It is hard to find a sympathetic Merseian in the Roidhunate. Cnif is an ok guy but, like apparently everyone else in the Wilwidh culture, he unconsciously patronizes other rational species. Ydwyr recognizes that such species can make a contribution but wants them on board only as junior partners. Flandry realizes that the Roidhunate misses out by underestimating its subject races. Will it miss out to the extent of provoking rebellions that it assumes will never happen? What we do see is the Roidhunate suffering several major defeats by the Terran Empire. These defeats will demoralize the Roidhunate leadership long term. Events that we do not see happen between volumes but we can infer some of what must have happened.
Brief post. Busy today.
6 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I mostly agree. I esp. recall how Flandry discussed in "Tiger By The Tail" how the Empire was wise enough to refrain from scorning its subject races. In fact Terran citizenship was widely available to non-humans (esp. for those who directly served the Empire), with some entire non-human species being Imperial citizens. This all helped in giving many people of different races a personal stake in the Empire. This policy can also be traced back to the Founder himself, Manuel Argos, in "The Star Plunderer."*
I agree, the Merseian ideology of racial supremacism must have been causing smoldering resentment among many in the subject races of the Roidhunate. I do assume many Merseians had enough sense to avoid being needlessly offensive. But I think resentment and accumulating grudges slowly building up and provoking rebellions among non-Merseians.
My chief caveat here is thinking it would take longer than you might think for demoralization in the leaders of the Roidhunate plus non-Merseian anger to bring about its disintegration. But repeated defeats at Terra's hands would also help!
Ad astra! Sean
I forgot to add a comment to my " * ". There is an alternative title for "The Star Plunderer," which I like better: "Collar of Iron."
Ad astra! Sean
Note that one distinguishing feature of Rome was that it was far more generous in granting its citizenship than the Greek city-states. Eg., a Roman slave, if freed, became a citizen with only a few restrictions; their children born subsequently were full citizens.
By Marcus Aurelius' time, most Senatorial families had freedmen or freedwomen in their background a few generations back.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely! You made that generosity of Rome with citizenship very clear in TO TURN THE TIDE. And there were times when even children of freedmen could rise to the throne itself, as was the case with Diocletian. Albeit that was largely due to the anarchy of the Third Century Crisis of the Empire making that easier to happen.
Ad astra! Sean
I recall reading about Greek city-states, and Swiss Cantons in late medieval & early modern times, having only sons of citizens being citizens. This resulted in the proportion of the population with full citizenship (including voting rights) declining over time. It occurred to me that making any son or daughter with *either* parent a citizen would be a full citizen, would make even an initially fairly tight oligarchy shift over the generations toward a democracy with the vast majority of the population having the vote.
This would require substantial equality of the sexes and any prejudice against marrying non-citizens would slow the process. It wouldn't hurt to have other ways of becoming a citizen, but that rule alone would go a long way toward having a wide spread franchise.
Kaor, Jim!
I recall reading of how Pericles, Archon (Ruler) of Athens for over 30 years, had great difficulty getting his son by his mistress Aspasia made a citizen of Athens. Athenian law restricted citizenship to those whose parents were both Athenians (which Aspasia was not).
While I don't believe citizenship should be as rigidly restrictive as the Greek city states, neither should it be excessively easy to gain.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment