Making a treaty in a fantasy novel

[Toby Frost]

Two warring sides in a civil war - a queen and a duke - meet at the castle of a minor noble to discuss a peace treaty. Also present are the heads of a number of city-states, who are temporarily in a military alliance and, together, constitute a third power which wants a fair peace. Everyone arrives in a dramatic fashion: a barge, a carriage, on a wyvern, on a flying machine and so on. At the moment, they stay in different bits of the castle (which is very large) and their men either camp outside or are barracked within the walls. A wizard and a group of magical people ("Fey folk") act as honest brokers, and guard against hostile sorcery being used by the participants.

And that's as far as I've got. I've read about a lot of treaties in history, but very little about the actual process of arguing and agreeing them. The only one I can think of is the treaty of the Field of the Cloth of Gold, between England and France, which seems rather unusual anyway. The setting is roughly 16th century. Does anyone know of any sources that would explain how something like this was actually done?

Thanks!

 

[tinkerdan]

Have you tried looking into the history of the magna carta?

 

[tegeus-Cromis]

This might be helpful: Category:16th-century treaties - Wikipedia

You can also do the same search for the 17th century, etc.

 

[Karn's Return]

Well, I would probably go with 17th century treaties, as that was during the golden age of piracy, when treaties, due to there being four major players all vying for the New World and its riches, would be written up and broken and renewed all the time, so I would imagine that that would be some of the most abundant resource choice available for finding such information.

I would imagine the actual acts of arguing and haggling and such would probably include all sorts of things, perhaps even hiring assassins and spies from time to time to eliminate key opponents against one's most desired conditions or to simply pick up information that would allow one side to modify some advantages in. I don't know how much of it would actually be done at the table, so to speak, until time to actually write all the terms up would occur.

 

[The Judge]

I can't think of any sources off the top of my head, but I don't imagine the actual process would be much different to any other negotiations taking place nowadays, albeit you've got fancier accommodation than having the parties in hotel rooms. It might therefore be an idea to look up biographies of the participants in the Treaty of Versailles negotiations.

Anyhow, first of all I'm not convinced the leaders of the warring parties would meet. It's one thing meeting pre-war to stop conflict arising, a la Chamberlain, and meeting allies -- no matter how temporary -- afterwards as at Yalta, but when there's only some kind of armistice, I'd not put my head of state in such a position. Even with apparent honest brokers ensuring people's safety, it's still too much of a risk of assassination. Instead, I'd suggest the Queen would send someone important but ultimately disposable to be the figurehead and perhaps her main man of business/chamberlain/what-have-you to do the actual negotiations, together with experts who might be needed depending on what you're having them argue about (taxes, land, trading rights, harbour dues) and sundry clerks to take notes. The chamberlain would come prepared with the Queen's diktat as to how far he could compromise and what we'd now call red lines that couldn't be crossed, while having got as much information as possible via spies and renegades regarding the other side's possible areas of compromise, so he has an idea where he can push. If he needs further instruction as the negotiations are continuing, presumably you could have some magical apparatus allowing communication with the Queen, who might not be back in her own land, but could be half-way there in a place of great safety pending the final result. Or just use homing pigeons.

The city states would have similar briefs, but I imagine their job is to act a bit like ACAS in a union dispute, hosting the talks, encouraging new ideas of possible compromise eg X is demanding possession of a mine as their men found the silver in the first place, but it's in Y's territory and Y can't countenance giving it up for good, and the independents might suggest something like a 99 year lease, so X gets the revenue it thinks is its due, but the land itself remains Y's and then they negotiate the terms of the lease. Nowadays there would be splinter negotiations, so one group discussing technology, another fishing rights and so on, but that's probably not going to happen here unless it makes for a good plot development, of course.

And I wouldn't allow either side to have troops inside the castle, and I'd think twice about allowing them to have many men there at all, because of the risk of the troops coming into contact and creating mayhem. There would, of course, have been preliminary negotiations dealing with the logistics such as where and when and how many people per delegation and so on.

