Safehold post-Jihad

Himself has yet to disclose the specifics of how _any_ Safehold state was created, although the broad outlines are clear enough: as in early Medieval Europe, a local ruler was able to either overwhelm or enroll his neighbours under his banner, and the nucleus that created expanded until it hit a natural boundary - either the sea or some barrier with a suffciently-powerful neighbour on the other side of it. Except in the case of Siddarmark. According to the FAQ on the subjecd, the Republic's expansion to the west was stopped by a political limit: the fact that the Temple Lands lie just the other side of the minor states now called the Border States, and the lords-protector had no intention of even appearing to be a threat to the Vicarate. I suspect that the Border States are still independent petty principalities because the vicars made it clear that they weren't interested in seeing a unitary state on their southern or eastern borders - including Harchong - so there was no point in even trying to amalgamate further. That would have already happened before Siddarmark expanded past Glacierheart, Hildermoss and Shiloh, and it's very likely the fact that they weren't assembled into one or [more likely, IMV] two larger states that kept the Kingdoms from accumulating the resources needed to expand further east and meet the Republic half way.

thanatos wrote:RFC has yet to disclose the specifics on how the Border Kingdoms were created though we do know that Silkiah was created as a demilitarized (to some extent) buffer state between Desnair and Siddarmark after thelast war between them. We can assume that Desnair might lose some territory or else be forced to accept harsh disarmament terms. By the same token and given the wide chasm that now exists between the Church and Siddarmark, the latter are likely to demand a rethinking of the security arrangements throughout the border states. They too might lose some territory as well. Dohlar is a more ticklish proposition. I can easily see Charis demanding control of several of many of the Islands in the Seas of Harchong for naval bases, by way of an insurance policy. Harchong might not like that but then again it isn't in a position to really stop Charis from permanently seizing control of those Islands. I can also see Dohlar losing the Duchy of Thorast (or part of it), which is where much of the fighting occurred in the Southern Theater. But the end of AtSoT makes clear that the map of Safehold has not been radically redrawn.

Check the FAQs: this turns out to be quite incorrect.

The Lords has the right to determine the succession. Parliament as a whole can overturn or modify royal decrees, and the Commons can alter tax legislation. All treaties have to be ratified by Parliament. That's quite enough to draw a great deal of attention from the Crown. It's actually, theoretically, possible for Crown and Parliament to neutralize each other.

Keith_w wrote:

shayvaan wrote:
While I would imagine that Charis will push for more democratic governments, full-blown democracies are not in their best interests yet.
Until they are able to reveal the full truth, the inner circle needs to maintain control of the EOC at least politically and militarily or the wheels could come off pretty quickly.

Charis already has a semi-democratic form of government resembling that of the United Kingdom in the 1800s in that there is an elected lower house of commoners. However, the ruler is under no obligation to pay any attention to it, especially since it has no authority over money bills.

While the republic might not physically go after the border states, I bet they could use enough economic might to convince them all they are better off in the republic. The church will not be handing out any rich bribes or loans any time soon to them, and no one else would be looking to aid them in the coming technological and economical revolution.
I forget does that huge canal that run through the border states also go through harchong territory. In the coming tensions, that might be a very tricky situation.

We know harchong has had slave revolts before, what if Merlin helped the situation? Then ensured that it did not go well for the empire. I am pretty sure that most available weapons were donated to the jihad, so it would take time for them to be replaced and due to corruption that is increased.

Could Merlin start his own church conspiracy in harchong? Say convince them that the temple lands had become abolitionists, and have started an Underground Railroad. While unhappy, most harchong would be loath to oppose most actions of the church.

You know the charisian privateers. Want to bet quite a few in the future will raid the harchong coast and steal slaves? They would be then freed, and likely join to free more.

Louis R wrote:Check the FAQs: this turns out to be quite incorrect.

The Lords has the right to determine the succession. Parliament as a whole can overturn or modify royal decrees, and the Commons can alter tax legislation. All treaties have to be ratified by Parliament. That's quite enough to draw a great deal of attention from the Crown. It's actually, theoretically, possible for Crown and Parliament to neutralize each other.

