574 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

LobselVith8 wrote...

So Bhelen did exactly what his father did to gain the throne of Orzammar.

So Bhelen is now the Traditionalist, and Harrowmont the Reformer? I will go with that....

[LobselVith8]

Elhanan wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

So Bhelen did exactly what his father did to gain the throne of Orzammar.

So Bhelen is now the Traditionalist, and Harrowmont the Reformer? I will go with that....

I think the casteless would disagree.

[LobselVith8]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

sevalaricgirl wrote...

I pick Harromount because my warden only knows that she's been lied to, and Bhelen killed his brother and blamed his other brother for it. Screw him. He doesn't deserve the throne and any dwarves that wants to can go to the surface, there are many there already. I have played the game 12 times and half I put Bhelen on the throne because of what he does to improve the lot of the dwarves then I thought about it and figured that it my warden doesn't like to be lied to so he wasn't getting the throne just because he was blood.

You realize that what you just said is that you are willing to condemn Orzammar (which is the first defense against the darkspawn) because you don't like being lied to? How is that not petty and irresponsible in the extreme? 

Because that title of infamy might be better placed on the one that knocked off his family to gain the crown.

If you'll look at the bolded part again, the reason that Bhelen didn't get the crown was not because he killed his family members. It is because he lied to the Warden. Don't you think that demanding complete and utter honesty about everything is rather high standards? It's  not even like he lies about anything important, either, just some forged documents.

And Bhelen isn't the one who hands the Warden the forged documents in the first place, so we have no way of knowing if Bhelen is even involved in the forgery.

[Hukari]

To allow me to explain; dialectic materialism is the basis upon which my argue on historical progress is made. There is the process from emphasis on the state towards that of the individual, shown throughout history. The monarchy replaced with revolutionary governments, the empire to the nation-state. This is quite evident throughout history, I think we can all agree. Even the most powerful president is weak compared to the weakest Roman emperor.



The power has been transferred from states to individuals; first by granting inaliable rights to noblemen, then those rights extended towards the gentry, and down on the line. The Magna Carta was the beginning of a process that has continued, on throughout history.



As to Harrowmont not wishing change, his mere candidacy is a change. He is the first non-Aeducan in ten generations, and wished to change Dwarven society. The only issue was the contention in the Assembly, and Bhelen's rebelllion (mostly the latter), which doomed him from getting anything done that wasn't agreeable by all (such as isolation).



Yet, I see here that people think that giving power to the noble caste is something that is an inherently destructive force for Orzammar; something that they are 'only in it for themselves', as it were. And indeed, some are; they play their games, they scheme and plot. But they also are the main purchasers, the commanders, the movers and shakers in Dwarven society.



To be self-interested is not a vice; it is a virtue, a tool that can be used to push industry. Greed, the harnessing of the passions, as mentioned in Smith's Theory on Moral Sentiments, is the essence of capitalism and the best method for the greatest good. When a nobleman sets his mind on reclaiming his thaig, he commissions weapons and armor, and leads the charge. When he seeks more lyrium, he commissions miners to dig it, merchants to sell it. In essence, by empowering the nobles via an inactive king, it leads to more wealth and prosperity for those beneath him. Even the casteless benefit, being able to be hired as messengers or other menial tasks.

[blothulfur]

I was being ironic/taking the mick.

Ho hum.

[Elhanan]

Graspiloot wrote...

This argument is getting really old really fast. Please really answer to these points:

1. How can you be sure Harrowmont has never done similar things to political opponents?
2. How is this not a part of Dwarven and even a medieval court life?
3. How is killing your family better than razing dust town to the ground?

1 - Complete lack of evidence. There is no proof to these allegations; not even more forged papers from Gavorn.
2 - Being commonplace does not equate to being right, proper, ethical, or moral. And Bhelen certainly proves he is common enough.
3 - Never said it was I believe, as this has not happened to me in my game. I have only chosen to save the Anvil for Bhelen once or twice; never for Harrowmont as I consider Branka as vile as Bhelen. That said, if the razing of Dust Town occured during the civil war within Orzammar, I would hesitate to say that this was worse.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Hukari wrote...
 Even the most powerful president is weak compared to the weakest Roman emperor.

Is he now?
Interesting.

With mass media and all other technological advancement, I'd say that all governments have become much, much stronger. Regardless of the style of rule.