Basically, it's just like every divorce settlement I ever negotiated!

 

[Karn's Return]

And there you have it. I don't know how much she really enjoys it, but TJ there is our legal advisor of the site. I don't know if anyone else active on here is/was a lawyer.


But the point is, don't think there would just be a few people from each side like a simple council. Even during an agreed ceasefire and parley to help get terms started, there's all sorts of elements that could be put in play. Treaties are one of the ultimate acts of politics, so use as much intrigue as you want and I'm sure it wouldn't be out of place. I would imagine that, despite the faults I found with the series, ASoIaF would probably be at least a relatively realistic, if over-exaggerated, example of grand world scale political intrigue.

 

[The Judge]

Toby, I've just re-read your post and I realise I completely overlooked the "civil" in the first clause, and I was just treating it as two states in conflict. The actual process of meeting and talking is still going to be the same, but the aims of the parties in a civil war are very different. There were of course negotiations involved in the Wars of the Roses, and in the C17th English civil war, but in those cases there was a victor in the actual conflict so it was a questions of one side being in a greater position of power than the other. If that's the case in your story, then I'd start with biogs of Charles I and look at the negotiations there.

However, if the war is at stalemate, what you want is the first English civil war -- Stephen and Matilda. That was resolved with the church acting as honest broker (Henry of Blois had jumped from one side to the other all the way through trying to achieve peace, and secure his own position) and led to a proper negotiated settlement whereby Stephen retained the throne he'd usurped, but Matilda's son was his successor -- Henry II. I've not read up on the peace treaty negotiations themselves, but there are certain to be some books out there dealing with this in depth. I suspect again, though, that Matilda doesn't do the negotiating in person, and it might have been her champion, Robert of Gloucester, who did the necessary, or, indeed, the young Henry himself. I shall now go and look it up for my own satisfaction!


EDIT: ah, I'd forgotten Gloucester had died before the war's end. And the church wasn't the prime mover towards peace at the end, but the aristocracy who'd had enough and simply refused to fight -- by the sounds of it the barons had been discussing peace deals among themselves and effectively forced the two sides to come to a compromise, thereby improving their own positions viz-a-viz the crown at the same time. (Here it might be the equivalent of your city states screwing advantages for themselves from both sides.)

 

[sknox]

The example that comes to my mind is the Thirty Years War. Its end was negotiated across multiple powers in multiple locations. The famous one is the Peace of Westphalia, but the actual deals were done at Munster and Osnabruck. There are whole books on the process, and plenty of online materials as well.

 

[Culhwch]

I'm all for the research, because it'll often turn up interesting little touches you might otherwise not have thought of. Buuuuuut! It's a fantasy novel, so you really just need to make it convincing, not historically accurate. As long as it makes internal sense, I'm pretty golden with whatever is served up. So don't let history totally dictate your story, I guess I'm saying.

 

[Venusian Broon]

It's a tad later than the time period you state, but the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) sprung to my mind.

Here is an extremely brief overview of what happened that I found, that might give you hints for what you could do!

The Treaty of Westphalia | History Today

www.historytoday.com

However I have no source in mind that directly discusses what happened during this process, most online sources talk about the thirty years war and the results of the peace treaty. There is bound to be one somewhere, given that the article had some juicy details, but it's probably in a book somewhere.

 

[Toby Frost]

Cheers guys.

In this situation, I think I will keep the heads of states as parties to the discussion, even though it's unrealistic. It's the equivalent of those scenes in police dramas where the detective inspector interviews the suspect: a policeman once told me that this would usually be done by a cop of lower rank, but it was accepted in fiction that the hero would take the job for a more dramatic confrontation. However, they shall be seriously limited as to who they can bring and where they can put them.

