The equivalent of Zherneau in Siddarmark?

Owl said there were 220 colonists who knew the truth about the archangels because Shan-Wei re-educated them with NEATS. Who wants to bet that some of them were responsible for planting the idea of the Republic in Siddarmark? The republic seems to be a little too close to early colonial America for it to be a completely homegrown Safeholdian institution.

Tararoys wrote:Owl said there were 220 colonists who knew the truth about the archangels because Shan-Wei re-educated them with NEATS. Who wants to bet that some of them were responsible for planting the idea of the Republic in Siddarmark? The republic seems to be a little too close to early colonial America for it to be a completely homegrown Safeholdian institution.

The thing is, we know next to nothing about Siddarmark's early history except that it apparently started in the city of Siddar.

For all we know, Siddarmark is a Republic because the "Angel" in charge of Siddar promoted representative democracy, whereas the patron angel supported a more aristocracy based power structure.

evilauthor wrote:

Tararoys wrote:Owl said there were 220 colonists who knew the truth about the archangels because Shan-Wei re-educated them with NEATS. Who wants to bet that some of them were responsible for planting the idea of the Republic in Siddarmark? The republic seems to be a little too close to early colonial America for it to be a completely homegrown Safeholdian institution.

The thing is, we know next to nothing about Siddarmark's early history except that it apparently started in the city of Siddar.

For all we know, Siddarmark is a Republic because the "Angel" in charge of Siddar promoted representative democracy, whereas the patron angel supported a more aristocracy based power structure.

Actually we know a bit more about Siddarmark than this. RFC posted in the "Levelers:Using the church against each other" thread that Siddamark began as a collection of city states with traditions of liberty that consolidated to eventually become the Republic.

The post is on p. 3 of that thread. Interesting reading.

Don

evilauthor wrote:

Tararoys wrote:Owl said there were 220 colonists who knew the truth about the archangels because Shan-Wei re-educated them with NEATS. Who wants to bet that some of them were responsible for planting the idea of the Republic in Siddarmark? The republic seems to be a little too close to early colonial America for it to be a completely homegrown Safeholdian institution.

The thing is, we know next to nothing about Siddarmark's early history except that it apparently started in the city of Siddar.

For all we know, Siddarmark is a Republic because the "Angel" in charge of Siddar promoted representative democracy, whereas the patron angel supported a more aristocracy based power structure.

It's not quite unique in being a republic even now: that's a fine description of the Temple Lands itself. From what we saw of the people on Lake Pei before the Fall, they didn't have an aristocracy then either. Between then and now, it's wide open what proportion of Safehold's states were more-or-less republics versus more-or-less aristocracies.

It's also worth noting that the aristocracy versus republic distinction can easily be overdrawn on Safehold. Siddarmark and the Temple Lands may not have an aristocracy as such, but the ruling class is practically almost totally hereditary, while the aristocracy in Charis (at least) is permeable by successful merchants, and your blood needn't be blue to have a lot of pull in their House of Commons.

I think Siddarmark looking a bit much like the U.S. comes of being a (nearly) unique large republic in an age of cannons and muskets, reader identification with Siddarmark while being (in many cases) themselves patriotic Americans, and a handful of place names that overlap. It's entirely possible that some of Shan-wei's re-educated colonists were influential in proto-Siddarmark - they may have survived somewhere, after all, and may not have done nothing whatever that can be made out centuries later in hindsight - but the evidence is just barely stronger than none whatever.

Tararoys wrote:Owl said there were 220 colonists who knew the truth about the archangels because Shan-Wei re-educated them with NEATS. Who wants to bet that some of them were responsible for planting the idea of the Republic in Siddarmark? The republic seems to be a little too close to early colonial America for it to be a completely homegrown Safeholdian institution.

RFC has already stated that the Safeholdian realms republicanism (or lack thereof) is a factor of their history and the manner in which they consolidated. All of the enclaves stated out the same yet in the case of Siddarmark, the various city-states had consolidated willingly into a great nation whereas Harchong or Desnair had been the product of a single such city expanding through conquest. Indeed, as Cayleb's reflects in OAR, the Ahrmahks were simply the most successful pirates in Howard Bay who managed to impose their will through the Island of Charis to become the Kingdom of Charis. Saint Zherneau's influence was far more subtle at first and then slightly less subtle after the vault was opened and the truth was revealed. It also took them a while to get around to telling the Charisian monarchy about the diary of Saint Zherneau. So Siddarmark does not likely have it's version of the Brethren.

thanatos wrote:

Tararoys wrote:Owl said there were 220 colonists who knew the truth about the archangels because Shan-Wei re-educated them with NEATS. Who wants to bet that some of them were responsible for planting the idea of the Republic in Siddarmark? The republic seems to be a little too close to early colonial America for it to be a completely homegrown Safeholdian institution.