Hukari wrote...
The power has been transferred from states to individuals; first by granting inaliable rights to noblemen, then those rights extended towards the gentry, and down on the line. The Magna Carta was the beginning of a process that has continued, on throughout history.

You speak as if all countries abidded by Magna Carta. Or as if all Western Democracies have that as their foundation of government.

Hukari wrote...
As to Harrowmont not wishing change, his mere candidacy is a change. He is the first non-Aeducan in ten generations, and wished to change Dwarven society. The only issue was the contention in the Assembly, and Bhelen's rebelllion (mostly the latter), which doomed him from getting anything done that wasn't agreeable by all (such as isolation).

Show me where and how he wished change. Real change. Not the family name of the monarch. Having a non-Aeducan on the Throne is a superficial change at best. Fact is, Harrowmont has regressive policies and no change at all except for the worse.

And wrong, with golems Harrowmont defeats Bhelen's rebellion. So why doesn't he change?
The Assembly stopped him? Boohoo, duh, that's what we have been arguing. Except Harrowmont is known for preferring to compromise with the assembly and of being a traditionalist, so I see no evidence that Harrowmont wanted to change, but couldn't. And even if that was the case, then his place is not on the throne. 

Hukari wrote...
To be self-interested is not a vice; it is a virtue, a tool that can be used to push industry. Greed, the harnessing of the passions, as mentioned in Smith's Theory on Moral Sentiments, is the essence of capitalism and the best method for the greatest good. When a nobleman sets his mind on reclaiming his thaig, he commissions weapons and armor, and leads the charge. When he seeks more lyrium, he commissions miners to dig it, merchants to sell it. In essence, by empowering the nobles via an inactive king, it leads to more wealth and prosperity for those beneath him. Even the casteless benefit, being able to be hired as messengers or other menial tasks.

I fail to see how all this will happen when Harrowmont makes further caste restrictions, isolates Orzammar from surface trade and razes dust town to the ground with golems after kicking the casteless from the commons (so now they can no longer buy or sell anything, or even perform menial tasks).

But with Bhelen, we see less caste restrictions, more surface trade and casteless getting more rights. You are arguing in opposites here. With Bhelen, merchants have better opportunities. Smiths can export their goods. Casteless get more freedoms, but only some pathetic nobles are hurt and you cry a river over it. But with Harrowmont, merchants suffer, casteless suffer more but the nobles are happy, yay freedom.

Seriously? Your argument needs more work.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 janvier 2011 - 01:01 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Hukari wrote...


To be self-interested is not a vice; it is a virtue, a tool that can be used to push industry. Greed, the harnessing of the passions, as mentioned in Smith's Theory on Moral Sentiments, is the essence of capitalism and the best method for the greatest good. When a nobleman sets his mind on reclaiming his thaig, he commissions weapons and armor, and leads the charge. When he seeks more lyrium, he commissions miners to dig it, merchants to sell it. In essence, by empowering the nobles via an inactive king, it leads to more wealth and prosperity for those beneath him. Even the casteless benefit, being able to be hired as messengers or other menial tasks.

The dwarven system is not even remotely like modern capitalist ones. A capitalist society has a degree of upward mobility for anyone with the brains and ambitions to see it work, regardless of how they were born.

there is no upward mobility in dwarven society. You are born to a certain class, and you will never be anything but that certain class. No matter how good you are at something else. If you are born a miner, even if you possess the brilliance and creativity to become a smith, you can't be anything other than a miner. You are trapped into that caste by accident of birth, regardless of where your capabilities lie.

The casteless do not benefit, since legally, they do not exist, and are forbidden from engaging in any legal for of employment under the old system. At best, they can hope to clean sewers, if they are lucky, or do extremely dangerous tasks for next to nothing. Their position in dwarven society does not change. There is no hope for advancement for themselves or their posterity, barring a lucky break if one is a noble hunter, and has a kid the same sex as the noble. And that noble is kind enough to aknowledge the kid as his own.

Relying on a trickle down model of economics just doesn't work in dwarven society. It is not a capitalist one, but a ridgidly traditionalist one.

[Hukari]

I think there is something else that people fail to realize; Harrowmont was also known for being an able administrator, and personally authored many compromises in the Assembly. He was, in essence, a peacemaker in a fractured political system, and it was Bhelen's rebellion that occupied his resources and prevented any meaningful legislature from being passed. In essence, it was Bhelen's spite that doomed his kingship, rather than his own failings.