It doesn't have the right to determine succession except by not approving the the choice of the crown, that is, it cannot say "we prefer Jane Blow to your candidate". And parliament does have the right to amend any bills including tax policy. However, it takes a two thirds majority in both houses to do so. Good luck with that one. The crown would have to be pretty unpopular to get that many MPs pissed at them. So basically, as long as the crown keeps at least one third plus 1 of EITHER house on their side, they should be good to go.

the exact statements are:

Essentially, the Crown can rule by decree, and its decrees need not be approved by Parliament to take effect. HOWEVER, Parliament can by a majority vote of both houses repeal and negate any royal decree within a half-year of its promulgation; after that, it requires a two-thirds super-majority of both houses to repeal a decree. This means (in effect) that Parliament has a collective veto power over the Crown, although the process is complicated enough that it’s not real likely to happen (especially since a smart monarch will withdraw or modify a decree which is generating that much resistance before Parliament gets into the habit of overruling him).

Parliament does have the power to ammend (sic) existing tax law

and

The Constitution DOES, however, provide that the House of Lords can refuse to accept the “proper” heir and move further down the line of succession. The Lords are required to approve an heir as soon as a new monarch assumes the throne, however. This means that the succession is always secured, by act of Parliament, without room for a disputed succession in the event that a monarch dies childless. The Lords can alter the succession at any time, but that requires a two-thirds vote rather than a simple majority, and they’d probably better be sure they REALLY want to get into a pissing contest with the Crown if they decide to do so without a damned good reason. <G>

, and there's a mention further down that the Lords decided to accept the risk of a minor succession to Cayleb rather than name an adult heir outside the immediate family. And that it was the _Lords_ who decided to put Zhan ahead of Zhanayt because she wasn't enough older to outweigh being a girl.

oh, and there's another major point I overlooked:

The House of Commons’ biggest stick is that it has the responsibility of approving (and the right to recall) all members of the Council. The Crown determines which councilor holds which “portfolio” (including the First Councilor’s position), but the Commons (by majority vote) can control who SITS on the Council.

So it's 50%+1 that needs to be kept happy - and that merits a good deal of attention indeed. Yes, when push comes to shove and the bayonets are unsheathed, the military might have to choose between its oaths to the Crown and right and/or justice. But history shows that when you put your military into that position the chances are the answer will be "a plague on both your houses!".

Keith_w wrote:

Louis R wrote:Check the FAQs: this turns out to be quite incorrect.

The Lords has the right to determine the succession. Parliament as a whole can overturn or modify royal decrees, and the Commons can alter tax legislation. All treaties have to be ratified by Parliament. That's quite enough to draw a great deal of attention from the Crown. It's actually, theoretically, possible for Crown and Parliament to neutralize each other.

It doesn't have the right to determine succession except by not approving the the choice of the crown, that is, it cannot say "we prefer Jane Blow to your candidate". And parliament does have the right to amend any bills including tax policy. However, it takes a two thirds majority in both houses to do so. Good luck with that one. The crown would have to be pretty unpopular to get that many MPs pissed at them. So basically, as long as the crown keeps at least one third plus 1 of EITHER house on their side, they should be good to go.

Upon reflection the Constitutional Monarchy Louis just posted about is sufficiently republican to be a Republic. Granted a republic with a very strong executive branch. The key sticking point in the definition is the succession. The Lords can bypass candidates in the line but not create an alternate line of succession. Is that enough to say that Charis is a Republic? Had Parliament as a whole and not just the Lords the right to refuse a proper heir, would that make a difference?

Legal distinctions aside, the amount of shared power argues that Charis is effectively a Republic.

SYED wrote:While the republic might not physically go after the border states, I bet they could use enough economic might to convince them all they are better off in the republic. The church will not be handing out any rich bribes or loans any time soon to them, and no one else would be looking to aid them in the coming technological and economical revolution.

You forget that the buffer that the Border States served as works both ways. It convinced the temple (at least until Clyntahn came around) that the Republic's expansion in its direction had stopped but it now serves to convince the Republic that the Temple Lands have no intention of engaging in some foreign adventure in its direction. Moreover, the next conflict does not require actual conquest or even the willing annexation of the Border States. And I don't imagine the aristocratic rulers of those states would be so eager to give up the already limited authority or their families over their small, landlocked states. So what is likely to happen is a gradual change. A quid pro quo of religious tolerance, acceptance of Charisian patents over innovations (and obviously the innovations themselves), limited social reform (like greater literacy and the abolition of serfdom and slavery) and limited political freedoms in exchange for a generous aid package, investments and business opportunities.

SYED wrote:We know harchong has had slave revolts before, what if Merlin helped the situation? Then ensured that it did not go well for the empire. I am pretty sure that most available weapons were donated to the jihad, so it would take time for them to be replaced and due to corruption that is increased.

