Is Clyntahn an atheist?

n7axw wrote:Just a couple of comments... "So far as we know..." Truth of the matter be known, we know very little of that early period from textev. Just enough to fuel speculation; good speculation, perhaps, but speculation nonetheless.

Why the earth pattern for an aristocrisy? My own guess is that the archangels must have implemented it. They are the ones who would have known of dukes, earls, barons, etc. And it does fit the medieval pattern they apparently wanted.

Now about the republic... That had to be one of Shan-wei's re-educated colonists; no other way to account for it. For the archangels themselves to have told Safehold about republics and offer choices would be completely contrary to character and the strait jacket they were trying to impose in other ways.

Don

We've invented on Earth a huge variety of governments. Even in the medieval stasis Langhorne and Bedard figured they had achieved, they could count on a variety of governments popping up. Planting one republic among them, and giving it at least the tolerant acceptance by the Church and Archangels, would mean that when - not if, when - other states evolved into republics, that would not be something taken to be contrary to Church doctrine or a cause for a change in it. Siddermark made republicanism safe for the Church.

Safe enough, anyway. I doubt they were thrilled by it, and the support in scripture for all those other kingdoms and aristocracy everywhere does imply a preference for hereditary government forms. Certainly the way the Church has developed, and the way that noble families get tied to the church hierarchy, mean that the Church isn't comfortable with Siddermark and the reduced traction it has in Siddermark's direction. But the straitjacket has to have some give, and I think Siddermark's political make-up is part of that in Langhorne and Bedard's design.

And to make up for it, Siddermark's leadership is still from among a select group of families with a franchise that's distinctly limited. Practically, that's not unlike a monarchy elected from members of an extended royal family by the members of the extended royal family. It may be a lot more subject to change in a genuinely democratic direction - there's no aristocratic ideology to overcome there, "merely" political reform - but the Church has been able to head that off til now.

In some ways, a constitutional monarchy with a parliament with some genuine power that includes representation on a wider franchise is at least as democratic as Siddermark. Charis, Corisande, and Chisholm at least have been heading in that direction even before Merlin. (You have to count teensy-tiny baby steps, especially in Corisande's case, but still, it's measurable movement.) The Out Islands represent another way of taking on the myth of aristocracy: instead of not having that myth but still having leading families of the Republic, they've had an aristocracy that's open to entry by commoners who get money, and an aristocracy that's not necessarily all bound up with land. That's been the model in Charis, at least, and I suspect Emerald. We don't see much of that in Corisande or Chisholm, but we do see a decent bit of social mobility in army and naval service there at least.

n7axw wrote:
I think you are right on this one. According to the story, they were using standard English with the accent of the various regions drifting apart over time. Language flows out of culture. What would have happened to language when the colonists memories were wiped undoubtedly could be a complex discussion all by itself.

Don

Not exactly, Don. We know that the language stayed the same except for pronunciation. Had the grammar shifted sufficiently, Merlin could not have begun active operations in Charis as quickly as he did. He had no way of learning language quickly without the high speed data port. As we read in OAR, Merlin had no problems in communication worth noting to the reader. His accent was mentioned several times throughout the novels, but not any inability to convey his intended meaning or understand comments directed to him.

My recollection might be off, but even the spelling is the same. Consider that the Writ was written by divine beings and so their choice of spelling would carry more weight than the chosen spelling in Terran history. I recalled that RFC mentioned his outré spelling of names was an attempt to capture the shift in pronunciation, not denote a fundemental shift in the language.

So Safehold speaks English sufficiently similar to the version Nimue spoke before Operation ark was launched for Merlin to develop a working knowledge of in a few weeks after waking.

JeffEngel wrote:

n7axw wrote:Just a couple of comments... "So far as we know..." Truth of the matter be known, we know very little of that early period from textev. Just enough to fuel speculation; good speculation, perhaps, but speculation nonetheless.

Why the earth pattern for an aristocrisy? My own guess is that the archangels must have implemented it. They are the ones who would have known of dukes, earls, barons, etc. And it does fit the medieval pattern they apparently wanted.

Now about the republic... That had to be one of Shan-wei's re-educated colonists; no other way to account for it. For the archangels themselves to have told Safehold about republics and offer choices would be completely contrary to character and the strait jacket they were trying to impose in other ways.

Don

We've invented on Earth a huge variety of governments. Even in the medieval stasis Langhorne and Bedard figured they had achieved, they could count on a variety of governments popping up. Planting one republic among them, and giving it at least the tolerant acceptance by the Church and Archangels, would mean that when - not if, when - other states evolved into republics, that would not be something taken to be contrary to Church doctrine or a cause for a change in it. Siddermark made republicanism safe for the Church.

