I am not arguing for perfect social mobility. I am arguing that social mobility -exists-, which is what others have argued against Harrowmont. As to empowering the nobles, no, they do not have all the power. The King and state hold power, and thus with Harrowmont, that power was dispersed to the intercompeting nobles.
Yes, the surface trade is what sustains Orzammar; but no system can survive internally in any advanced state. That's as assumed a statement as saying 'the sky is blue'. The point I am trying to make is, nobles competing against each other to spend their resources on the cream of the crop craftsmen and soldiers, ensures that if one is good at what one does, they recieve compensation and status for it. There is also the fact of adoption within noble houses, as evidenced by the Warden's illegitimate son being able to be taken in by House Aeducan or House Harrowmont without so much as a 'how'dya do' about his heritage.
But now, we come to the issue of politics vs. survival. First, let us say this: The Dwarven race is not going to go extinct. Kal-Sharok, Kal'Hirol, et cetera, are all firmly in Dwarven hands. Even if every Dwarven holding, if every city beneath the earth were to be exteriminated to the last, the Dwarven race would still be populous. It was mentioned in a codex that the surfacers may now well outnumber those that dwell underground.
So, my answer to that is this, two pithy phrases. "Death before dishonour", and "He who sacrifices liberty for security, deserves neither." The latter, of course, being a paraphrase.
Edit: Ah, posted before your response, KoP. Let me dissasemble it: I am not arguing Augustus was not authoritarian, or that he didn't do good works. I am arguing that he inherited the political situation of Julius Caesar, who laid most of the political groundwork in the transformation. The assassination was not the end of the formation to Empire; I argue that it was with his death that the Empire was, politically, formed. The divisions were made, the power concentrated in the hands of the few, all lumped into Octavian's lap.
It was the actions of Emperors who had no such 'gift', who instead used their positions to gently ease the Empire towards the Republic it once was, that mark a truly fine Roman. Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus, and sadly, poor Marcus. The latter I am hesitant to put on there, due to his poor choice in Commodus, and breaking the tradition of no direct lineage. You see, that was a period when the glory of Rome was at it's height; not under the civil wars and violent upheaval that Caesar and Octavian brought with them. A lesson is to be learned from that.
For further references on it, I would recommend Machiavelli's "Discourses on Livy". They're really quite astounding, and make a perfect example of what is going on here.
Modifié par Hukari, 11 janvier 2011 - 01:47 .
Retour en haut
