ATST Snippet #1

And Desnarian Empire didn't actually do anything really bad to Charis citizens; but Charisians threated to kill the Desnarian prisoners after Battle of Iythria anyway. Always this dubious morality...

Dilandu wrote:And Desnarian Empire didn't actually do anything really bad to Charis citizens; but Charisians threated to kill the Desnarian prisoners after Battle of Iythria anyway. Always this dubious morality...

Desnair confirmed that they too accepted the Inquisition's position that Charis was not protected by ANY laws of God or man. Admiral Rock island's position was that if Desnair chose to force the ICN to decide to risk ICN lives or burn the captured ships in place, he would burn the Desnarian ships. He would do so because Desnair would not accept any laws governing their behavior towards Charisian personnel as Duke Jahras acknowledged to Baron Sarmouth.

I believe Rock Point was being generous and moral by offering an alternative that let Desnair avoid being treated as they acknowledged they would have treated Charis.

PeterZ wrote:Desnair confirmed that they too accepted the Inquisition's position that Charis was not protected by ANY laws of God or man. Admiral Rock island's position was that if Desnair chose to force the ICN to decide to risk ICN lives or burn the captured ships in place, he would burn the Desnarian ships. He would do so because Desnair would not accept any laws governing their behavior towards Charisian personnel as Duke Jahras acknowledged to Baron Sarmouth.

I believe Rock Point was being generous and moral by offering an alternative that let Desnair avoid being treated as they acknowledged they would have treated Charis.

Right. But that was talking about prisoners and ships already taken.

That's a huge contrast to executing Dohlar's king AFTER Dohlar has surrendered. Or demanding his execution after you've defeated both army and navy and Dohlar's choices are either surrendering or continuing a fight they can't win.

Frankly, demanding Rahnyld be executed, either before or after surrender would be an act of pure spite. It'd be seen by EVERYONE as an act of spite and would forever tarnish Charis' reputation. Everything that Cayleb and Sharleyan have up to this point have been trying to avoid.

Execute Inquisitors and their agents? Sure, that's their announced policy. But when it comes to secular leaders, Cayleb and Sharleyan have been FAR more lenient if only to encourage those leaders to stop fighting by giving them an out. I don't see why Dohlar would be any exception in this regard.

PeterZ wrote:

DMcCunney wrote:<...>

Could that government be deposed and replaced by one less pliable who wants to return to the fight? Possible, but who would do it? That would lead to civil war in Dohlar. Bad for the Dohlarans, but not a direct threat to the EoC. They'd be preoccupied fighting each other.

I find myself in total agreement. I am troubled by one point, though. Rahnahld's head on a platter. I find this is a just demand. Yet if his house retains the throne, how will any offspring of Rahnahld be anything but an enemy to Charis?

Next in line in Rahnyld's line is a kid currently too young to assume the throne under Dohlaran law. (And that's why Rahnyld hasn't already abdicated.) If Rahnyld is deposed and executed, a Regency Council will be needed till his heir is old enough.

Will he be Charis's enemy? Possible, but look at how Corisande worked out. I think you'll find increasingly general agreement there that becoming part of the EoC was the best thing that could have happened to them.

By the time Rahnyld's heir was old enough to take the throne, I think there would have been time for the dust to settle in Dohlar, general agreement that cutting a deal with Charis was the right thing to do, and Rahnyld's heir would have time to get accustomed to the notion that Rahnyld's head was a legitimate demand by Charis under existing Safehold rules of war, and stuff like that can happen when you fight someone and lose.

I wonder if requiring the removal of Rahnahld's house from throne will be sufficient retribution? Doing this illustrates that even mercy has a price for Safehold's aristocrats and royals. Faced with a choice of death or having one's house stripped of its authority, I wonder how many royals would choose death as the more lenient alternative?

Good question. But Charis has emphasized personal responsibility. Again, note Corisande. Cayleb and Sharleyan made clear to Irys and Daivyn that their father was their enemy, but they weren't unless they chose to be, and Charis didn't hold the actions of a monarch against his family too. There was greater concern in Charis over Corisande, simply because of all the bad blood stored up between the house of Armakh and the house of Daikin over decades, with similar issues between Chisholm and Corisande.

Charis specifically wants Rahnyld dead. Whether leaving his house on the throne is a different matter. And I think leaving his house of the throne is another signal to Dohlar about how reasonable Charis is prepared to be.

In any case, offering this as a fall back option to Dohlar and have the selection of Rahnahld's replacement be based on a plebiscite would take care of any serious problems in the future. This would accomplish two things, make the ruler of Dohlar beholden to his people not the CoGA for his crown and remove any cause for animosity by having the next ruler of Dohlar passionately resent Charis for killing his/her father.