Could Merlin start his own church conspiracy in harchong? Say convince them that the temple lands had become abolitionists, and have started an Underground Railroad. While unhappy, most harchong would be loath to oppose most actions of the church.

You know the charisian privateers. Want to bet quite a few in the future will raid the harchong coast and steal slaves? They would be then freed, and likely join to free more.

You forget that Merlin is actually worried about a slave revolt given what he knows of the history of slave revolts on Old Terra. Fomenting that sort of rebellion, whether in Harchong or Desnair, would be dangerous and could lead to many unintended consequences (something he's always worried about where assassinations are concerned). What he and the Inner Circle could do is support a liberal revolution on the mainland, even if it means supporting the Levelers (Safehold's equivalent to the radical socialists and communists of the 19th and 20th century). Merlin and Nimue could help in protecting and even advising the core leadership groups, assuming they would be willing to accept the "Seijins" assistance (which is not a given even if the CoGA admits that they are true Seijins and not demons. If Merlin or Nimue could insinuate themselves into their circles and council moderation, compromise and forgiveness, attempt the peaceful resistance and petitions that even the Holy Writ permits and perhaps even legal challenges before the Church Courts (outside of Harchong), it would put Duchairn in a very ticklish position of choosing between a moral position that might alienate the political leaderships of Harchong and Desnair or else choose the expedient of ignoring the petitioners and risk looking like a hypocrite and inviting Charis to actively support the revolutionaries ("if the Church won't step up to the plate, we will").

Obviously an Underground Railroad (whether literal or figurative) is something Charis could easily set up and Merlin, Nimue, Nynian and Nahrmahn would be able to get the word out for any serf or slave that a Seijin will be waiting for them at a given date and location with ships ready to smuggle them out and away to Siddarmark or the Empire of Charis. They could be sure that any covert agents sent to capture them would fail miserably. And if the Church tries to set something like that up as some sort of sop to at least mitigate the consequences of their refusal to support a revolution, it won't be a big thing, especially since they share a border with Harchong. Also, I can easily see pressure being applied by the Harchongese on the Temple to pass decrees that require the "repatriation" of escaped serfs and slaves. Indeed, I believe Merlin reflects upon this very issue in AtSoT so the legal framework for that already exists.

If I'm not misremembering, it is said that both serfdom and slavery are, nominally, banned in both the Border States and the Temple Lands, and have been for some time.

Notice the 'nominally'. I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's really so on the Wylsynn estates [and Duchairn wouldn't be a shock]. Any Charisian meddling would no doubt focus on making it generally true. However, I'd be inclined to expect that they won't meddle beyond being a horrible example: no state that doesn't move closer to the Charisian or Siddarmarkian [they aren't the same by any means] social model will come anywhere close to succeeding in their economic model.

thanatos wrote:
You forget that the buffer that the Border States served as works both ways. It convinced the temple (at least until Clyntahn came around) that the Republic's expansion in its direction had stopped but it now serves to convince the Republic that the Temple Lands have no intention of engaging in some foreign adventure in its direction. Moreover, the next conflict does not require actual conquest or even the willing annexation of the Border States. And I don't imagine the aristocratic rulers of those states would be so eager to give up the already limited authority or their families over their small, landlocked states. So what is likely to happen is a gradual change. A quid pro quo of religious tolerance, acceptance of Charisian patents over innovations (and obviously the innovations themselves), limited social reform (like greater literacy and the abolition of serfdom and slavery) and limited political freedoms in exchange for a generous aid package, investments and business opportunities.

Himself describes it as 'semi-constitutional'. It's important to remember that the Constitution was crafted by Ahrmaks who had read the St Zherneau documents - and it was probably giving the Vicarate conniptions all by itself.

PeterZ wrote:Upon reflection the Constitutional Monarchy Louis just posted about is sufficiently republican to be a Republic. Granted a republic with a very strong executive branch. The key sticking point in the definition is the succession. The Lords can bypass candidates in the line but not create an alternate line of succession. Is that enough to say that Charis is a Republic? Had Parliament as a whole and not just the Lords the right to refuse a proper heir, would that make a difference?

Legal distinctions aside, the amount of shared power argues that Charis is effectively a Republic.

I wonde if harchong had church backing some cases on getting run away slaves or serfs.

Now the war is over, could Merlin use economic warfare? The bugs let him have unparalleled access to secrets. To secretly purchase bets, and gain control of slaves. He can play the corrupt system against itself