Safe enough, anyway. I doubt they were thrilled by it, and the support in scripture for all those other kingdoms and aristocracy everywhere does imply a preference for hereditary government forms. Certainly the way the Church has developed, and the way that noble families get tied to the church hierarchy, mean that the Church isn't comfortable with Siddermark and the reduced traction it has in Siddermark's direction. But the straitjacket has to have some give, and I think Siddermark's political make-up is part of that in Langhorne and Bedard's design.

And to make up for it, Siddermark's leadership is still from among a select group of families with a franchise that's distinctly limited. Practically, that's not unlike a monarchy elected from members of an extended royal family by the members of the extended royal family. It may be a lot more subject to change in a genuinely democratic direction - there's no aristocratic ideology to overcome there, "merely" political reform - but the Church has been able to head that off til now.

In some ways, a constitutional monarchy with a parliament with some genuine power that includes representation on a wider franchise is at least as democratic as Siddermark. Charis, Corisande, and Chisholm at least have been heading in that direction even before Merlin. (You have to count teensy-tiny baby steps, especially in Corisande's case, but still, it's measurable movement.) The Out Islands represent another way of taking on the myth of aristocracy: instead of not having that myth but still having leading families of the Republic, they've had an aristocracy that's open to entry by commoners who get money, and an aristocracy that's not necessarily all bound up with land. That's been the model in Charis, at least, and I suspect Emerald. We don't see much of that in Corisande or Chisholm, but we do see a decent bit of social mobility in army and naval service there at least.

Hi JeffEngel,

In a way, one can understand the rise of aristocracy as a natural phenomenom that occurs when the more capable assume dominance over their fellows either by force or by economic means. Or sometimes the one who can provide leadership or protection in times of danger becomes the aristocrat. Then the thing tend to ossify as it institutionalizes and aristocratic status becomes a matter of assumed right by a restricted group of families--the heirs of the original aristocrats--- rather than any real merit.

Republics are a bit harder to explain. But perhaps they happen when survival pressure becomes less intense and commoners begin demanding rights of their own. I need to study this a bit more thoroughly.

One more thought...The family is always the basic unit. That evolves into the extended family, the binding of families into tribes and then what, speaking very losely, the binding of tribes into the nation state. Lots of variations on this, of course.

Safehold seems to have skipped the tribal phase, unless you want to consider the enclave the tribe. Evolving away from a commom cultural template makes Safehold seem a bit unnatural.

Don

PeterZ wrote:

n7axw wrote:
I think you are right on this one. According to the story, they were using standard English with the accent of the various regions drifting apart over time. Language flows out of culture. What would have happened to language when the colonists memories were wiped undoubtedly could be a complex discussion all by itself.

Don

Not exactly, Don. We know that the language stayed the same except for pronunciation. Had the grammar shifted sufficiently, Merlin could not have begun active operations in Charis as quickly as he did. He had no way of learning language quickly without the high speed data port. As we read in OAR, Merlin had no problems in communication worth noting to the reader. His accent was mentioned several times throughout the novels, but not any inability to convey his intended meaning or understand comments directed to him.

My recollection might be off, but even the spelling is the same. Consider that the Writ was written by divine beings and so their choice of spelling would carry more weight than the chosen spelling in Terran history. I recalled that RFC mentioned his outré spelling of names was an attempt to capture the shift in pronunciation, not denote a fundemental shift in the language.

So Safehold speaks English sufficiently similar to the version Nimue spoke before Operation ark was launched for Merlin to develop a working knowledge of in a few weeks after waking.

Hi PeterZ,

I thought I said that! By accent I was refering to the shift in pronounciation. So far as I see we agree.

Don

n7axw wrote:

n7axw wrote:
I think you are right on this one. According to the story, they were using standard English with the accent of the various regions drifting apart over time. Language flows out of culture. What would have happened to language when the colonists memories were wiped undoubtedly could be a complex discussion all by itself.

Don

Hi PeterZ,

I thought I said that! By accent I was refering to the shift in pronounciation. So far as I see we agree.

Don

My bad. Your last 2 sentence threw me.

JeffEngel wrote:snip
And to make up for it, Siddermark's leadership is still from among a select group of families with a franchise that's distinctly limited. Practically, that's not unlike a monarchy elected from members of an extended royal family by the members of the extended royal family. It may be a lot more subject to change in a genuinely democratic direction - there's no aristocratic ideology to overcome there, "merely" political reform - but the Church has been able to head that off til now.
snip

Siddarmark can be considered a self-perpetuating oligarchy. The franshise is limited, and the right to hold office is even more severely limited (although subject to change in the near future).

Republics seem to result from situations where there's no real primus inter pares, and alliances are naturally fluid - often in the aftermath of the ouster of a particularly unpopular tyrant. If the combination of no one having the powerbase to put himself unequivocally in charge, and everyone with some power being willing to band together to keep any one of them from _building_ such a base persists for a couple of generations, it becomes a constitutional habit.

n7axw wrote:
Hi JeffEngel,
In a way, one can understand the rise of aristocracy as a natural phenomenom that occurs when the more capable assume dominance over their fellows either by force or by economic means. Or sometimes the one who can provide leadership or protection in times of danger becomes the aristocrat. Then the thing tend to ossify as it institutionalizes and aristocratic status becomes a matter of assumed right by a restricted group of families--the heirs of the original aristocrats--- rather than any real merit.

