Mines go fast when you have every man mining it or else. Compounded with death payments and whatever is being traded, mining doesn't come off as the best course for long term sustainability. Your example with the old man is basically saying the mines work as assisted suicide and you don't see the problem with that in terms of keeping a people content?

People are not so easily controlled. It is stretching the absolute limits of disbelief to assume that every person in the kingdom is absolutely okay with how things are done there.

@Fabricant451 XD They don't have to be okay. They just have to accept it. Let me tell you something about people. They will never ever be okay. They always want something more. They have bad conditions? They want good conditions. They have good conditions? They want great conditions? They want to be the king and so what? They will never get what they want. And the mines aren't for long term.

And yes, people are that easy to control. Especially the new generations influenced heavily with propaganda. The first step is always the hardest but once you have set the rules and paved the road it is a highway from there on.

Edit: It also depends on the mines and how big the kingdom and it's work force is.

You vastly underestimate people if you think they'll be controlled as easily as this. Straight up.

No, it's rather that you overestimate people.

People aren't mindless.

@Fabricant451 And that's why it's easier to control them.

Surely the opposite would be true then. If they were mindless then they could be controlled. But people have morals, free will, thoughts, hearts, minds, and are thus not easily controlled at all. They aren't sheep.

@Fabricant451 Yes they have all that but most of all is the instinct to survive. Few are those that are ready to die for a cause, ready to give up their life. Not enough to actually overthrow the ruling government even if they somehow joined together,which is impossible.

What makes it impossible? There's literal precedence for the Third Estate rising up and overthrowing monarchy.

@Fabricant451 Yes, they don't want to have a sore back anymore so they are willing to kill themselves and their families. Your logic is so flawed no person thinks like that, especially the common folk.

Your logic is flawed because you think everyone is content with the way things are, that they are fine with being abused, basically enslaved, and take around the back and killed for having a negative opinion. It is absolutely insane to think that an entire population of people would take it all in stride and go "Well sure it's bad but at least we get paid when our men die." Don't underestimate the voice and the will of the common citizen.

@Fabricant451 No, they aren't content as I said before, they never are. But what are they gonna do about it? You have the idea that it is so bad that everyone is willing to go in a suicide charge to end the way things are.

It's plausible. And if the outcome seems feasible and positive, why wouldn't they? Angry civilians outnumber the nobility and what assurance is there that every member of the military isn't sympathetic to the cause, should there be one. What are they going to do about it? Are you really wanting to find out what a people fueled by anger and a desire for a better standard of living (namely one where they don't have to be afraid of the person who supposedly calls the shots) can do when they decide that dying for something is better than living for nothing?

@Fabricant451 You think that if hitler died, without the major military strat fuck ups taking place, there wouldn't be a new hitler? Hitler had a vision, shared by everyone who was under him. How did he plan to keep his empire for 1000 years if him dying meant the end of everything?

Apologies for my intrusion, though I had to poke my head into proceedings here since the Second World War is something of a passing interest of mine. There actually wouldn't have been a new Hitler if anything had happened to him, there were many figures in the hierarchy who were waiting for an opportunity to assume power. No ruler has complete control, even in regimes that are under tight dictatorships. Every ruler has enemies, sometimes those enemies are a lot closer to home than you realise.

For example, Rudolf Hess took it upon himself in 1941 to fly over to the United Kingdom and start arranging peace talks without any authorisation from Hitler. Look at the colourful array of characters that Hitler surrounded himself with - Heinrich Himmler, Hermann Göring, Albert Speer, etc. Loyal, perhaps - but all too eager and willing to assume direct control.

Actually, Speer is a great example here since he was close to Hitler and yet openly disobeyed his orders from 1943 (or was it '44? I forget, but sometime late in the war) onward - he refused to carry out the 'scorched earth' order, but I digress. Just figured I'd be an uninvited guest and throw some unwanted history lesson toward you.

Also, on another note - more or less forcing your adult male population to work in mining operations is going to damage your approval rating as a leader, not to mention you kind of need that manpower for your standing army, which I assume you have.

Apologies once again!

@Fabricant451 And if the outcome seems feasible and positive, why wouldn't they?

It doesn't seem like neither. They will outright be killed as have many who have tried to do so. Who is gonna rally them or do they have a hive mind? Within a couple of minutes that someone starts talking about revolution he will be shot down along with his family. The outcome doesn't seem positive in a million years.

And besides the heavy propaganda this past decade, in the military, in the school and everything else, not much I guess. My army might as well give my head to Maddox on a golden platter.

Edit: Yes. As I mentioned before a couple posts ago, I messed up the age grouping numbers. Noticed while I was reading my bio.

Revolutions don't start by someone going "Let's fucking kill the king". It would start as an underground thing and gain traction from there. Can Jack honestly say that his supposed loyalists are fully, one hundred percent loyal? He doesn't have secret police everywhere like some Orwellian nightmare. Code words. Secret meetings. Any number of possible methods to start and build a movement. Not even actual literal dictators controlled 100 percent of the population.

He doesn't even have the support or loyalty of his wife and yet the people are going to just take it all on the chin?

@Fabricant451 Hmmm. You actually gave me an idea. Lets say they all charge for the castle once they are all gathered. The streets empty, no guards in sight.
.
.
.
.
BAM
He gases them all. All the traitors killed in one fell swoop. He might massacre a good number of the population but do you think they would try that again? Maybe in a decades time but at least he got some time until the next gassing.

But I gotta say, I just forgot about the Rp and tried to make the perfect kingdom for Jack LOL. My model was completely unrealistic.
Ofc he has enemies in court but everyone is too scared to do anything. He rules through sheer terror and time to time gives some moderate rewards for exceptional behavior.
And 10 years of propaganda in the military, him being countless years on the front lines...at least he must have the support of the military. He fought beside his men, he gave them speeches and so on. And the countless lives that were lost in the war? It wouldn't be hear to rile them up on pretext of their fallen brothers.
And him being there doesn't mean he is disconnected from his kingdom. In the occasion that he is locked up they won't just stand idle. Their life and their families are at risk too. None of the lords have personal guards of their own. They all belong to him.
But yeah, he has a lot of those who would rather see him gone, currently in control through terror.

Okay, then there goes a chunk of your population. Which of course includes your workforce because, as said, every man works the mines. So much for productivity. So much for economy. To say nothing of the effects it would have with survivors or elsewhere. Namely that it would galvanize them because now Jack can't hide behind "But I pay you money" or the town criers on the payroll. At some point someone would probably just pull a Jaime Lannister and kill him just because everyone would be better off without a ruler then someone who would commit genocide just because he's afraid they might have a point and a bone to pick.

Ruling through fear is not a viable method for any long term control. It only takes someone to nut up and show that they aren't afraid. And Jack already has that someone.

Soldiers are soldiers and many of the men serving even today are loyal to the country rather than the leader, regardless of whether or not the leader fought amongst them. If Jack dies what happens to the military? Is Jack the head of the military or is there a general that handles that stuff? Why would an army want to fight for a king that has proven that he doesn't ACTUALLY care about their lives or the lives of their families? Because he gave a couple speeches?

Why don't lords have their own guards? Surely the various noble houses in this world have their own bannermen and the like? Swearing fealty doesn't mean Jack just owns everything about them.