid arthritis medications, and I simply can't take him seriously
I can't either, because he sounds like an Asterix character.
Just drop the -ix from the end.
'Galbator' is already a much more badass villain name.
Never though about it, but you are right 😂
@@Derkosson “and here is are local rheumatoid arthritis curing Druid, Galbatorix.”
Galbatorix side effects include nausea, light-headedness, and death. Please contact your doctor before taking Galbatorix if you’re pregnant or have high blood pressure.
Galbatorix. Take your life back :).
"because no other plotline exists in Young Adult Novels"
It's very validating to see I was not the only one who had this pet peeve!
I've been thinking about this a lot and I've come to the conclusion that the illusion of consistency and an internal logic is more important then being actually realistic.
Worldbuilding is really only important as far as the story goes. If it supports the story and enhances the reader’s experience, then its done it's job. If it interrupts the reader and makes them question the whole thing, then its bad. Most worlds fall apart with scrutiny, but that's because they aren't built to hold up under it. They're made to enhance a story, which is the real thing that has to hold up under scrutiny.
Literally the truth. Brandon Sanderson and GRRM both say this frequently.
I’m gonna have to disagree with what you said about the Inheritance Cycle. I can agree with what you said about “The Empire” being a bit of a lazy name for a kingdom, and it definitely should have been referred to as the Broddring Kingdom more often, but your other complaints are things that the series does explain. First of all, the elves did try to defeat Galbatorix after the Riders were destroyed, but they were beaten and their ruler, King Evandar, was slain. And the dwarves didn’t help because, as the election in the third book establishes, a large portion of their population is isolationist and xenophobic, and many of them want nothing to do with dragons or the Dragon Riders. Speaking of the Riders, they are the answer to how the human population grew so large in such a short period of time. As well as being a police force, they also acted as healers, which means that epidemics of diseases such as smallpox and polio would be resolved quickly with their help, thus allowing the population to grow beyond what it would be in a world without magic.
My god your right
There actually was one dwarven clan that helped and it got almost completely destroyed (leaving only one of their leaders and her guards who then had to rebuild the clan in 100 years afterwards).
I forgot their name, but they are the guys who are opposing Eragon the most because they became really bitter towards the Riders because of it.
I have a slight issue for that Riders acting as healers part. How many Riders were there that they were able to take care of several hundred thousand people at best enough for them to grow steadily to a population of a few million? Mind you, I'm not questioning it, I literally am just curious since the Eragon was on my radar for a while now.
@@claudiu-mihaipuiu1221 The books never mention exactly how many Riders there were, but if I were to make an educated guess I would there was maybe 200-300.
@@F4UCorsair1942 Then there's definitely not enough Riders to cater to the entire population and heal them of all their wounds. Even if we say that there were 300 Riders and 300.000 people, that would still mean that each rider would have to treat 1000 people each if they got sick or wounded or anything like that. Plus, I also assume Riders had other things to do as well other than just being doctors for the populace and whatnot.
Video title: Fantasy worldbuilding is the opposite of good.
What the title should be: Fantasy worldbuilding that is the opposite of good.
See what I did there? I changed the title from something that sounds like a critique of the genre into a description of what your video is actually about. You don't have to thank me, you can use the edited title for free.
Oromis explain the reason why It's called just the Empire. Also, calling it only the Empire is like when the lord Ruler called his the final empire. Both overlords don't think there is any other one but theirs
The way I write:
1. Write the entire story outline.
2. Write lore to fill in the blank/come up with references I can add in dialogue later.
3. Write the story.
What ya writing fam
@@orangesoul4289 Multiple stories, all interconnected in the same universe. Something I've been working on since 2014, and it'll be my main effort once I'm out of the Army. The main Saga is already worked out, so I'm just filling in the blanks before it gets fleshed out.
@@Foreign0817 I don’t get the sense you’re in the armed forces for nefarious, macho reasons
Usually guys like that can’t read 😔🙏
Also this sounds exactly like the way to write
@@billyalarie929 😅 Don't worry, I'm not infantry. I'm HR.