Possible, but I don't see the need. If there was a plebiscite in Dohlar, who would manage it, and who might the Dohlarans select instead? General practice on Safehold is primogeniture, and eldest male offspring inherits from dad when dad dies. If there is no eldest male offspring available, the title is likely to pass through a collateral line, but it will still be a blood relation. (The notion that a female might inherit the throne is one that simply wouldn't occur to anyone in the vast majority of Safehold realms.)

Do I think this might transpire? Yes, why yes I do. Low odds, but possible.

Agreed, possible, but also agreed, low odds.
______
Dennis

PeterZ wrote:
Desnair confirmed that they too accepted the Inquisition's position that Charis was not protected by ANY laws of God or man. Admiral Rock island's position was that if Desnair chose to force the ICN to decide to risk ICN lives or burn the captured ships in place, he would burn the Desnarian ships. He would do so because Desnair would not accept any laws governing their behavior towards Charisian personnel as Duke Jahras acknowledged to Baron Sarmouth.

I believe Rock Point was being generous and moral by offering an alternative that let Desnair avoid being treated as they acknowledged they would have treated Charis.

But they did NOTHING against Charis yet.

Don't let me wrong, I personally favored this moment. It helped to save the good guys from becoming unrealistically good. They are peoples (well, and one machine) after all; and during the war even the formally "good side" prone to atrocities. It was necessary to remind, that there is no "universally good side" in ANY war.

But the point is, that Desnari empire was the victim this time. They they did nothing wrong - maybe yet, of course, but the fact was that they DID NOTHING WRONG.

And when you started to consider "we should treat them badly because it's possible that they would do something wrong" - well, basically it's the Clyntahn point of view.

DMcCunney wrote:\
Charis specifically wants Rahnyld dead. Whether leaving his house on the throne is a different matter. And I think leaving his house of the throne is another signal to Dohlar about how reasonable Charis is prepared to be.

Do they really? I mean, lots of people talk alot about Ranyld being responsible for this and that, but I don't recall any OFFICIAL statements made by Charisian crown (either one) or even Charisian naval officers about what the Empire's policy post-war towards Dohlar and Ranyld is going to be.

And both Cayleb and Sharleyan have long since made it clear that they understand that there's a huge difference between "what I want" and "what's politically smart and morally ethical". Executing leaders of nations because they acquiesced to Inquisition demands sets an unfortunate precedent that makes future leaders less likely to surrender and acquiesce to Charisian demands in the future. They understand that being merciful and having a reputation for such nets them and the Empire huge benefits. Demanding vengeance for the sake of vengeance gets the Empire nothing and can harm the Empire in the long run.

Oh, and I'll point out that one of the reasons Corrisande and its royal family get along so well with Charis now is because Charis did NOT murder one Hektor Daykin out of hand. Which is what executing Rahnyld would amount to. Charisian policy up to this point has been to leave the leaders of conquered nations on their thrones until they do something AFTERWARDS that merits execution. I don't see that changing just for Dohlar regardless of whether the Empire takes over afterward or not.

Randomiser wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
<Snip>

In any case, offering this as a fall back option to Dohlar and have the selection of Rahnahld's replacement be based on a plebiscite would take care of any serious problems in the future. This would accomplish two things, make the ruler of Dohlar beholden to his people not the CoGA for his crown and remove any cause for animosity by having the next ruler of Dohlar passionately resent Charis for killing his/her father.

Do I think this might transpire? Yes, why yes I do. Low odds, but possible.

A plebiscite with what kind of voter qualification? And who is likely to think that has any authority? Those Siddarmarkian republican swine possibly, but not good solid Dohlarans. You folks from the USA seem to have a touching faith in the universal recognition of the obvious rightness of democracy.

Speaking as one of those folks from the USA, I don't.

I've been at pains to point out elsewhere that democracy requires preexisting conditions to take root and flower, and those conditions simply don't exist in a variety of places that some folks would like to see with democratic governments.

Democracy took hold and worked in the US because the needed conditions already existed, beginning with the notion inherited from Britain of a strong parliament to serve as a check and balance on the monarch. It wasn't a huge step from there to "no heredity monarch - an elected chief executive instead".

(Back in 1976 as the bicentennial celebration approached, I was deeply amused by a poster on a lampost where I was then living. The basic thrust was "200 years is long enough to hold a grudge. It's time for the former colonies to resume their rightful status as part of the British Empire and subjects of the Queen", and laid out the benefits for both sides - a massive economic shot in the arm for the UK, and the benefit of hundreds of years of tradition, where governments may rise and fall, but the crown endures, and the government falling is arguably less traumatic. I thought, "You know, you can make a case for the idea...")

Of course, the former Crown Prince couldn't possibly have any resentment or animosity at the EoC for removing his family from the throne and blighting his personal prospects? And none of Dohlar's sterling nobles, a fine body of upright apolitical men, could possibly think that championing his cause, perhaps after the present little unpleasantness dies down, might be a way of improving their own position?

