Imbecile peasant leader
- Thread starter QuinnMallory
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It's more likely than an imbecile becoming a mayor, a bishop, or the Ecumenical Patriarch.
I dunno, the OP is not wrong at all.
Who would follow a man to overthrow their lord if the man can't tie his shoes? I am mean, we are not talking slow or any other deformation here, we are talking about men who can't pronounce their own names
Who would follow a man to overthrow their lord if the man can't tie his shoes? I am mean, we are not talking slow or any other deformation here, we are talking about men who can't pronounce their own names
Leading bands of angry, stupid, filthy peasants in hopeless wars against their rightful masters. The blind following the blind.
Think of him as a figurehead for a family member. A mother or sister couldn't take control because of her sex but using their idiot son/brother gets the same effect.
He can be labeled as Blessed by Jesus and the Virgin themselves and people could believe that he have magic powers granted by the divinity.
History its filled with guys like that.
I dunno. Staging a peasant revolt against someone who is a hundred times more powerful than you and will put your head on a spike if (or rather when) you fail sounds pretty dumb to me.
I dunno, I'd say only an imbecile would try to overthrow the Roman Empire with a few thousand peasants.
Sometimes its not about winning, sometimes its about making a point.
Yes. The point is that peasants must know their place and plow the fields, or they will be used to fertilize them.
Just take a look at the fellas who tend to win elections in democracies IRL, if you think people dislike being led by imbeciles 
That's the sort of opinion someone in a functioning democracy regulated by the rule of law would say.
In the Roman Empire (especially MY Roman Empire) it's either insane or imbecilic.
Historically, peasants didn't revolt just because they were mistreated, exploited, and abused. They kind of expected those things, to a certain extent. They revolted when they got desperate, which might be because their lords were treating them noticeably worse than usual, but more often it was because famine or the like meant they were on the verge of starvation. And desperate people will do desperate things, like follow the village idiot.
While this is true in a scenario you describe here it's more likly that anyone else would be the leader of the revolt because everyone is deperate
But yet, if that was the case, obviously everyone not to stupid would simply install the village idiot as a puppet so he would take the blame if the revolt was unsuccessful - or if it was successful the new idiot lord would be a easy to control puppet
Assuming this, imbecile revolt leaders make most sense
Look, this is a game where I periodically have to murder children in my court because they're the literal spawn of Satan.
A slightly Prachettesque peasant revolt is nothing, really.