Forum - View topic

The Realpolitiks of How a Realist Hero Rebuilt the Kingdom

Mercenary very rarely switched side during conflict

(they were often more reliable than native army which were not made of professional soldier)

cancelling their contract when you fear an internal revolt is probably the stupidest decision possible since that would flag to the would be rebel that now is the perfect time to revolt.

...then you get various nations political movements, like Australia's Liberals who mostly seek to wind down public spending, UK's Liberals who fashion themselves as progressive science driven politics and the weirdest of all American Liberal movements which are ultra conservative....

Cryten wrote:

...then you get various nations political movements, like Australia's Liberals who mostly seek to wind down public spending, UK's Liberals who fashion themselves as progressive science driven politics and the weirdest of all American Liberal movements which are ultra conservative....

These labels are so manipulated these days, in the US at the present those calling themselves "Liberals" are espousing a version of Socialism/Totalitarianism while "Conservatives" seek to curtail government spending and social engineering legislation.

Kudos to the columnist for a great article that actually brings some political theory into the discussion. Hope it puts to bed the fiction circulating that this show has no political elements at all. I suppose some don't notice because they are so well integrated with the narrative as is pointed out.

meiam wrote:

Mercenary very rarely switched side during conflict

While that is technically correct, it overlooks the fact that mercenaries regularly mutinied or deserted (sometimes in the middle of a battle) if they were not paid (a very common occurrence at the time, to the degree that mercenaries preferred to sign up for sieges (more dangerous than field battles) since they could claim pillage and "freedoms" in lieu of payment). A mercenary that switched sides was a renegade by imperial law and thus could be killed by anyone (for a reward/fun/vengeance/practice/whatever) it was also very bad for business (nobody expected unpaid mercenaries to fight, but switching sides was another matter).

meiam wrote:

(they were often more reliable than native army which were not made of professional soldier)

This is a modern falsehood/oversimplification. There was no such thing as a "national army" in Europe between the 6th and 17th centuries (the Spanish Tercios being the one exception). Nobles/free cities had their small guard corps who were full time professionals, in times of emergency they hired mercenaries to increase their shock power, and for defense called a general levy (the peasant hordes, usually barely trained and barely equipped) to make up the numbers (levies rarely took part in offensive actions for obvious reasons). In this scenario, yes the mercenaries were more reliable than the levy, but the levy was not a native army, it was a part time defensive militia (at best), but they were the equals (and more often that not made up of the same people) of the guard corps.

meiam wrote:

cancelling their contract when you fear an internal revolt is probably the stupidest decision possible since that would flag to the would be rebel that now is the perfect time to revolt.

Depends, to me, it looks like a valid gamble on his part, he is short of cash, so risking a rebellion for perceived weakness is far safer than a guaranteed rebellion by professionals if he stops playing them while they are under contract. The stupid part is why the kingdom had mercenaries in a time of peace (the war with the Demon realm appears to be on hold at the moment). Unemployed mercenaries were historically a rather harmless lot. The stories of mercenary bands raping and pillaging across the countryside are false outside of a few periods/areas of anarchy (e.g. Italy during the 15th century, central Europe during the 30 Year's War, the Balkans during the 7th to 14th centuries).

How about going further back, if one were to look at examples of countries/empires falling due to overreliance on mercenary troops that would be both Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire

Zefram wrote:

How about going further back, if one were to look at examples of countries/empires falling due to overreliance on mercenary troops that would be both Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire

Nah, if we're talking about triggers for the late (west)Roman fall, it had at least as much to do with the Praetorian Guard, an elite guard for emperors that became more and more corrupt and self-serving as time and emperors went by, and some of those emperors at their hands...

At that time legions in outer regions started to be often largely composed of non-citizens as central Rome couldn't muster enough troops, aggravated by shrinking population, and those legions often got filled out with auxiliary ´mercenary'-type elements(like Germanic troops). There were certainly issues in light of those things, but I personally would put the majority of the blame in the endgame at the feet of the mismanagement of the empire from central...

My impression was that Genjitsu- didn't take the realist philosophy seriously enough. You would think that the gimmick behind this show would be what would happen if some educated person with a pragmatic, realist outlook took charge of a video-game like sword-and-sorcery kingdom. But if that was the case, why did the five top candidates for government offices which Kazuya's talent search recruited include a singer, a glutton(!) and a girl who can talk to animals? Only one, maybe two, of the five might serve a truly realist system of government. This show seems to me to be going with the flow of typical isekai series more than diverting from it. Maybe the writer was afraid that there wouldn't be enough viewers who would appreciate complicated politics and therefore he shouldn't take any major chances.