The Fifth Sorceress is a literary masterpiece rivaled only by the Eye of Argon, and I am vindictively furious at your gross misunderstanding of such art.
My wife (and former sister) would agree.
@@sirpoggers7699 patron
Time travel.
@@sirpoggers7699 time travel
You *Fool*
Dont you dare use the words "Literary masterpiece" unless its only in reference to Reapers Creek by our lord and savior Onion boi. Anything else lessens the true value of such a title.
@@sirpoggers7699 Time Travel
Hentai world building please
@Doofus true
Rule number 1: creatures must have tentacles.
@Doofus
"Why does this horny 18-year-old need a mid 20s hot babysitter?.... Helicopter parents I guess"
number 2 there must be futanaris at some point, and it's not for inclusivity reasons
I feel like 90% of those that have world building per se would be be either off-the-rack fantasy or horrible dystopias, monsters optional.
>actually writing a story with worldbuilding instead of just spending all your time making the world as detailed as possible until it consumes all of your creative efforts
people do this?
Imagine actually writing a story
What you said was an exaggeration, all worldbuilding has at least some holes you can poke through. Most authors realize they can’t replicate a perfect alternative world and just do the best they do. That doesn’t they don’t focus on their world and they can add little details like holidays, food, or what day of the week people work in.
@@petegoesyeet485 yes but have you considered that going in depth on everything makes my dopamine receptors work
I do, I can't help it.
I can't tell if this is a self deprecating joke or an insult towards the video.
@@megashark1013 an insult towards myself
so yes the former
I mean most of this just felt like really pedantic nitpicking.... Like it seems like either your a fan who got far too into this or that you dont like them and are looking for more ways to hate on things.... and this is from someone with no familiarity with any of the source material.
His whole channel is like this. Its terrible. I really wish someone would make a video on how bad this guy is, he gives writing advice yet doesnt have any worthwhile writing of his own
I think he's very into it and doing this for entertainment.
A pre industrial society can maintain an army the size of the entire adult population for a battle, but they all have to go home and be farmers after the battle. So its not a standing army its a shadow army.
No they can't, not even china with its massive centralisation and administrative systems could maintain its entire adult population.
You need a tail of support workers to make the weapons, clothe the army, administer the army and thats not even going in to the number of people who'd straight up refuse...
I am just going to point out that there are two countries in this world which are very frequently referred to simply as "The United Kingdom" and "The United States". When we're talking about politics within the island of Ireland we usually just say "The North" and "The Republic". Sometimes names really are just that generic.
I still think "The Empire" sounds shit. It's just not unrealistic.
Also Hong Kong's language is literally called 'Cantonese' as in the language spoken in the British Kanton. As well as the fact that Japan's capital of 'Kyoto' literally meaning capital city until it was moved to a different city that was renamed to the same thing but with the 2 syllables being switched making 'Tokyo' which means eastern capital. Also there's a river in Russia that's just the word for river in 3 different languages.
@@theta682pl what about all the rivers named Avon in the UK? The Romans really didn't think about it too much
“Percy Jackson”
Noooo
“Nah I’m just kidding this book series is basically perfect”
thank christ
I personally obsess over world-building to such an extent that I dont expect authors to hold the same standards as I do (I for example obsess of historical maps where the names of places come from; probably a byproduct of playing to many paradox grand strategy games). I dont need every author to explain the linguistic roots of the name of a city (even if I want that that), but some basics are necessary. tldr: dont overthink things, but consider the implications of the mayor elements in your world-building and try to keep it coherent.
also: totally agree on the fantasy trope of a missing government. It 1) is very unrealistic and 2) strips you of having great sub-villains, or plots about infighting in both sides, betrayal etc. Give us some magistrates, chancellors and dukes damn it !
I just realize the parallel universe in the second season of "Dirk Gently's Hollistic Detective Agency" was basically the setting of a self-insert power famtasy where the Mary Sue character never arrived, so the bad guy won and everything became dark and gritty
Skulls bay actually sounds pretty similar to the actaual pseudo pirate nation of Nassau during the golden age of piracy. And like in the book it frequently raided the near by expansionist empire, which in their case was England.