Edit: Ah! A response. Let me get to this in time.

There is, in fact, a degree of upward mobility in Dwarven society. It is not much, but it exists; almost as much as one could have in, say, 19th century England or the medieval period. Your upward mobility comes by either being named Paragon, or going to the surface to seek your fortune. There is also the 'noble hunters', which elevate other classes from lowest to highest, regardless of origin.

And the trickle down model of economics does apply in regards to dwarves, as their system is entirely based on it. The nobles compete amongst themselves to attract the attentions of skilled smiths and miners, artisans and soldiers. For when a great work is made, a great deed done, they too are advanced in honour and status.

Thus, it becomes an even more trickle-down system as it in the world as we know it. For there is not merely one or two billionaires that can buy all they need, or could ever consume. There is an entire demographic, with money and wealth, that is continuously seeking ways to spend it on; militarily, financially, or as an investment. Thus, empowering the nobles creates a trickle-down effect to those artisans and houses they purchase from.

To the Paragon question, this provides the essence of the Dwarven social mobility. Branka and Caridin were smiths, yet they rose higher than kings, being worshipped as living gods by Dwarven society. There are even casteless paragons, including one who went to the surface and returned to become both King and Paragon. In essence, there is hardly no upward mobility; if one is truly exceptional, one can benefit of the fruits of one's labour.

Modifié par Hukari, 11 janvier 2011 - 01:06 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Hukari wrote...

I think there is something else that people fail to realize; Harrowmont was also known for being an able administrator, and personally authored many compromises in the Assembly. He was, in essence, a peacemaker in a fractured political system, and it was Bhelen's rebellion that occupied his resources and prevented any meaningful legislature from being passed. In essence, it was Bhelen's spite that doomed his kingship, rather than his own failings.

Again, with golems Harrowmont beats Bhelen. So you are saying that Harrowmont fails so badly at defeating Bhelen's rebels that he is forced to cut off surface trade, kick the casteless from the commons and then send golems to crush dust town?
Fail.

And it's precisely because he is a compromiser that he, quite frankly, can't do ****. In essence, his career is based on pleasing the nobles without any concern for the rest.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 janvier 2011 - 01:04 .

[Sarah1281]

With golems, we are specifically told that the Assembly falls in line behind Harrowmont. He can do whatever he wants. What does he do? Tighten caste restrictions and increase the power of nobles. That is what Harrowmont wants to do. He wants to pass laws that please the Assembly. Why the Assembly won't let him kiss their ass without the Anvil is beyond me, really.

[Hukari]

Well, you're presuming I kept golems. I did not. I left Harrowmont, with no golems and a heavy rebellion, that caused him to be ---blocked by Bhelen for the rest of his term. And his career is based on administration and compromise; even your vaunted Augustus made comrpomises. By the by, for a better Roman leader, I would recommend Cincinnatus or Trajan (the latter being by far my favorite Roman statesman). Cicero is also a good reference.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Hukari wrote...
There is, in fact, a degree of upward mobility in Dwarven society. It is not much, but it exists; almost as much as one could have in, say, 19th century England or the medieval period. Your upward mobility comes by either being named Paragon, or going to the surface to seek your fortune. There is also the 'noble hunters', which elevate other classes from lowest to highest, regardless of origin.

If you go to the surface, you become casteless automatically and Orzammar rejects you, but buys your goods regardless. So no.

And paragons. How much does that happen?
It's an extremily limited form of social mobility. No where near enough. to start saying that Orzammar has good or even reasonable social mobility. 

[atheelogos]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

No, most people I know of on the forums do pick Bhelen, at least for their canon playthroughs. In fact, Harrowmont supporters seem to be more in the minority.

this

[Hukari]

You could say the same thing of 19th century Britain, or even 16th or 17th century. Upward social mobility is a concept born of the late 19th century and the rise of representative forms of government, replacing kings with merchants, which the nobles of Orzammar are. Equal parts politician, soldier, and merchant; as without the former, they have no heart. Without the middle, no teeth. Without the latter, no fuel.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Hukari wrote...

Well, you're presuming I kept golems. I did not. I left Harrowmont, with no golems and a heavy rebellion, that caused him to be ---blocked by Bhelen for the rest of his term. And his career is based on administration and compromise; even your vaunted Augustus made comrpomises. By the by, for a better Roman leader, I would recommend Cincinnatus or Trajan (the latter being by far my favorite Roman statesman). Cicero is also a good reference.

