Cayleb and Merlin disagreement (possible spoilers)

Dilandu's point about monarchies is a good one although it probably doesn't apply to the Safehold story.

Yet there have been Empires whose value is such that they provided atability for their people over an extended time frame...Rome being the most outstanding example.

Democracies and republics don't have a great record in terms of durability either.

I'm no fan of monarchies and artistocracies in real life. Yet they do keep croping up...and simetimes they even work, at least for a while.

Don

-

Dilandu wrote:
So, unless you are ready to threw away all this "all peoples born equal" stuff, and start some pretty serious eugenic to create real superhuman - there always be perfect potential for just one fool to crash the mighty empire. Recall the history of Spain, the history of Russia, the history of China.

In the case of Spain, the 17th century decline had a little to do with seriously bad inbreeding, although the structural flaws were already present by the end of Philip II's reign. While I'm not fully in agreement with Dilandu's arguments, this one is a very good example of his essential point.

Keith_w wrote:
Charis has survived Kings not trusted with the big secret before, no reason not to again if necessary.

Yes, but now time is running low. First, they have the Archangels to deal with. Second, with the industrialization already ahead, there is "time compression" - i.e. the window of opportunity for any crisis is much smaller just because of faster transportation and data exchange.

Keith_w wrote:And it's not like Merlin and Nimue cannot go off and change their looks and return to Charis in a generation or so, or work other places to achieve their ultimate goal, which is to return mankind to the stars. The industrialization genie is out of the bottle. Nothing can put it back.

Of course - problem is, that the mere goal of overall progress is incompatible with long-therm Empire survival. Empires could trive and be progressive only as long as they could expand. After the expansion stopped, there are stagnation, then decline. Charis already devoured basically everything outside the large continents. Any attempts to push on Howard and Haven would, probably, led to the unified opposition from every continental nations (just because they all would star to worry "who is next?"). There are very limited territories for colonization (largerly Armageddon Reefs). So, the stagnation phase seems nearby.

And let's not forget, technological development led to social development. Sonner or later, Safehold hit the nationalizm era - and all those Corisandians, Emeraldians & others would suddenly realize, that they want independence, not "good monarchy". Recall the fate of Austria-Hungarian Empire - how fast it became incapable of doing anything. And even the British Empire was forced to get rid of some of her territories (like Ireland) and turn her most important colonies (Canada, Australia) into semi-independent dominions.

Simply speaking - attempts to build empires from multiple nations work well only in pre-nationalizm era. After that, you need other forms rather than direct control.

Regarding Alannah - there's already a clue in the At The Sign of Triumph that she's not going to be a Hektor Jr type of heir. When Merlin tells her he can't spend time with her because he's going on duty, this four year old just goes 'oh, okay'.

She already has an understanding that 'duty' is more important than her own personal wishes. If she can manage that at four, I think she'll manage that at twenty four - even if she has a rebellious adolescence in-between.

Of course, I may be biased, because I live in a country that managed a bumpy thousand year ride from ruling monarch to constitutional monarch. There's no reason in my history book that the Ahrmahk's can't have a similarly long run (even if one of them manages to get their head chopped off by enraged citizenry).

n7axw wrote:Dilandu's point about monarchies is a good one although it probably doesn't apply to the Safehold story.

Yet there have been Empires whose value is such that they provided atability for their people over an extended time frame...Rome being the most outstanding example.

Democracies and republics don't have a great record in terms of durability either.

I'm no fan of monarchies and artistocracies in real life. Yet they do keep croping up...and simetimes they even work, at least for a while.

Don

-

I would like to point out that, except for the time under the "Lord Protector" the British monarchy has lasted 950 years, much of it as a true monarchy, not a constitutional one, and mostly a very successful one. The British Empire as in "The Sun never sets on the British Empire" lasted over 250 years.

Dilandu wrote:

Keith_w wrote:
Charis has survived Kings not trusted with the big secret before, no reason not to again if necessary.

Yes, but now time is running low. First, they have the Archangels to deal with. Second, with the industrialization already ahead, there is "time compression" - i.e. the window of opportunity for any crisis is much smaller just because of faster transportation and data exchange.

Yes, but unless something truly untoward happens, Cayleb and Sharleyan are still going to be in charge when the Archangels return, and they will be that much older and that much more experienced and will have a much better developed military as well as foreknowledge of the probably arrival.

Keith_w wrote:And it's not like Merlin and Nimue cannot go off and change their looks and return to Charis in a generation or so, or work other places to achieve their ultimate goal, which is to return mankind to the stars. The industrialization genie is out of the bottle. Nothing can put it back.