It went exactly as James said it would and only lasted from 1706-1718.
They lasted "that long" because they raided more than one empire.
The english, the spanish and the frech hated each other, so, if a spanish colony or ship fell victim to the pirates, the british and french benefited, and vice versa.
The pirates downfall came after the spanish lost some of theyr teritories to france and england, as theyr hunting waters became british empire waters.
@@carloshenriquezimmer7543 Yep. After England took noticed they even tried to stop attacking English vessels to portray themselves as some sort of pseudo Privateers but of course that didn’t work. And with the ongoing pardon to pirates in the Caribbean many retired, or even turned on their fellow pirates like in the case of Benjamin hornigold.
I don't think the "first people to do this thing" concept is that bad, it wouldn't be a notable event in a story if it was a regular thing to do and went as well as it normally does. It's important to consider why it's the first time something was tried, though - it doesn't need to be a complicated reason, "it was far away and no one thought it was worth trying yet," works for most situations, but just taking a moment to think through the events which lead up to it can really help a story.
i don't know all of the books you're talking about, but i have an explanation that might help with some:
narrator.
example to show what i'm on about: the hobbit and the lord of the rings
the hobbit is in a colorful world and lots of interesting things happen, some of them being dangerous, but generally, things seems pretty fun. 8/10, would recommend going to middle earth.
the lord of the rings is in a dark world, riddled with horrible beasts and some powerful heroes. everything sucks there btw. except of course, the king and his friends, who had a heroic story, where they bested all odds.
these two don't seem to fit together. but they do.
IIRC, it is mentioned that the books are 2 parts/chapters of the "there and back again" book, written by bilbo and frodo (the books have been some time ago, but if not, at least it's in the movies).
Bilbo is a fun individual, who tries to tell fun stories and chill with his friends.
Frodo is depressed and his mind suffered greatly from the ring. But he did hear the stories of the people who weren't with him. Man, these guys did heroic stuff. Not Sam and Frodo though, they just hid away in a desolate and evil world, trying to reach their destination. All the non "Frodo and Sam" stories are just the stories others have told him about his friends. Or Aragorn is a tyrannical leader and forces the story to be told in this way.
Trusting these 2 guys with explaining the world, especially as Frodo doesn't have any idea what is going before Rivendell, and Bilbo not having any idea at any point ever, makes the whole narration unclear.
Also, about the "empire" stuff, i think it's important to note that in history, we often had further explanation lost. There was a big trade partner of egypt, which is only mentioned in name, but not in position, because everyone knows where that place is, so why bother ever talking about that. And i'm pretty sure during the roman times, rome was often referred to as "the empire" from many positions, as empires don't tend to come in multiples.
also, this "non-specificity" stuff can be really interesting to go into. for example, the romans had saltwater proof concrete, for which they had a recipe historians didn't understand for decades. until someone came along and said: they probably didn't waste their drinking water on buildings, after which they realised the concrete was mixed with saltwater, not regular water, which didn't need to specified on the recipe.
just imagine where we will go in 100-200 years if people stop drinking dairy products. look at it, in this recipe it says "300 dl of milk", obviously this must be human milk. I mean, how could you otherwise explain they had these huge breasts? (shows a picture of anime)
ajajajajajajaja, only imagining that milk thing make me audibbly laugh
"If your world can answer- what do they eat and why does anyone feed them?"
Then you're on a good track.
I'm working on my own world to run RPGs in and such like that, but I also focus on this not only for immersion sake, I also just love cooking and food history/anthropology.
Agree with your points apart from Eragon's 'The Empire'. The mostly german Holy Roman Empire of medieval to enlightenment times was often referred to as 'The Empire' during much of it's fairly long history. And it's armies and agents often referred to as imperials.
In seventh grade, I started a painfully derivative fantasy story. Last year, I took a few characters I still like, aged them up, ditched the plot and setting, and started writing it again. I think it's better this time 😂
"imagine if france was called the country". USA is literally just "a country in america"
Doesn't it say in the books that Surda's breakaway is condoned? Operating in a sort of client kingdom way in order to maintain the concept of freedom and its only with the rebel support that Surda is actually able to directly confront the empire.