Cicero was a political failure.

And Augustus made compromises? I think he would be very proud that his propaganda is still believed to this very day haha. He was prudent, he didn't like audacious displays of power but the truth was he controlled everything, thanks to his enormous clientela, his Imperium over more than 3/4 of all legions and his control over all provinces except North Africa. Plus him being pontifex Maximus. Plus purging the Senate of all opponents with proscriptions.

What Augustus did was not compromise. It was throwing a dog a bone to play with so they don't bark. And Trajan, while excellent, inherited Augustus' system and was no less authoritarian. As one Senator said of Hadrian, Trajan's successor who was infact more open to the Senate, who opposed his opinion "The one who controls the legions is always right".

And what Harrowmont does with golems shows what his intentions are. Your game puts him in a position of weakness where he fails miserably. Give him  strength and see what he does. The exact opposite of what you are saying.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Hukari wrote...

You could say the same thing of 19th century Britain, or even 16th or 17th century. Upward social mobility is a concept born of the late 19th century and the rise of representative forms of government, replacing kings with merchants, which the nobles of Orzammar are. Equal parts politician, soldier, and merchant; as without the former, they have no heart. Without the middle, no teeth. Without the latter, no fuel.

No, it was present elsewhere. In Rome it was present. In the Islamic lands, it was present (slaves in fact could become Sultans and viziers and they very often did. And the peasants were not serfs).

Point is, Bhelen's reforms offer a lot more social mobility than the almost non-existent mobility in Harrowmont's case.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 janvier 2011 - 01:19 .

[Elhanan]

atheelogos wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

No, most people I know of on the forums do pick Bhelen, at least for their canon playthroughs. In fact, Harrowmont supporters seem to be more in the minority.

this

For myself, I do not mind being in the minority. That said, Skadi may not know enough peeps, Harrowmont supporters may be less "vocal", and being in the majority does not equal being right or wrong; just more "vocal".

Plus Skadi is an Evil_Elf, so of course Bhelen is made king....

Modifié par Elhanan, 11 janvier 2011 - 01:24 .

[Hukari]

The point of choosing Harrowmont is -not- to give him strength, is what I am saying. The point with choosing Harrowmont is to re-emphasize compromisei n the Assembly, thus leading to more power being held into the nobles. With the replacement of a king, in terms of power, with many competing nobles, the merchant class will arise and class barriers will begin to disintegrate. Compounding that, you have a reformist Paragon who can direct Dwarven culture towards different routes, and you can achieve what Bhelen would never dream of, and actively worked against.

As for Augustus, he made plenty of compromises. The mere fact that he needed to form a Triumverate showed his political weakness, and his civil war proved destructive to the nation as a whole for the time it went on. And, I shall come out and say this: Augustus is no more skilled than any other, for the work was not done by him; rather, all of the achivements, the groundwork for the Roman Empire, the cowing of the senate... was done by Julius Caesar. Augustus was a scavenger, and while his network of roads and the client states were brilliant, they were not the acts of an autocratic ruler; far from it.

And while Cicero was a political schizophrenic, his actions laid the groundwork for -culture- that far exceeded that of little Octavian. His rhetoric is still used today, his introduction of culture and the arts proving essential to the development of the Empire as a whole. Trajan, military emperor and constructor that he is, re-emphasized the individual by the return of property and the expansion of the Empire -without- resorting to murdering his associates.

Edit: And one final thing to mention against dear Octavian... he created the Praetorian Guard. That worked out well.

Modifié par Hukari, 11 janvier 2011 - 01:27 .

[ejoslin]

sevalaricgirl wrote...

I pick Harromount because my warden only knows that she's been lied to, and Bhelen killed his brother and blamed his other brother for it. Screw him. He doesn't deserve the throne and any dwarves that wants to can go to the surface, there are many there already. I have played the game 12 times and half I put Bhelen on the throne because of what he does to improve the lot of the dwarves then I thought about it and figured that it my warden doesn't like to be lied to so he wasn't getting the throne just because he was blood.

Orzammar falling is HORRIBLE for the surface.  It's only because Orzammar has been continuously fighting the darkspawn that there aren't more surface raids between blights, and that the darkspawn population isn't much larger.

