Tweet
Puppet Governments, Vassal States
Well, I've been thinking about what states have done in histoy when there has been a large scale war. And often, states do not directly rule and annex territories they conquer through military force (although obviously this happens some times), often they set up their own puppets in power, as vassals or clients.
Take for example the USSR in eastern Europe in WWII. Stalin established local communist governments in Eastern Europe. These regimes normally weren't popular, and had to be propped up by the occasional military intervention (Hungary 1956, Prague 1968) to ensure the puppet communist governments did not get out of line. Many other empires have set up puppet states rather than direct rule in history. China did not directly rule Burma and Korea, but they were vassals of China.
I think when a war is over, there should be the option of establishing a regime of similar ideaology to yours. It may be that when a war is over, an option for negotiation is setting up a vassal state- Perhaps for the return of territories conquered by the stronger state, the loser in a war agrees to follow a foreign policy dictated by the stronger, provide troops in event of war, pay tribute, give any new scientific research etc. I realise that there are probably some of these options will already be available in diplomacy, but if they were formalised it might help.
There may also be the option of setting up a puppet government even if a war isn't over. Obviously the puppets are expecte dto offer military assistance to the invaders.
But vassals should always have the option of escaping from the leash. If the stronger party is busy elsewhere, rebellions to set up a new government free from foreign interference should be possible. If a large empire has several vassals all revolting at once, it would be hard to crush all of the rebellions.
Just a thought. What do other people think? I'm just trying to make diplomacy as realistic as possible.
Take for example the USSR in eastern Europe in WWII. Stalin established local communist governments in Eastern Europe. These regimes normally weren't popular, and had to be propped up by the occasional military intervention (Hungary 1956, Prague 1968) to ensure the puppet communist governments did not get out of line. Many other empires have set up puppet states rather than direct rule in history. China did not directly rule Burma and Korea, but they were vassals of China.
I think when a war is over, there should be the option of establishing a regime of similar ideaology to yours. It may be that when a war is over, an option for negotiation is setting up a vassal state- Perhaps for the return of territories conquered by the stronger state, the loser in a war agrees to follow a foreign policy dictated by the stronger, provide troops in event of war, pay tribute, give any new scientific research etc. I realise that there are probably some of these options will already be available in diplomacy, but if they were formalised it might help.
There may also be the option of setting up a puppet government even if a war isn't over. Obviously the puppets are expecte dto offer military assistance to the invaders.
But vassals should always have the option of escaping from the leash. If the stronger party is busy elsewhere, rebellions to set up a new government free from foreign interference should be possible. If a large empire has several vassals all revolting at once, it would be hard to crush all of the rebellions.
Just a thought. What do other people think? I'm just trying to make diplomacy as realistic as possible.
Comment