The conflict is actually a religious one, or a dynastic one pretending to be religious, so the church can't really mediate, although the magic types can. It is actually closest to the Thirty Years' War, especially in the way that the country in issue solves its problems. The idea of arguments over seating and protocol is interesting, although it might drag out the scene, and the characters arrive at different times.

 

[tinkerdan]

food for thought

Why peace agreements often fail to end civil wars (11/97)

From Paper to Peace: The Role of Guarantees in Peace Agreements

Conflict settlement is a process rather than a singular act. At its most basic, a peace process comprises three phases: the negotiation, implementation and operation of an agreement meant to enable the conflict parties to resolve their disputes by nonviolent, political means. Yet the successful...

www.worldpoliticsreview.com

Peace Agreements

By Nita Yawanarajah Julian Ouellet September 2003 What are Peace Agreements? This essay was written in collaboration with the UN Peacemaker Databank, Policy Planning Unit, Department of Political Affairs, United Nations. This databank will be available online beginning in April 2006. Peace...

www.beyondintractability.org

This article is long; however it offers insight into the usual outcome of civil war with religious elements. Not so much the peace process.

https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/2006-03.pdf

 

[Brian G Turner]

Have you tried looking into the history of the magna carta?

On that point, this book is actually a relatively short read, but potentially illuminating:

Magna Carta: The True Story Behind the Charter eBook : Starkey, David: Amazon.co.uk: Books

Magna Carta: The True Story Behind the Charter eBook : Starkey, David: Amazon.co.uk: Books

www.amazon.co.uk

the actual process of arguing and agreeing them.

It seems to me that one or more people will take the most unreasonable position they can, either because they are so completely self-absorbed, or as part of a negotiating strategy.

I read an account from a modern setting - two diplomats negotiating - one pleasantly asked the second if he played chess, to which the second snarled a reply that the last time he'd played chess, the NKVD had broken in on the proceedings. The first diplomat felt a little put out and regretted his comment, and so later apologized for the comment to the second man's wife - only for her to dismiss the apology, because her husband played chess every weekend.

 

[Toby Frost]

It seems to me that one or more people will take the most unreasonable position they can

To begin with, I took this as something of a joke, but when you consider the kind of trash that can get voted into power in a (purely hypothetical, of course) democracy, and then add generations of inbreeding, religious fanaticism and stuff like the Divine Right of Kings, it's amazing that these people ever got into the same room. It sounds OTT, but I can imagine one of these guys going all the way to the discussions just for the pleasure of telling the others what to do with their treaty.

The other thing about treaties is how messy they are. The process of writing one is lengthy and even when they work, nobody really feels that they've won. This could be rather anticlimactic to read about in a novel, even if it was realistic. The answer might be either to simplify it or just have the parties send the documents to their "people" to iron out all the tricky bits (trivialities such as which god to worship and who gets the Balkans!). It was much easier in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings where the ground opened up and the orcs just fell into a big hole!

 

[Brian G Turner]

Coming at this from my reading of Ancient Rome and mediaeval history,

Two warring sides in a civil war - a queen and a duke

Actually, that reminds me of: The Anarchy - Wikipedia

Simply put: 12th century England, Henry I lost his only son in a shipwrecj, leaving his daughter Matilda in line for succession - something the Duke of Normandy refused to accept. There then followed a long and protracted civil war and stalemate. Queen Matilda and the Duke of Normandy finally came to an agreement in that the Duke would rule, but Matilda's son would inherit the throne after him - becoming Henry II.

The other thing about treaties is how messy they are. The process of writing one is lengthy and even when they work, nobody really feels that they've won.

Subordinates can be left with the messy details of ensuring that demands are met. I would expect these subordinates would have already thrashed out all of the actual detail before the treaty was signed. The aristocracy would probably be the most interested in seeing their rights and privileges respected, and any increase of that where possible.

This could be rather anticlimactic to read about in a novel, even if it was realistic.