RFC has already stated that the Safeholdian realms republicanism (or lack thereof) is a factor of their history and the manner in which they consolidated. All of the enclaves stated out the same yet in the case of Siddarmark, the various city-states had consolidated willingly into a great nation whereas Harchong or Desnair had been the product of a single such city expanding through conquest. Indeed, as Cayleb's reflects in OAR, the Ahrmahks were simply the most successful pirates in Howard Bay who managed to impose their will through the Island of Charis to become the Kingdom of Charis. Saint Zherneau's influence was far more subtle at first and then slightly less subtle after the vault was opened and the truth was revealed. It also took them a while to get around to telling the Charisian monarchy about the diary of Saint Zherneau. So Siddarmark does not likely have it's version of the Brethren.

There isn't exactly a role for Brethren in Siddarmark whispering in the monarch's ear, what without a monarch. I suppose if we wanted to link people with Terran Federation political instincts to the development of Siddarmark, it may be better to look for (e.g.) some Adam or Eve political theorist in those early East Haven enclaves who extolled the equality of all before God and the Archangels, and described how democratic institutions could scale up, via elected, responsible representatives (just like Langhorne ordained for the Church then) to include multiple enclaves one day. (Or, it could have been a kind of trade organization, fostered by the Church and running along with it in proto-Siddarmark, that slipped away from Church patronage before the Church of those days cared.)

Proto-Siddarmark's quasi-Federalist doesn't require the kind of conspiracy and hiding of the Brethren of St. Zherneau - in fact, it does not even allow it. It doesn't even require someone recalling TF values and institutions: it's entirely possible that it was a spontaneous native development, perhaps originating in the early "international" relations of East Haven enclaves linked by canals and trade much more than enclaves elsewhere. (Charis and Trellheim had seas on which to go a-viking - you can't do that well by canal, so you're "doomed" to peaceful trade.) A bit of TF memory may make it a lot more likely, mind you, so there's a thin ledge on which to hang speculation.

Nit, while I don't remember reading much about the situation in the Temple Lands, I don't see the "powerful families" in Siddarmark as an aristocracy.

Aristocrats have political power by birth, not from being elected.

Siddarmark is a situation where one has to be wealthy to be elected into public office and has to be wealthy to vote.

For that matter, I seem to remember reading that in Siddarmark, the wealth necessary to vote is less than the wealth needed to be elected into public office.

Also, there appeared to be movements in Siddarmark to lower the "property requirements" for voting and for holding public office.

That's a very different political system than an aristocracy.

JeffEngel wrote:
It's not quite unique in being a republic even now: that's a fine description of the Temple Lands itself. From what we saw of the people on Lake Pei before the Fall, they didn't have an aristocracy then either. Between then and now, it's wide open what proportion of Safehold's states were more-or-less republics versus more-or-less aristocracies.

It's also worth noting that the aristocracy versus republic distinction can easily be overdrawn on Safehold. Siddarmark and the Temple Lands may not have an aristocracy as such, but the ruling class is practically almost totally hereditary, while the aristocracy in Charis (at least) is permeable by successful merchants, and your blood needn't be blue to have a lot of pull in their House of Commons.

I think Siddarmark looking a bit much like the U.S. comes of being a (nearly) unique large republic in an age of cannons and muskets, reader identification with Siddarmark while being (in many cases) themselves patriotic Americans, and a handful of place names that overlap. It's entirely possible that some of Shan-wei's re-educated colonists were influential in proto-Siddarmark - they may have survived somewhere, after all, and may not have done nothing whatever that can be made out centuries later in hindsight - but the evidence is just barely stronger than none whatever.

DrakBibliophile wrote:Nit, while I don't remember reading much about the situation in the Temple Lands, I don't see the "powerful families" in Siddarmark as an aristocracy.

