wizardryforever wrote...
I find it rarely justified on the basis that it is an unstable system that crashes and burns as soon as the dictator dies, even if a successor is chosen. There is no peaceful transition of power, and pretty much every instance of it that I can recall from history ended in disaster, as absolute monarchies and dictatorships inevitably face a poor ruler.
Every system ends up in disaster.
However, historical evidence contradicts your theory that there can't be a peaceful transition of power.
Yes there can and has been.
wizardryforever wrote...
Bhelen may be alright in this regard (debatable, but not going into that), but who's to say how well the system turns out to be under his successors? Especially when they learn from daddy Bhelen that kinslaying and backstabbing and lying to get what you want are okay.
That's what every politician in a place like Orzammar needs to learn.
And in addition to this, they will probably also learn the benefits of his reforms.
And should his regime crash, which it will ultimately, the reforms that were made will be hard to reverse. And life goes on.
Point is, the probability of Bhelen's regime succeeding after his death is much higher than the Assembly realizing what needs to be done any time soon.
I was under the impression that Harrowmont's supporters followed Harrowmont's example and acknowledged Bhelen as king, whereas Bhelen's supporters took Bhelen's lead and threw a tantrum because Bhelen didn't get his way. Perhaps Harrowmont's supporters care more about the rule of law, in any case, speaks volumes of the nature of Bhelen and his supporters. Since, you know, they stir up a bloody rebellion and Harrowmont's don't.
I see it as cowardice and lack of loyalty. And there are rebels under Bhelen as well, except he deals with them better and swiftly.
And rule of law? Somehow I don't think assassinating a king is part of that rule of law.
This is why I say they need someone who is strong like Bhelen, but ethical like Harrowmont.
That for me sounds like a contradiction. All strong leaders were very ruthless (depending on circumstances) from what I know and I don't intend to brag, but I think I know quite a bit in this regard.
Being unable to compromise is a mark of very poor leadership. Often, compromise is necessary and vital to everyone's wellbeing.
When one cannot afford to compromise with those who don't realize what is needed, then no it's not. Compromising with self-interested fools who would oppose any kind of necessary reform is the mark of weak leadership and we see it perfectly in Harrowmont.
Indeed, though a huge part of what brought about the end of Rome (both the classical and Byzantine empires) was the constant assassinations and succession struggles. These things kept the empire focused inward when it needed to defend itself. It was mired in petty struggles within and fell piece by piece to outside invaders. It became only marginally better when they made the emperorship hereditary. But really, arguing Roman history is rather pointless in this context.
Not really, the Roman Empire, again, survived Nero, Caligula, Commodus, the year of the four Emperors and the civil war that brought Septimius Severus into power and the system remained mostly intact.
If we are to compare those events to the civil wars that the Republic experienced, they are rather mild.
While it certainly had problems, I think everyone knows that what Augustus did when he removed the impotent Republic to be what Rome needed.
Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 janvier 2011 - 06:15 .
Retour en haut
