Ghanima Atreides (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
atreideslioness) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomhigh2022-03-15 02:22 pm
atreideslioness) wrote in fandomhigh2022-03-15 02:22 pm
Entry tags:
Mad Kings & Queens: Raving Royals and How To Survive Them (Tuesday, 4th Period)
"Apologies for being out," Ghanima said, once everyone had assembled. "I was needed at home to preside over a legal matter. I am considered a more 'neutral' or 'merciful' judge than my brother, which, really, is just sexism at play, but it can be satisfying to crush their hopes of getting an acquittal simply because of my 'soft heart.'"
"A few weeks ago, an excellent question was raised," Ghanima continued brightly. "Why kings or emperors at all? Why royalty?"
"Well, this planet hasn't always been so well connected. The internet and telephone are both practically infants, technology-wise, in the history of humanity. And this planet is fairly large, compared to a human's ability to travel without cars or automobiles. Humans have walked this planet for about six million years. Instant communication is really only about a hundred years old, same with automobiles. Widespread travel by airplane is even younger, and most versions of this planet do not have the access to Portalocity that we do. How do you do an actual representative democracy without communication?"
"And to be blunt -- for most of human history, power has rested with an elite few, either by circumstances of birth, from conquest, or both. A farmer is not going to successfully stand up to a warlord on their own. They don't have the support in numbers, or the combat training."
"Systems of government were originally formed to keep order in a widespread and an order-less world, but were also some of the main reasons for anarchy and conflict. It's rare for a ruler to be content with what they have, without starting to want their neighbor's stuff too."
"A monarchy is a form of government in which a person, the monarch, is head of state for life or until abdication. The political legitimacy and authority of the monarch may vary from restricted and largely symbolic to fully autocratic, and can expand across the domains of the executive, legislative, and judicial."
"Monarchies are thought to be preceded by the similar form of prehistoric societal hierarchy known as chiefdom, or tribal kingship. Chiefdoms are identified as having formed monarchic states, as in civilizations such as Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley Civilization. In some parts of the world, chiefdoms became monarchies. Some of the oldest recorded and evidenced monarchies were Narmer, Pharaoh of Ancient Egypt c. 3100 BCE, and Enmebaragesi who was a Sumerian King of Kish c. 2600 BCE."
"From earliest records, monarchs could be directly hereditary, while others were elected from among eligible members. With the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Sudanic, reconstructed Proto-Indo-European religion, and others, the monarch held sacral functions directly connected to sacrifice and was sometimes identified with having divine ancestry, possibly establishing a notion of the divine right of kings."
"But WHY monarchs?" Ghanima asked. "Well, for the most part, monarchy arose as a system of governance because of an efficiency in governing large populations and expansive territories during periods when coordinating such populations was difficult. When you have pirates raiding your shores, it's more effective to band together with other nearby towns to have the numbers to repel them. But if you're working with other tribes, who has the power to make decisions? To negotiate? Well, perhaps you create a council, with one representative per area. But who is that person? Are they elected? The strongest warrior? The blacksmith who can provide the weapons? If the council ends up deadlocked, who makes the decision? Are you doing all of this by letter? What if the letter gets lost or waylaid? Are you all trying to meet together? Where? How? What if someone is killed along the way? Travel was quite perilous during early civilization. Who takes over after you die? Some random person, or a child you have trained up from birth to know everything that you know?"
"Decisions aren't easy. Decisions are hard. If you haven't taken my class on the Art of War before, I suggest you read the text. Battles are about more than numbers, more than violence. They are decisions about people's lives. About the impact on the world around you. And that's not something everyone is capable of doing -- making decisions about who lives, who dies, the impact on civilians, what an acceptable cost for victory is, and when it's time to pause the immediate violence and refortify."
"What is peace, anyway? Is it the same for both sides? No, there's always a winner and a loser, or sometimes multiple losers. Sometimes no one wins. But no conflict ever ends with both sides victorious. And that's where the monarchs came in. The people to make decisions, to enforce 'peace,' for whatever it was worth, to make the decisions about death and life and laws."
"Is that fair? Absolutely not. But as we've learned, leading well requires learning, requires intelligence. There's budgets, taxes, math, legalities. Can a sheepherder learn it? Yes, if they are of quick wit and study and have the opportunity, but people who have been born to the family have opportunities from birth, and are often loath to give up that power to which they have become accustomed."
"Take me, for example. I am a lady of House Atreides by birth for thousands of years, a princess royal of the Imperium by right of war, and the Empress of the Known Universe by ascension and conquest. When circumstances -- put into play by an old man who was resentful of the fact my grandfather was better liked than him --" If you thought that Ghanima sounded scornful, you were right, "--forced my father to fight for a throne he never wanted or die, he did it. It is the same story that has played out in thousands of tribes across thousands of planets. Monarchies evolve over and over and over, for a reason."
"Does that give my brother and I a right to rule? We both have abilities that let us literally see the future, but does that make us a good choice to rule millions upon millions? Is that not simply 'the divine right to rule' all over again? We were not elected, but can an entire fractured empire that spans star systems unify enough to elect a leader? What is better? A pair of reluctant tyrants, an elected leader constantly under siege and unable to truly lead, or full anarchy without any social programs or networks and full societal breakdown? Is there a 'right' choice in a situation like this?"
