Life Cycle of a Revolution, Part 1

Back in March, I wrote about how several historical empires of the ancient and medieval worlds followed essentially the same arc in a two part series (you can check out part 1 and part 2). We can use that arc as a way to quickly build a history for a custom, fictional world's empires, giving them historical depth, evolution, and plausibility. Subscribers were able to read an example that I wrote up for an empire in my homebrew world.

As I wrote those articles, I also had the thought about another historical cycle that I've listened to ample podcasts about. This cycle is about revolutions, particularly revolutionary history between 1600 and 1920. You can listen to the fantastic inspiration and major source for this post, the Revolutions podcast by Mike Duncan, wherever you get your podcasts. As of 2025, he is using the framework that he developed to tell a science-fiction narrative about a Martian Revolution, so he is even providing a great example of how to apply this framework to give depth to a fictional revolution himself.

Keep in mind that this revolutionary cycle is way shorter than the imperial cycle. Where a revolution is likely tapped out by a generation, our imperial cycle spanned centuries. The whole revolutionary cycle could be neatly fit into one stage of our imperial cycle.

Without further ado, the life cycle of a revolution, as inspired by the analysis of Mike Duncan:

Historical Cycle

Phase 1: Destabilization

To quote Mike Duncan, "you can't have a revolution without something to overthrow." Any revolution should begin with identifying what the previous regime was. These regimes are often not all that ancient in practice, and usually major reforms to a system of government happen every few decades to adapt to changing circumstances. Think about the system as probably being radically altered within the past 100 years at max, and set that as your existing system.

Duncan points out that any prior regime needs to have been successful at answering the social and political circumstances of its time, when it was established. That is how it cemented power. When worldbuilding, we should think about what previous conflict the regime was designed to answer. And often, ironically, it is the very characteristics that made a regime so successful at answering a previous circumstance that sets up the problems of the revolutionary era.

For example, the ancien regime of France before the French Revolution was radically altered by the absolutist reforms of Louis XIV in the aftermath of noble rebellions. The question of the day was about the power of an independent nobility, and the French regime answered that question decisively by curbing the nobility's power and building out Versailles as a site for petty ceremonial noble squabbles, instead of letting the nobility have any real, independent power. Around 100 years later, it was in large part the excessive luxury of Versailles--essential for impressing and suppressing the nobility--that was a key cause of the revolution.

The thing that makes a stable regime stable is not that it has eliminated all opposition from [the] out of favor wing of the ruling class, but rather that it has made those out of favor as small and ineffectual as possible, unable to pose a real challenge to the regime.

Something needs to destabilize this existing regime for the seeds of revolution to take place. Duncan identifies this as the creation of a key division within the ruling class, usually between 10 and 30 years before the revolution. There is always some discontented wing of the ruling class that is out of favor, but a successful regime is able to keep this in the legal, ordinary modes of conflict. When a big enough division occurs, elites begin looking for a way to respond outside of the existing political structure.

Often this split comes from a new influx of people into the ruling class, which is why revolution and major economic shifts tend to coincide. The influx of wealth that industrialization and colonialism brought to Europe's bourgeoisie made them eager to enter the ruling class that was previously exclusively noble.

There are two modes in which this disequilibrium truly enters the picture. The first is when this new wave is embraced by the sovereign, who introduces reforms that are staunchly resisted by the previous elite. This is what happened in the English Civil War and the American Revolution, as the British crown tried to expand taxes and central control over the previous elite (the nobility and the colonial landowners, respectively). We'll call this the resistance mode, because it is led by existing elites seeking to resist reforms.

The second mode is when progressive reformers are rejected by a stubborn sovereign sticking with the existing power holders. In the buildup to the Revolutions of 1848, for example, the monarchs of Europe stuck with Metternich and the conservative order against increasing agitation from the wealthy bourgeoisie, and destabilized their regimes. We'll call this the frustration mode, because it is led by frustrated, reform-minded elites seeking to exert power.

Combined with new rhetorical ideas--like Enlightenment concepts about liberty, or about socialist ideas about equality--this resistance or frustration can become an existential threat that touches on moral beliefs. The result is that the previously stable regime appears no longer suitable to a whole segment of the elite.

Phase 2: A Shock to the System

The disequilibrium of frustration or resistance is still largely amorphous until something rocks the system and hardens opposition against compromise. Duncan identifies that this is something which happens 2-3 years before the revolution breaks out, a number that is "weirdly consistent" across the revolutions that he has looked at in his podcast.

This shock to the system can be wide ranging and hard to predict. It is religious in the English Civil War, economic for the American Revolution (the Tea Act and Boston Tea Party) and French Revolution (the Crown's bankruptcy), military for the Russian Revolution (the Russo-Japanese War or World War I) and Spanish-American Revolutions (the Napoleonic Wars), and political for the Mexican Revolution against Porfirio Diaz (his infamous Creelman Interview). Because the shock can really be anything, this is a great opportunity for creativity, to make the particulars of your revolution fit with your world.

Regardless of what this shock is, its effect is to reveal that the existing regime is weak and ineffectual. War is an easy way to make this reveal, but as mentioned before, it is certainly not the only one. By revealing the weakness of the regime, those disaffected elites--the ones experiencing resistance or frustration--harden their attitudes and start thinking that their time to win what they want is now, not in the future.

Phase 3: Revolutionary Trigger

The thing that turns a hardened resistance from one segment of the elite that sees a weakness in the regime into a revolution is the trigger point. This is usually easy to see in hindsight, but in the moment, it might just feel like a dramatic event--one of several that might have been taking place since the initial shock to the system.

These triggers are also usually unplanned. There may be revolutionary societies trying to organize resistance, but when the dramatic event happens, it even catches them offguard and trying to catch up to events. No patriots planned Lexington and Concord, no revolutionary planned the fall of the Bastille, and Francisco Madero was desperately trying to avoid launching himself into revolt until the fraudulent re-election of Porfirio Diaz was ratified. The trigger for the Russian Revolution of 1917 was that it was a nice, warm day, and so people were outside.

Mike Duncan puts their commonality the best by saying: "what nearly all of them have in common is that the sovereign made some kind of final, provocative move.... They try to take our guns, they try to take our rights, they try to take our lives. The initial trigger is pulled by the regime. And the explosion of... revolutionary energy... is almost always a defensive response to some kind of perceived threat or provocation."

What makes this moment different from previous dramatic acts is that it releases popular forces into what had previously been a conflict just among the elite. The people by themselves, without a division in the elite, would struggle to overthrow the regime: there's simply too much arrayed against them if the elite are united. But once the system has been destabilized and revealed as weak to a segment of the elite, a final trigger that brings the people into the streets is all that is necessary to unleash the hard-to-control masses in a way that is actually threatening to the system.

The revolution has begun.

Conclusion

The revolution has begun, and next week, we'll cover the next stages of the revolution as it dramatically unseats the regime and begins building something new.

Subscribers to the blog will not only get that post delivered to their inbox so that they don't miss it. They can read on to see me apply these first three stages of revolution to my own homebrew world, to see this applied in practice to a fantasy realm. You can subscribe weekly, to get every post as it comes out; or monthly, getting a roundup newsletter that also has recommendations and shoutouts to other TTRPG creators. And it is all free! Subscribe now to keep reading!