No
I think I remember it being that surda was distant and not Valuble so empire didn’t care
i can't believe that most of the comments are just about how calling a country "the empire" is indeed plausible
"what happens if a large empire is attacked by a small country off it's coasts, it won't have a country anymore"
Roman could barely hold onto Britain and eventually just abandoned it, The Indonesia isles were a blockade for Mongols, Chinese and Japanese until the 20th century were tech was advanced enough to bypass it, Cyprus was literally within like 20 to a few 100 miles from the Ottoman empire's coast and what do all these islands have in common? They were all extremely close to powerful empires and most would frequently pick at the major empires near by? You know why? Cause having an Island is actually really fucking powerful, the Ocean especially back then is a dangerous place and a fucking hassle to invade as your essentially trapping your troops on a small space with little way of resupply while the enemy has an entire island they can exploit and been using for years.
Geography is important for nations and there are examples of nations that were literally within empire and enemy borders but reminded independent (or at least managed to make merge on their own accord and with benefits FROM THE EMPIRE).
also it's good to consider the fact that a land-bound empire isn't going to be as good at naval travel/combat than a nation that's on an island (again look at Britain, Indonesia, and even the Pacific islands.)
Cream is softer than butter.
They would cut through them like cream.
Similar to how Flintlock Fantasy is becoming a sub-genre, is there a possibility that in the future there will be high fantasy stories with settings inspired by the 20th century?
I sure hope so! Only example I can personally think of would be the Final Fantasy VII universe.
His Dark Materials and the Worlds of Chrestomanci series are sort of Edwardian/1920s type settings. There's also Onward (not particularly good worldbuilding, but it's there), or Bright (again, terrible, but it exists). You could also count Diskworld, although its period is basically "whatever Terry wants to take the piss out of."
Full Metal Alchemist kind of fits this niche, with Alchemy being their form of magic. It takes place in a sort-of WWI-era themed world. I can definitely see other stories taking place in worlds with this level of technology, mixing it with various kinds of magic.
Legend of Korra
@@madamwinnifer4666 This. It's based on 1920s Shanghai with dieselpunk elements
I don’t think it really fits to accuse Tolkien’s elves of being an overpowered magical race limited by a low birth rate. Their only notable difference from humans is seemingly lifespan, they seem to reproduce at a similar rate, and the reason they’re so rare is because they can migrate to a deathless paradise land whenever they feel like it.
The estimated world population in 1 AD was ~230 million, in 1000 AD it was ~268 million, but in 1500 AD it was ~438 million, that rose to ~556 million in 1600, ~603 million in 1700, over a billion by 1820, etc. so it's not like the major rise in population started with the growth of industry.
Can't have a James video about bad fantasy without an appearance by The Fifth Sorceress.
Two tropes that always bug me are a) when you have a mix of different sentient species that are somehow all bound to a human monarch, and b) when you have a community of magicians or magical creatures who could easily seize control of the kingdom/empire but don't for some reason. These are things which would require some heavy explaining to make sense, but many authors just don't bother.
"Because the self-insert must be the best". Sarah J Maas adds nothing to her books by inserting herself.
Im only 5 minutes in and i thought me internally debating the legal aspects of multiple universes markets was excessive, but with how detailed you are it sounds like i need to get back on that
The Empire's real name actually is mentioned in the books. Only like once, but it is in there.
"Or maybe i just obsess over small details as away to distract myself from the unending sie of the void between stars". And u got me there, and i liked, commented and suscribed, and now let's see what this video is about. Damn i get carried away by amazing one-liners.
« Imagine if France was called ‘The Country’ »
Oh boy, that was a bad example :|
We don’t call it « the country », but « The Republic » is actually something we do, and something we used to do a whole lot when the first Republic was around.
And not even « the fifth republic », despite it being the fifth.
It’s like how our flag is called « the tricolor flag », which is... I mean it’s pretty hilarious considering the amount of tricolor flags there are, but it makes sense given how our previous flags had either one, two, or far too many colors depending on what you want to say was the country’s flag.