"I will be honest. All glimpses into the future showed the human race eventually going extinct in terrible, horrible ways, unless we took and maintained power. Could that have been avoided earlier in the timeline? Perhaps, but we are where we are now, because of the actions of others over a millennia. And that is why I am here, with you. Because you are your future, and my past, and perhaps, just perhaps, you will create a future where there is no Imperium, where humanity has already saved itself. And wouldn't that be wonderful?"
"A few weeks ago, an excellent question was raised," Ghanima continued brightly. "Why kings or emperors at all? Why royalty?"
"Well, this planet hasn't always been so well connected. The internet and telephone are both practically infants, technology-wise, in the history of humanity. And this planet is fairly large, compared to a human's ability to travel without cars or automobiles. Humans have walked this planet for about six million years. Instant communication is really only about a hundred years old, same with automobiles. Widespread travel by airplane is even younger, and most versions of this planet do not have the access to Portalocity that we do. How do you do an actual representative democracy without communication?"
"And to be blunt -- for most of human history, power has rested with an elite few, either by circumstances of birth, from conquest, or both. A farmer is not going to successfully stand up to a warlord on their own. They don't have the support in numbers, or the combat training."
"Systems of government were originally formed to keep order in a widespread and an order-less world, but were also some of the main reasons for anarchy and conflict. It's rare for a ruler to be content with what they have, without starting to want their neighbor's stuff too."
"A monarchy is a form of government in which a person, the monarch, is head of state for life or until abdication. The political legitimacy and authority of the monarch may vary from restricted and largely symbolic to fully autocratic, and can expand across the domains of the executive, legislative, and judicial."
"Monarchies are thought to be preceded by the similar form of prehistoric societal hierarchy known as chiefdom, or tribal kingship. Chiefdoms are identified as having formed monarchic states, as in civilizations such as Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley Civilization. In some parts of the world, chiefdoms became monarchies. Some of the oldest recorded and evidenced monarchies were Narmer, Pharaoh of Ancient Egypt c. 3100 BCE, and Enmebaragesi who was a Sumerian King of Kish c. 2600 BCE."
"From earliest records, monarchs could be directly hereditary, while others were elected from among eligible members. With the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Sudanic, reconstructed Proto-Indo-European religion, and others, the monarch held sacral functions directly connected to sacrifice and was sometimes identified with having divine ancestry, possibly establishing a notion of the divine right of kings."
"But WHY monarchs?" Ghanima asked. "Well, for the most part, monarchy arose as a system of governance because of an efficiency in governing large populations and expansive territories during periods when coordinating such populations was difficult. When you have pirates raiding your shores, it's more effective to band together with other nearby towns to have the numbers to repel them. But if you're working with other tribes, who has the power to make decisions? To negotiate? Well, perhaps you create a council, with one representative per area. But who is that person? Are they elected? The strongest warrior? The blacksmith who can provide the weapons? If the council ends up deadlocked, who makes the decision? Are you doing all of this by letter? What if the letter gets lost or waylaid? Are you all trying to meet together? Where? How? What if someone is killed along the way? Travel was quite perilous during early civilization. Who takes over after you die? Some random person, or a child you have trained up from birth to know everything that you know?"
"Decisions aren't easy. Decisions are hard. If you haven't taken my class on the Art of War before, I suggest you read the text. Battles are about more than numbers, more than violence. They are decisions about people's lives. About the impact on the world around you. And that's not something everyone is capable of doing -- making decisions about who lives, who dies, the impact on civilians, what an acceptable cost for victory is, and when it's time to pause the immediate violence and refortify."
"What is peace, anyway? Is it the same for both sides? No, there's always a winner and a loser, or sometimes multiple losers. Sometimes no one wins. But no conflict ever ends with both sides victorious. And that's where the monarchs came in. The people to make decisions, to enforce 'peace,' for whatever it was worth, to make the decisions about death and life and laws."
"Is that fair? Absolutely not. But as we've learned, leading well requires learning, requires intelligence. There's budgets, taxes, math, legalities. Can a sheepherder learn it? Yes, if they are of quick wit and study and have the opportunity, but people who have been born to the family have opportunities from birth, and are often loath to give up that power to which they have become accustomed."
"Take me, for example. I am a lady of House Atreides by birth for thousands of years, a princess royal of the Imperium by right of war, and the Empress of the Known Universe by ascension and conquest. When circumstances -- put into play by an old man who was resentful of the fact my grandfather was better liked than him --" If you thought that Ghanima sounded scornful, you were right, "--forced my father to fight for a throne he never wanted or die, he did it. It is the same story that has played out in thousands of tribes across thousands of planets. Monarchies evolve over and over and over, for a reason."
"Does that give my brother and I a right to rule? We both have abilities that let us literally see the future, but does that make us a good choice to rule millions upon millions? Is that not simply 'the divine right to rule' all over again? We were not elected, but can an entire fractured empire that spans star systems unify enough to elect a leader? What is better? A pair of reluctant tyrants, an elected leader constantly under siege and unable to truly lead, or full anarchy without any social programs or networks and full societal breakdown? Is there a 'right' choice in a situation like this?"
"I will be honest. All glimpses into the future showed the human race eventually going extinct in terrible, horrible ways, unless we took and maintained power. Could that have been avoided earlier in the timeline? Perhaps, but we are where we are now, because of the actions of others over a millennia. And that is why I am here, with you. Because you are your future, and my past, and perhaps, just perhaps, you will create a future where there is no Imperium, where humanity has already saved itself. And wouldn't that be wonderful?"