Aristocrats have political power by birth, not from being elected.

Siddarmark is a situation where one has to be wealthy to be elected into public office and has to be wealthy to vote.

For that matter, I seem to remember reading that in Siddarmark, the wealth necessary to vote is less than the wealth needed to be elected into public office.

Also, there appeared to be movements in Siddarmark to lower the "property requirements" for voting and for holding public office.

That's a very different political system than an aristocracy.

We could fling around "plutocracy" if you'd rather.

Aristocracy proper and full-blown takes a purely hereditary rulership class, and no, neither Siddarmark nor the Temple Lands have that. However, in both of them, heredity is an excellent indicator, over multiple generations, for who is going to be ruling. In the Temple Lands, that's because wealth and Church position tend to go together, depend on one another, and get all but inherited together. In Siddarmark, property qualifications for voting and the office channel office into the hands of a small number of families.

In both cases, I'm pretty confident that traditional status also plays a large part, that (for instance) if you take two very wealthy Siddarmark patriarchs, and one of them has a family with a history of political leadership, he's got a much better chance of running for and being elected to office than the other, even if wealth, reputation, ambition, and political interest are all roughly equal.

That's not technically an aristocracy, no. But in practical terms, it's so close that you really, really can't stress its firm republicanism alone and paint an accurate picture.

Well I think you're seeing Siddarmark in a "darker" light than I do.

However, I chuckle when I think of how Clyntahn likely would think about our disagreement.

IE In his mind, both of us are thinking Heresy.

JeffEngel wrote:

DrakBibliophile wrote:Nit, while I don't remember reading much about the situation in the Temple Lands, I don't see the "powerful families" in Siddarmark as an aristocracy.

Aristocrats have political power by birth, not from being elected.

Siddarmark is a situation where one has to be wealthy to be elected into public office and has to be wealthy to vote.

For that matter, I seem to remember reading that in Siddarmark, the wealth necessary to vote is less than the wealth needed to be elected into public office.

Also, there appeared to be movements in Siddarmark to lower the "property requirements" for voting and for holding public office.

That's a very different political system than an aristocracy.

We could fling around "plutocracy" if you'd rather.

Aristocracy proper and full-blown takes a purely hereditary rulership class, and no, neither Siddarmark nor the Temple Lands have that. However, in both of them, heredity is an excellent indicator, over multiple generations, for who is going to be ruling. In the Temple Lands, that's because wealth and Church position tend to go together, depend on one another, and get all but inherited together. In Siddarmark, property qualifications for voting and the office channel office into the hands of a small number of families.

In both cases, I'm pretty confident that traditional status also plays a large part, that (for instance) if you take two very wealthy Siddarmark patriarchs, and one of them has a family with a history of political leadership, he's got a much better chance of running for and being elected to office than the other, even if wealth, reputation, ambition, and political interest are all roughly equal.

That's not technically an aristocracy, no. But in practical terms, it's so close that you really, really can't stress its firm republicanism alone and paint an accurate picture.

DrakBibliophile wrote:Well I think you're seeing Siddarmark in a "darker" light than I do.

However, I chuckle when I think of how Clyntahn likely would think about our disagreement.

IE In his mind, both of us are thinking Heresy.

I wouldn't say darker, exactly. More that voters and leaders in Siddarmark all take family relations very seriously in evaluating suitability for office - which is still, I suppose, a lot more democratic than places that take it as obviously, strictly, and constitutionally requisite. I just want to point out that, if you shake up notions of aristocracy and republicanism loose from strict definitions, Siddarmark's not remotely as democratic in any number of ways as the 21st century first world expects and 'aristocratic' taken more generously has a certain fit for it and the Temple Lands both.

Clyntahn's blood pressure wouldn't take this sort of analysis well. Siddarmark and Charis both of them managed to keep the Temple at arm's length in terms of orthodoxy taught in the schools and hooks kept in leadership by debt. Politically, they both diverge from (e.g.) Harchong by class mobility and (for Safehold) a broad political class. Siddarmark's elected leadership is formally and obviously different from the norm (Clyntahn would take the Temple Lands as a special case and not have a thing to do with comparing it the way I have with Siddarmark), while Charis looks like a nice traditional monarchy til you notice a Parliament with a bit of power and strong participation of the commons and an aristocracy and merchant class that are practically one and the same.