As witness what happened in Corisande after Hector was assassinated?

That's why I don't see a need to depose the Dohlaran Royal house. It's been made fairly clear that standard practice elsewhere in such cases is "Kill the ruler and his entire family", so the house ceases to exist and can't be a future factor. Cayleb wanted Hector's head, but would have been reluctantly willing to let him abdicate and go into exile somewhere else and take his family with him. He didn't want to kill Hector's kids. He just wanted the Daikyns out of Corisande and the political equation.

Are you aware of the rebellions of 1715 and 45 in Britain in support of the Stewart cause after Parliament displaced them as monarchs in favour of William and Mary in 1690? (Among other things it was a Catholic vs Protestant issue) I'm pretty sure Merlin is.

I am, but I don't think the situation in Dohlar is all that comparable.

And on that line, I don't see any religious demands by Charis about the Dohlaran church becoming part of the Church of Charis. They can remain loyal to the CoGA. They just can't do what Zhaspar Clyntahn says as a consequence.

I don't see the CoGA ceasing to exist after the Jihad. It will be profoundly changed, but still be around. It may become roughly analogous to the Catholic and Protestant flavors of Christianity, with each branch acknowledging the existence of the other and the fact that it has a right to exist.
_______
Dennis

Dilandu wrote:But they did NOTHING against Charis yet.

They acknowledged the CoGA contention that they are not obligated to follow any law regarding Charis. They won't even try to keep any word they give to Charis. As soon as the CoGA tell them to go back on their word, they will. Duke Jahras acknowledged this.

Your point is that they were never called by their masters to do anything and that makes them innocent. They aren't innocent, they have acknowledged their intent to war on Charis unrestricted by ANY rules at all.

Dilandu wrote:Don't let me wrong, I personally favored this moment. It helped to save the good guys from becoming unrealistically good. They are peoples (well, and one machine) after all; and during the war even the formally "good side" prone to atrocities. It was necessary to remind, that there is no "universally good side" in ANY war.

But the point is, that Desnari empire was the victim this time. They they did nothing wrong - maybe yet, of course, but the fact was that they DID NOTHING WRONG.

And when you started to consider "we should treat them badly because it's possible that they would do something wrong" - well, basically it's the Clyntahn point of view.

They weren't victims. The only thing stopping them from willfully committing the same atrocity as Dohlar was opportunity. They have already declared their intent by joining the jihad and confirmed it to Baron Sarmouth.

If Desnair was a victim at all, they were victims of their own naval inadequacy.

evilauthor wrote:Right. But that was talking about prisoners and ships already taken.

That's a huge contrast to executing Dohlar's king AFTER Dohlar has surrendered. Or demanding his execution after you've defeated both army and navy and Dohlar's choices are either surrendering or continuing a fight they can't win.

Frankly, demanding Rahnyld be executed, either before or after surrender would be an act of pure spite. It'd be seen by EVERYONE as an act of spite and would forever tarnish Charis' reputation. Everything that Cayleb and Sharleyan have up to this point have been trying to avoid.

Execute Inquisitors and their agents? Sure, that's their announced policy. But when it comes to secular leaders, Cayleb and Sharleyan have been FAR more lenient if only to encourage those leaders to stop fighting by giving them an out. I don't see why Dohlar would be any exception in this regard.

As I recall, Cayleb discussed the possibility of asking for Hektor's head as a price for surrender in Corisande. Nahrmahn also considered Cayleb asking for his head as a precondition to an Emeraldian surrender. Neither the Corisandian contingent nor Nahrmahn considered the possibility unreasonable or immoral.

I suspect that these rulers believed they owned their nations. They and only they are sovereign with regards to committing their nation to courses of action. It follows that if one nation is ticked off at another, they can and will hold the rulers personally responsible for actions that nation took.

Holding a foreign ruler responsible for atrocities committed against a ruler's subjects seems just. Demanding a life for a life....or one life for many lives to satisfy justice is neither immoral or spiteful. Demanding the lives of subordinates like Thirsk or ahlvarez would be spiteful. After all those subordinates did not have the moral or legal authority to set national policy.

PeterZ wrote:

Dilandu wrote:But they did NOTHING against Charis yet.

They acknowledged the CoGA contention that they are not obligated to follow any law regarding Charis. They won't even try to keep any word they give to Charis. As soon as the CoGA tell them to go back on their word, they will. Duke Jahras acknowledged this.

.

Again. They declared, but they actually do nothing. Yet. Of course yet. But the "oh, we knew that they would do something nasty, so let's kill them first" logic is flawed always, because there is always a chance that they wouldn't.

And again, I'm not trying to say that it makes Charis"bad guys". Its make them more REAL. Not just the country of "all good guys who should unite and kill all bad guys so there would be peace and happines (c, old proverb)", but the actual side of war, which is not always capable of ma raining moral high ground. And this is pretty realistic way.