Orzammar is at war with the darkspawn.  it's killing the race.  And if Orzammar falls, Ferelden will suffer greatly for it.  It's all well and good to hate Bhelen, but honestly, Orzammar needs a strong ruler, not a weak one.

I chose Bhelen because he is strong, and Harrowmont is weak.  During a war, especially a protracted one, one that you are slowly losing, you just do not have the luxury of having a ruler who leaves himself on the mercy of an assembly where each member is looking out only for the good and wealth of their family instead of what is necessary for Orzammar.

getting a larger military -- needed desperately.  increasing surface trade -- even more important.

Hell, if you're a dwarf and ask for the dwarven boon, Harrowmont turns away Ferelden troops -- desperately needed troops -- because he's afraid of ticking off the assembly.  Under Bhelen, with the help of those troops, Orzammar for the first time in centuries, actually starts beating the darkspawn.

Modifié par ejoslin, 11 janvier 2011 - 01:30 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Harrowmont: I will ask for troops!

Bhelen: I will send troops!



Oops you just failed Harrowmont.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Hukari wrote...

There is, in fact, a degree of upward mobility in Dwarven society. It is not much, but it exists; almost as much as one could have in, say, 19th century England or the medieval period. Your upward mobility comes by either being named Paragon, or going to the surface to seek your fortune. There is also the 'noble hunters', which elevate other classes from lowest to highest, regardless of origin.

That's not social mobility. Since Paragonhood is less likely than winning the lottery, and noble hunters are at the mercy of a noble aknowledging a kid as their own, it can hardly be called social mobility. Quite the opposite, in fact. medieval serfs had a better chance under a feudal system than dwarves do under the current system.

And the trickle down model of economics does apply in regards to dwarves, as their system is entirely based on it. The nobles compete amongst themselves to attract the attentions of skilled smiths and miners, artisans and soldiers. For when a great work is made, a great deed done, they too are advanced in honour and status.

Thus, it becomes an even more trickle-down system as it in the world as we know it. For there is not merely one or two billionaires that can buy all they need, or could ever consume. There is an entire demographic, with money and wealth, that is continuously seeking ways to spend it on; militarily, financially, or as an investment. Thus, empowering the nobles creates a trickle-down effect to those artisans and houses they purchase from.

There is far more than just a couple billionares. There is a large, fluid demographic in modern day capitalist society, a class system that is not so narrowly or rigidly defined. And said billionaires became so because they lived in an economic system that is equally fluid.

As far as empowering nobles...you do realize it is impossible to empower a class that is the only class that holds any power at all, right? The nobles do not need more power, they already have it all. And look where their "trickle down" economics have gotten Orzammar. The merchants tell you when you visit orzammar that it is the surface trade that keeps orzammar alive, not the patronage of nobles, which is far more a status thing than anything.

Plus, we are talking about more than mere economics here, we are talking about survival. Economics and politics fail to compare to the necessity of preventing your species from being exterminated completely.

To the Paragon question, this provides the essence of the Dwarven social mobility. Branka and Caridin were smiths, yet they rose higher than kings, being worshipped as living gods by Dwarven society. There are even casteless paragons, including one who went to the surface and returned to become both King and Paragon. In essence, there is hardly no upward mobility; if one is truly exceptional, one can benefit of the fruits of one's labour.

Again, you fail to grasp the point that Paragonhood is less likely than winning the lottery. Should people depend on the chance of winning the lotto as a way to achieve greater economic status?

The dwarves do not hand out paragonhood like candy. A person must achieve something that is even beyond extraordinary. Branka was the first Paragon in 4 generations. Thats like the span of a couple centuries. And she was but one. being exceptionally talented or hard working or intelligent does not, a Paragon make.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Hukari wrote...
The point of choosing Harrowmont is -not- to give him strength, is what I am saying. The point with choosing Harrowmont is to re-emphasize compromisei n the Assembly, thus leading to more power being held into the nobles. With the replacement of a king, in terms of power, with many competing nobles, the merchant class will arise and class barriers will begin to disintegrate. Compounding that, you have a reformist Paragon who can direct Dwarven culture towards different routes, and you can achieve what Bhelen would never dream of, and actively worked against.