Depends on where your focus is - if it's the ordinary people that simply having the arrogant and intractable nobility to agree to something that puts an end to war and suffering is a win. The actual details themselves may only matter to court chamberlains and the nobility themselves - and perhaps a few traders who gain or lose some key trading rights/opportunities because of political change.

Anyway, just 2c.

 

[Venusian Broon]

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, to start with an 'unreasonable' position in something like agreeing a treaty .

If you go in assuming that there will be compromising and that you will very probably have to give ground, then start with a position that gives you more than you want. (Also I think you have to assume that the other side(s) will be doing exactly the same). So a bit like haggling - if you are selling something, start higher than the real price you want to sell, as you know the buyer will be driving it down. If the other side unexpectedly gives in, then you get more, which is a bonus! The problem, of course, is that you might go so unrealistic with your demands that it riles the other parties and argreement is curtailed. So I guess there's a sweet spot to aim for in competant discussions.

There also could be good reasons, (or well, at least, reasons) why some parties may have a antagonistic position that will never be accepted by others, at least for period of time. Certainly in the thirty years war there was a dynamic between the negotiations and the military operations. The war was prolonged, as both sides, knowing they could not knock each out cleanly sought, at least, to get the upper hand in the field as that would strengthen their bargaining position in the talks. If your side was doing poorly and losing battles, then you could try and stall the peace talks in order to raise more strength, get other allies or turn around the campaign.

I am sure there are people who were cantankerous enough to never give any ground, given their ideololgy or beliefs, yet at some point the real world will impinge. If there is eternal war eventually there will be no people left - but well before that, most societes will weary of the destruction and force compromise onto their envoys to find peace.

Yes treaties are messy but that's because real life is messy and if you are going to agree to something, you have to cover all the technical details - send in the lawyers! The Magna Carta is held as being revolutionary for the principle that it entertained - it was the King surrendering some of his power to his people. Yet the reality is that is it is a lot of very specific details mainly related to giving advantages and rights to the most powerful members of the society, the Barons and Lords.

I would say you simplify this technical document when you go back to sell and explain the treaty to your power base - definitely not let them dwell on the tricky bits, as they could blow up in your face and cause dissent, I would imagine. Spin doctors would be invaluable here.

Surely the best treaties that work are the ones that can be interpreted by all sides as winning (and actually the more complicated the treaty the better, as you can hide stuff from causal readers), even when there have been compromises and losses. I would say it is a very poor treaty that makes both sides unhappy.

 

[The Judge]

Actually, that reminds me of: The Anarchy - Wikipedia

Simply put: 12th century England, Henry I lost his only son in a shipwrecj, leaving his daughter Matilda in line for succession - something the Duke of Normandy refused to accept. There then followed a long and protracted civil war and stalemate. Queen Matilda and the Duke of Normandy finally came to an agreement in that the Duke would rule, but Matilda's son would inherit the throne after him - becoming Henry II.

You must have missed my post which already pointed Toby there! (And feminists will disagree with the "refused to accept it" line. He'd sworn before Henry to accept Matilda as Queen, but using the premise of the need to preserve order -- which then brought about years of bloodshed -- he decided to grab power for himself.)

 

[Brian G Turner]

Whoops, sorry TJ.

 

[zmunkz]

Don't leave out motivations when you structure the debates. As mentioned above, not everybody just comes to the table with the intention of meeting in the middle ground. Everyone wants something, and the people that are in charge might not even be present. Things play out for a variety of reasons often far separated from the issue at hand.

One example that comes to mind is the Council of Nicea. On the surface, this was meant to "settle" two conflicting schools of thought on the divinity/nature of Jesus, but if you read more about it (Bart Ehrman is a great source), you'll find that the entire meeting exists in the context of Emperor Constantine attempting to consolidate his influence across the empire. He wasn't even interested in the the argument or the outcome, he just wanted the parties unified to serve his own unrelated efforts elsewhere. This influenced the way the council unfolded and the pressures behind them.