So yeah... Not the greatest example ^^
Also empires just being called "Empire" existed, even when they were aware of the existance of other empires, their egos were big enough to just call their empire as "The Empire". But it is questionable that people outside it doesn't give it any other name.
@@CharroArgentino Sure, but that was already said everywhere so I didn’t think it was worth mentioning it again ^^
More than half of this video is just plain wrong, but I appreciate the effort the creator put into this
This was great, keep these coming please.
Regarding standing army size- medical army's were small yes, but aincent armies? The crazy Romans had a 500000 soldier standing army and could raise additional troops. Red cliffs in china had 850000 soldiers involved - on sea. *The Muraya had over 600000 standing infantryman*
Some medieval armies also had massive numbers, just mostly outside of Europe. I think he was referring to standing professional soliders rather then a temporary army. In ancient China for example armies in the hundreds of thousands weren’t all that uncommon well into the Middle Ages.
@@richhartnell6233 yeah the muraya where actually also medieval - just in india
you're not mentioning that those numbers are highly inflated, Red Cliffs absolutely did not have 850,000, anything thousands of years old typically will have highly inflated numbers. A ton of chinese generals would say the enemy had 6x or 10x more men than them to boast.
5:40 ...If France were the ONLY large and organized country in scope, I could see them being called something related to 'the country'. Is that not basically the case here? It's been ages since I read the Paolini Inheritance cycle, but as I remember it, none of the other nations and principalities they dealt with operated as organized empires per se.
In fact, stuff like that was normal:
People in Roman Empire called it "The Empire"
People in medieval/Early Modern catholic Europe usually called Holy Roman Empire "The Empire"
People in the Eastern Roman Empire often called it's capitol "The City"
And if we are talking about China... There hasn't been even specific name for what we today understand as China. All names used for it didn't have exact same meaning and were super generic sounding.
“I don’t wanna talk about how much incest is involved in the Villain’s plan.”
Genealogy of the Holy War: Hold My Child Sacrifices.
I feel there is a HEAVY oversaturation of medieval European worlds. I feel like there are a lot of other time periods and regions that could be explored that could inspire a fantasy setting. This is one thing I try to avoid.
Well... inspired by Medieval Europe, more like. Honestly, a more accurate depiction of that would be a nice change too.
But yeah, I would love a fantasy world were basically all pre-gunpowder civilisations exist (some representation of them, obviously). Graeco-Roman, Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Chinese, feudal Japanese, Mali, Zande, Zulu, Inca, Maya, Aztec, Iroquois, Plains tribes, Mongol, Polynesian, Fenician... and blending. No one-on-one transplantation, but take things from different cultures that work together. There's insane amounts of potential.
@@JustFlemishMe yeah my series im working on is after the world's first industrial revolution and combines different influences like the US and Japan
@@dynastyofdragons8892 Oh, that sounds cool! Good luck :)
@@JustFlemishMe thx
Heck, not just medieval European, but medieval Western European. You rarely ever see stories based on say, Byzantium or the Kievan Rus.
Ooof calling me out in the first minute with that void between stars thing....that particular anxiety takes up a not inconsiderable amount of my brain space.
There's a great difference between middle age france and modern age france. One is feudal and the other is a absolute monarchy
No ones gonna talk about there being a giant desert in the middle of eragons map, but north south east and west the climate is like in central Europe
5:29 in real life nearly every empire just called themselves the empire as it was believed there was only 1 Empire
IDK relatively rapid population growth seems not all that implausible if you're moving into virgin territory with high agriculture potential.
Industrialization allows you to exploit land more efficiently, but by 1000 AD most of the primo farming real estate, barring the Americas, had long been occupied and systems of subsistence elsewhere were pretty well established.
Still sounds like way too little time for even explosive growth to get those numbers though.
"the year zero" 1ad or 1bc there's no in-between
honestly seeing only comments about the empire thing makes me think better of this video bc everyones only focusing on 1 mistake
You should check out the fantasy novel "From Blood and Ash" because I've love to see someone do a critique of its worldbuilding. I'm currently reading it and it is a Struggle, I tell you.