Dilandu wrote:Of course - problem is, that the mere goal of overall progress is incompatible with long-therm Empire survival. Empires could trive and be progressive only as long as they could expand. After the expansion stopped, there are stagnation, then decline. Charis already devoured basically everything outside the large continents. Any attempts to push on Howard and Haven would, probably, led to the unified opposition from every continental nations (just because they all would star to worry "who is next?"). There are very limited territories for colonization (largerly Armageddon Reefs). So, the stagnation phase seems nearby.

This is not necessarily so. Empires do not have to continuously expand their territory to thrive, the growth of business should be sufficient to support the empire as long as innovation can take place.

Dilandu wrote:And let's not forget, technological development led to social development. Sonner or later, Safehold hit the nationalizm era - and all those Corisandians, Emeraldians & others would suddenly realize, that they want independence, not "good monarchy". Recall the fate of Austria-Hungarian Empire - how fast it became incapable of doing anything. And even the British Empire was forced to get rid of some of her territories (like Ireland) and turn her most important colonies (Canada, Australia) into semi-independent dominions.

Ireland was always a pain in the ass. If Henry II hadn't had to protect his back from the Cambo-Norman knights who invaded Ireland in 1169, it would have saved everyone a lot of trouble. On the other hand, England wouldn't have had the Irish soldiers in the English army when they built the Empire and defeated Napoleon twice. As for Canada and Australia, England learned it's lesson from the rebels in the 13 colonies. When we wanted to go (I'm Canadian) they were quite willing to work with us to do so peacefully. One of the major factors in the decision for the Canadian colonies to become their own country (1867, 150 years young next July 1) was the US Civil War, which left the Northern states with a standing army of Millions and nothing good to do with it. The town I live in was founded by the son of a United Empire Loyalist. Many of the United Empire Loyalists moved to the Canadian colonies at the end of the revolution in the 13 colonies and for some unknown reason were not very willing to have the United States take over those colonies.

Dilandu wrote:
Simply speaking - attempts to build empires from multiple nations work well only in pre-nationalizm era. After that, you need other forms rather than direct control.

Geeze, it was not fun to edit the quotes so things get attributed properly. Edited to fix that stuff up.

Keith_w wrote:This is not necessarily so. Empires do not have to continuously expand their territory to thrive, the growth of business should be sufficient to support the empire as long as innovation can take place.

Well, let's look at Britain. By the start of XX century, the empire was pretty clearly in stagnation - despite the innovations. The treaties with France and Russia made further colonial expansion impossible... and the Empire quickly lost the world number one status to Germany and USA.

Dilandu wrote:

Keith_w wrote:This is not necessarily so. Empires do not have to continuously expand their territory to thrive, the growth of business should be sufficient to support the empire as long as innovation can take place.

Well, let's look at Britain. By the start of XX century, the empire was pretty clearly in stagnation - despite the innovations. The treaties with France and Russia made further colonial expansion impossible... and the Empire quickly lost the world number one status to Germany and USA.

The Empire lost world no. 1 status after World War One. Britain lost its Empire after World War Two. Note the pattern - not so much stagnation, more financial bankruptcy and societal exhaustion from two major wars.

Whether the UK would have clung onto its industrial and trading empire longer if they'd stayed out of both wars is a moot point - but if the choice is between losing an Empire or fighting the Nazi's, I'd go for fighting the Nazi's every time.

I wonder which history Charis is following? If they're the British Empire On Safehold, they'll lose their Empire - but win against the Gbaba.

Bluesqueak wrote:
The Empire lost world no. 1 status after World War One. Britain lost its Empire after World War Two.

Actually, even before. By 1914, both USA and Germany were superior to Britain in terms of industrial development; each of them produced more coal, steel and iron than Britain. While Britain still have 1st world cargo navy and colonial empire, she was already third by 1914. The defeat of Germany allowed Britain to hold second position in the world, but basically, this was only a fiction; Britain proved to be unable to sucsessfully recover after World War I, and during World War II was clearly placed on fourth place after USA, USSR and Germany.

Dilandu wrote:

Bluesqueak wrote:
The Empire lost world no. 1 status after World War One. Britain lost its Empire after World War Two.

Actually, even before. By 1914, both USA and Germany were superior to Britain in terms of industrial development; each of them produced more coal, steel and iron than Britain. While Britain still have 1st world cargo navy and colonial empire, she was already third by 1914. The defeat of Germany allowed Britain to hold second position in the world, but basically, this was only a fiction; Britain proved to be unable to sucsessfully recover after World War I, and during World War II was clearly placed on fourth place after USA, USSR and Germany.

You're confusing 'the Empire' with 'Britain'. I definitely said 'Empire'.

The industry and GDP of 'Britain' (big island off the coast of Europe, think 'Old Charis') is not the same as the industry and GDP of 'the Empire' (think 'Old Charis' plus 'Chisholm' plus 'Emerald' plus...).

Germany, btw, came out even worse from World War One than did Britain (the island). The US was the only one of the three to really prosper.