Republics are a bit harder to explain. But perhaps they happen when survival pressure becomes less intense and commoners begin demanding rights of their own. I need to study this a bit more thoroughly.

One more thought...The family is always the basic unit. That evolves into the extended family, the binding of families into tribes and then what, speaking very losely, the binding of tribes into the nation state. Lots of variations on this, of course.

Safehold seems to have skipped the tribal phase, unless you want to consider the enclave the tribe. Evolving away from a commom cultural template makes Safehold seem a bit unnatural.

Don

a point of order:

Sparta was most emphatically not a republic. In fact, it was unique among the Classical Greek poleis in remaining not simply a monarchy but a dual monarchy: it had two kings, one from each of the Agid and Eurypontid families. Mind you, by the end of the 5th century it was rather unusual for both to be around at the same time. Both families had fallen on rather hard times and one or the other of the kings was constantly getting himself exiled, often on rather odd pretexts.

It was Athens that was the Republic. Or would have been if there'd been a formal mechanism for choosing the leadership.

Highjohn wrote:About Aristocrats. Aristocracies are naturally arising. See Merovingian Gaul(Or the entire world) for an example. Also David Weber thinks they are a natural occurrence. See Honorverse.


Republics, though usually of an oligarchical sort are also naturally arising though less so than aristocracies. See, Kingdom of Jerusalem(Crusader state). Norse Things(capital T) sometimes called All Things, though that refers to a different thing(both upper and lowercase t). Roman Republic and Sparta. Also the holy Roman Empire, which had an elective monarchy, though eventually the franchise got extremely limited. Poland-Lithuanian also had an elective monarchy and a parliament, with a fairly broad franchise. However it had big problems.


Democracies/Republics with a very broad franchise are extremely rare. I in fact know of only one example, prior to the 19th century and that example is in one place and only then for relatively small periods of time, with frequent disruptions by coups and political takeovers. That would be Ancient Athens. the best example would be around the time of the first Peloponnesian war.


Note on the Emergence or Aristocracies: I could point to more examples of them, as stated almost the entire world has had a legally enshrined aristocracy at some point or other. But, Merovingian Gaul, emerged from a complete collapse of government. That is the Merovingian's didn't inherit their power from someone else, or take over another group's system, like the Carolingians(See Charlemagne's grandfather) did. The Merovingian's created a state from scratch, so the emergence of an aristocracy can be said to be truly a change in the way things were.

fallsfromtrees wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:snip
And to make up for it, Siddermark's leadership is still from among a select group of families with a franchise that's distinctly limited. Practically, that's not unlike a monarchy elected from members of an extended royal family by the members of the extended royal family. It may be a lot more subject to change in a genuinely democratic direction - there's no aristocratic ideology to overcome there, "merely" political reform - but the Church has been able to head that off til now.
snip

Siddarmark can be considered a self-perpetuating oligarchy. The franshise is limited, and the right to hold office is even more severely limited (although subject to change in the near future).

Exactly, yes. I don't think we've got too much information about the foundation of the Republic, but one possibility is that it came about as a fusion of little aristocratic states, electing a common government from among the leading families. If you started there and just weakened the sense of sub-national identity and aristocratic status, you'd have the current Siddermark.

It's not all that democratic. It's just got a different path from where it is now to a genuinely, robustly representative government than, say, Charis. The Church's traditional misgivings about it needn't be so much ideological as that it's large, it has been expansive, it's been successfully expansive, and it's right there on the same continent without being as utterly orthodox and in-hand as Harchong.

n7axw

Yes the family does tend to be the basic unit of human groups. However. This can be changed. Examples, single people within larger societies. Tribal groups, these can turn into a larger family were basically everyone is your immediate family even if there are fifty of them. Some groups completely remove any loyalty to the immediate family. Religions, see monks/nuns in Catholicism. OR in modern times at least the entire Catholic priesthood.

Also you may want to look up fictive kinship with regards to the 'barbarians' who 'invaded' the Western Roman Empire. Those groups may have been called various names, but they could also have been completely artificial.


Louis R

Welcome to the forum.

However, you need to look up how the Spartans decided to go to war. The Spartans were not a democracy(Which Athens was) but they did have votes on some topics, make them at least a partial republic.


Note One: Athens was NOT a republic. It was a democracy.

Note Two: The word king gets misused allot. For instance after the Revolution of 1688 William the III was 'king' of England. However he actually had very little power and in was given too little money by parliament to run the kingdom and therefore had to ask parliament for new funds each year. So saying Sparta had kings doesn't automatically mean it was a traditional hereditary monarchy.