3:16
In my fantasy world, if any fucker tried to conquer a city, sorcerer(s) or not, they would get fucking blasted by either Blunderbusses (pre 15th century) or a fuck-ton of Plinkers (post 15th century) and get their heads mounted on a wall. They would have to try and sabotage the army first if they wanted to stand any chance against *strategy and technology*
The punishment in "Fifth Sorceress" is probably callback to popular in Celtic tradition punishment of being banished "beyond ninth wave".
That throne of glass map is kind of hilarious because there is a whole area called "The Deserted Land" with multiple named landmarks, but then the whole middle of the map is just barren.
16:54 You get Taiwan.
6:54 "A few hundred years ago, a nobleman named Palencar [sp?] sailed there with his house."
I know what you meant but for a moment I was imagining someone sailing with a literal building.
There are 2 types of writers
Ones witch plan out the story before hand to know what there writing about
And others writers who just go straight in without planing anything
These writers sometimes also have there stories reflect the mood when there writing
Or just never finish the story even when the main arch ends
No they will just keep writing forever to the point where the main villain in the story is long gone
It may seem silly for the empire to be called "the Empire", but things like that happen all the time.
I mean, just think of how we generally mean the USA when we're talking about "America" or "US/United States" even though America as a continent has more countries than just the USA and the USA isn't the only country made out of several states.
And while it's not common in everyday speech, calling Germany "the republic" if you're in need of a synonym and the republic you're talking about is obvious is definitely a thing that happens.
Granted, it probably wouldn't be the official name and mentioning the actual name somewhere would be a nice touch, but it's far from the worst offense one could commit.
I love videos like this
I like to learn from the mistakes of others, and mocking the mistakes just makes it more fun
14:41 She has fey ancestry? The first thing I thought is that she has advantage on saving throws aganist being charmed and magic can't put her to sleep. :)
Honestly as a reformed fan, it reads like a bad dnd homebrew game
If Fantasy Worldbuilding can be tricky sometimes, Real History is even worse, and sometimes inconsistent. No real character arcs, illogical situations that... somehow worked because, reasons?
In a functioning feudal Society, a standing army is literally both impossible to maintain and would make no sense to wish for. The standing armies that came into existence in modern times were only possible because feudalism had become cruel and infunctional through absolutism.
Idk, Ivan the terrible had an standing army
Dead ass got nervous when you pilled up percy jackson, havent finished it yet and was worried to hear why it couldv been bad. Thank fuck
this guy needs to become an editor, most thoroughly thought-out and logical fantasy novel in the world
Well, while I do agree with most of this video I have to say there are some things that are just too nitpicky, or that are at least plausible.
1) The whole idea of a king/emperor/nation ruler purposely leaves his position (retiring, if you will) and handles it to his son/daughter/heir/successor/whatever is not that weird - actually, there are some examples of that happening in the real world. There are a number of reasons as to why this could happen: the retired king could keep having influence in his realm, but as an advisor or tutor to the new king. He does it because this could be some old tradition and custom (or perhaps, even, part of the whole politics and government system of that world) that old kings are complied to do. Perhaps this happens because the king would be considered to old to govern and it'd be better to just let his heir govern instead. I agree that's something that should not be left unexplained, and, well, as you said, the guy who wrote that book was simply throwing things without explanation, but overall this idea sounds plausible to me.
2) The Roman Empire, as many here have already said, was usually just called "The Empire". Hell, the USA is literally a country named after two generic names. So a nation simply called "The Empire" would be okay to me.
3) I don't like Throne of Glass either (well, I read one the first three books, but I doubt if I kept reading I'd change my opinion). However, the whole thing about half-fey and marriage between humans and feys sounds way too simplistic on how you're putting it. What if humans didn't want to marry with Fae? As far as I know, there's quite a strong anti-magic sentiment on that world, and interspiecies marriage seems to be a taboo (at least, to humans). Also, What if fey wouldn't want to marry with humans? If I'm not mistaken, weren't they hunted down like mad dogs by humans? So I doubt they'd agree with that as well.