And we see what this compromise leads to. And the brilliant policies those nobles initiate (none of which involve less casterestrictions). Bravo.
And again with Merchants. Harrowmont cuts off surface trade, the merchants are screwed. Why would the Assembly after Harrowmont do things any different? If they were happy with Harrowmont doing it? 

Your "god" warden is going to charmingly persuade them?

Hukari wrote...
As for Augustus, he made plenty of compromises. The mere fact that he needed to form a Triumverate showed his political weakness, and his civil war proved destructive to the nation as a whole for the time it went on. And, I shall come out and say this: Augustus is no more skilled than any other, for the work was not done by him; rather, all of the achivements, the groundwork for the Roman Empire, the cowing of the senate... was done by Julius Caesar. Augustus was a scavenger, and while his network of roads and the client states were brilliant, they were not the acts of an autocratic ruler; far from it.

Oh please. He needed a Triumverate when he was 19-20 and he disposed of it. And Caesar is way too overrated. Augustus' policies were different and the power he accumulated was unlike what Caesar ever dreamed of.

I suggest you read Anthony Everitt's book on Augustus. Or Pat Southern. Because really, I think you are not giving Augustus his due credit. At all. Not autocratic? Seriously? The guy would be proud he can fool people till this very day.

And what's your point anyways? That Julius Caesar was not authoritarian?

Hukari wrote...
 Trajan, military emperor and constructor that he is, re-emphasized the individual by the return of property and the expansion of the Empire -without- resorting to murdering his associates.

He didn't need to. Augustus' system cowed the Senate into submission and he had all the armies under his control. Why would he need to kill anyone?

Like I said, the Senate was not unaware to the truth when dealing with Hadrian, who was even more open than Trajan. The one who controlled the legions was always right.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 janvier 2011 - 01:40 .

[Elhanan]

ejoslin wrote...

Orzammar falling is HORRIBLE for the surface.  It's only because Orzammar has been continuously fighting the darkspawn that there aren't more surface raids between blights, and that the darkspawn population isn't much larger.

Orzammar is at war with the darkspawn.  it's killing the race.  And if Orzammar falls, Ferelden will suffer greatly for it.  It's all well and good to hate Bhelen, but honestly, Orzammar needs a strong ruler, not a weak one.

I chose Bhelen because he is strong, and Harrowmont is weak.  During a war, especially a protracted one, one that you are slowly losing, you just do not have the luxury of having a ruler who leaves himself on the mercy of an assembly where each member is looking out only for the good and wealth of their family instead of what is necessary for Orzammar.

getting a larger military -- needed desperately.  increasing surface trade -- even more important.

Hell, if you're a dwarf and ask for the dwarven boon, Harrowmont turns away Ferelden troops -- desperately needed troops -- because he's afraid of ticking off the assembly.  Under Bhelen, with the help of those troops, Orzammar for the first time in centuries, actually starts beating the darkspawn.

And then shortly Harrowmont dies, and there just may be a more convincing leader left within Orzammar ro accept such aid; just not Bhelen.

[Giggles_Manically]

Elhanan wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

Orzammar falling is HORRIBLE for the surface.  It's only because Orzammar has been continuously fighting the darkspawn that there aren't more surface raids between blights, and that the darkspawn population isn't much larger.

Orzammar is at war with the darkspawn.  it's killing the race.  And if Orzammar falls, Ferelden will suffer greatly for it.  It's all well and good to hate Bhelen, but honestly, Orzammar needs a strong ruler, not a weak one.

I chose Bhelen because he is strong, and Harrowmont is weak.  During a war, especially a protracted one, one that you are slowly losing, you just do not have the luxury of having a ruler who leaves himself on the mercy of an assembly where each member is looking out only for the good and wealth of their family instead of what is necessary for Orzammar.

getting a larger military -- needed desperately.  increasing surface trade -- even more important.

Hell, if you're a dwarf and ask for the dwarven boon, Harrowmont turns away Ferelden troops -- desperately needed troops -- because he's afraid of ticking off the assembly.  Under Bhelen, with the help of those troops, Orzammar for the first time in centuries, actually starts beating the darkspawn.

And then shortly Harrowmont dies, and there just may be a more convincing leader left within Orzammar ro accept such aid; just not Bhelen.

.......

The Assembly fought for months when they only had two people to chose from. They almost went to civil war during a blight to decide. Now they have no strong leaders and its open season on the throne for whoever wants it.
Bye bye Orzamar.