First, he thinks that the Spican sector should be not only reinforced
but also restructured with new administrations, laws and economics but
that this should be done by a competent viceroy and staff with
extraordinary powers. Flandry asks, "Who's both competent and
trustworthy...?" (Sir Dominic Flandry: The Last Knight Of Terra
,
New York, 2012, p. 385) - apart from those already overworked
elsewhere. That rings a bell from the Foundation Trilogy which in turn
was based on the Fall of the Roman Empire: in the decadent empire, a
competent general was not trusted to stay with generalship and keep out
of politics so he was recalled before he could complete the job of
securing the disintegrating galactic perimeter. Rereading further, I see
that Desai goes on to make the same point: the Empire's "'...competent
people become untrustworthy from their very competence; anyone who can
make a decision may make one the Imperium does not like. Incompetence
grows with the growing suspiciousness and centralization.'" (p. 387)
-copied from
Flandry And Desai.
"'It is unfortunate for you that your Governor can never trust an able man with an army large enough to do much good.'"
-
The Forge,
CHAPTER FIFTEEN, p. 269.
Three histories; one problem.
9 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Good points and analogies, ones I wish I had thought of myself. I'm already in Chapter Three of THE HAMMER. That's a very real problem, perennial in human history, a gov't feeling itself being able to trust able subordinates to do their jobs and not aspiring to supreme power in illegitimate ways.
Sean
It depends on the government. Most European monarchies didn't have this problem because the very strong sentiment of dynastic legitimacy meant that someone outside the line of succession (interpreted liberally) couldn't aspire to supreme power: nobody would obey him.
Rome, and Byzantium after it, (and analogues like the Terran Empire or Bellevue's Civil Government) had terrible problems this way because they -didn't- have a strong sense of dynastic legitimacy. The State and people in general -would- obey a general after a successful coup.
Early European monarchies with partible inheritance -- where any member of the right bloodline could be king -- were sort of a middling case; civil wars between siblings or cousins were common, but the throne couldn't be grabbed by just anyone.
That was one reason primogeniture got pushed vigorously, to cut down on that sort of thing.
Note that in 1688 when the British Parliament deposed James II and put William of Orange in his place, they were careful to pick someone whose wife was a daughter of James, so that her children (she didn't have any, as it turned out). His successor was Queen Anne, James' other daughter, who as it turned out didn't have any "heirs of her body".
Sophia of the Palantinate, the senior blood descendant of James I (Protestant descendant, that is) was then made heir, and the claim descended to her son, the Elector of Hanover.
Even so, many non-Jacobites were profoundly uneasy about the Hanoverian line's claim until the Stuarts died out.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
As always, you made interesting points, ones I mostly agree with. I would argue that Manuel Argos DID try to instill that strong sense of dynastic legitimacy into the Terran Empire. And I think he at least partially succeeded during the Argolid and Wang dynasties. After all, as late as THE GAME OF EMPIRE, we still see mention of people wishing for an Emperor of Argolid descent.
With that said, I do agree the Roman and Eastern Roman Empire had only a weak sense of that dynastic loyalty. And I think it was in countries like France that we see that "sense" very strongly. ONLY male line descendants of Hugh Capet, descending in strict primogeniture from father to eldest surviving son or the nearest kinsman in the male line were believed to have a right to the crown. I would say sheer OUTRAGE at the English attempt to conquer France despite the Plantagenets NOT being male line descendants of Hugh Capet contributed to the eventual English defeat.
Yes, I agree the Whigs who deposed James II hoped first Mary II (wife to William III) and then her sister Anne would have children to succeed them--it would help to reassure the English that the legitimate line of succession had not been completely rejected. Yes, they had to turn to Sophia of the Palatinate for a Protestant successor (discarding about forty Catholics with better claims) descended from James I.
I recall reading in Churchill's HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLES that the grumbling dissatisfaction among many of the English with the Act of Succession might have led to it being rejected if Queen Anne had lived longer. WSC commented on how the Queen herself was never happy with how her father had been deposed and her brother driven into exile. If Anne had lived long enough to be persuaded to agree to repealing the Act, then "James III" might have been recalled from exile to become, regardless of him being Catholic. Or might there have been civil war within the UK between two rival kings, James III and George I?
Now let's turn to the US, political legitimacy for a president here requires that he be elected by a majority vote of the Electoral College. That is people here vote for slates of Electors rather than directly for a presidential candidate. It can lead to what some would consider oddities like a candidate winning a majority of the Electoral College but coming only second in the popular vote. Which has led to some, esp. the Democrats, demanding the abolition of the College. An idea I oppose, because the College was set up to help prevent the US from being completely dominated by the biggest, most populous states.
But what might happen if the laws, rules, customs, etc., helping to shape legitimacy in the US come to be more and more hollowed out and scorned? Nothing good!
Sean
I think that there is still a House of Stuart somewhere in Europe?
Kaor, Paul!
There are, if you include the descendants of Charles II by his illegitimate sons. And I think there are still some Stuarts in Scotland descending from collateral branches other than the line of succession descending from James IV's marriage with Henry VII's daughter (Mary, I think).
And there are still descendants of James II by his illegitimate son James, Duke of Berwick. They live in Spain.
Sean
Sean,
I thought that there was still a self-proclaimed Court of the House of Stuart somewhere?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That I don't know about. None of the possible Jacobite claimants descending from Charles II and James II's sister Henrietta Maria, has ever made any attempts at claiming the British crown.
Sean
IIRC, the last Stuart claimant with a better direct descent claim than the Hanoverians died childless sometime in the early 19th century.
English law had always allowed descent through the female line to the Throne in default of a male heir -- France, and other areas under Salic (Frankish) law didn't. This was one factor in the 100 Years War.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
You mean Henry Stuart, the Cardinal of York, who died aged about 82 in 1807. He was the younger son of James Edward, the son of James II.
I knew of the differences in English and French laws of succession. And in terms of FRENCH law and custom, the Plantagenets had NO claim or right to the crown of France. Succession was reckoned ONLY thru legitimate male line descendants of Hugh Capet. That was why French princesses never had to renounce any claim to the crown when they married. Because they did not have any claim.
Sean
Post a Comment