Kings and Rulers

--
EDIT (1/5/2012): I've changed the title...originally I wanted this to be a part of my "Life is..." series, but I don't think it fits in line with that series. The information is good and informative (it does what good information should) but it isn't organized and I don't think the theme necessarily fits what my other "life is..." articles do.
--



What are we if not social animals? Where would we be if we didn't have dreams?
Our dreams are our desires before they happen and often the biggest dreamers are the most successful people. In order to be successful, we as humans have to start with having a 2)dream or a 1)desire. Our desires have to formulate into 3)plans, and our plans have to come to 4)fruition. Nothing that has transpired in the history of mankind has escaped this process.

I have been studying the macro-level of the rise of great nations lately; Japan, Rome, England, and the American Civil War specifically. In each nation, there were distinct factions, which I will call components, which needed to be united before they could become what greatness we today see them as. The leader of these respective nations followed a specific process in order to unite the country.

Shortly before 1200 AD, Japan suffered from many household rifts. Japan was populated by a handful of distinct and powerful elite families who ruled over several thousands of people and yet there was no distinct ruler over all Japan. Using political savvy and warring might, a Shogun was eventually crowed ruler over all Japan, and his family lasted for a couple hundred years before civil war broke out. The civil war ended in yet another shogun taking over all Japan. The interesting aspect of this human history is when looking at the fine details of the shoguns' rise. It was a very complex process and did not happen over night. Nor did it happen with mere physical force. At some point, the people needed to be persuaded not to serve their old masters.
Some, maybe even most, of the persuasion came in the form of brute force: punishing opposition, imprisoning rebels, bullying and intimidating, killing rivals. But there were other forms of persuasion that took place, specifically, there were established customs and rituals that united the Japanese people behind their new leaders.

Rome was not built in a day, yet in practically one day Julius Caesar became emperor of it (I am exaggerating). Prior to that fateful day, the roman kingdom was ruled by three elite rulers who, through their political ties in the senate and military might throughout the world, gave them dominion over all Roman affairs. The political climate reached a point where the people (especially the upper-tier of society) practically wanted a single emperor and were backing their respective member of the triumvarate (Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus). Tensions rose until Caesar marched on towards Rome and captured the capital. Upon ceasing the capital, however, Caesar wasn't instantly the Emperor of Rome. Life is more complex than that. He did, however, begin acting as though he were the supreme ruler of Rome, and he made MANY changes to the structure of the government and the social order.

England, after King Henry's death, was ruled by Queen Mary, who was catholic. Her sister, Elizabeth, was more of a Protestant worshiper. Mary became ill and died and Elizabeth was made Queen. But merely having the title did not make her the queen. She had many enemies in England and abroad. The political climate emphasized religion, and because she did not have a husband the religious leaders of the time put pressure on her to marry a catholic husband and to quell any protestant uprisings. (I apologize for the lack of research done here, but I believe she could not be respected in making any religious decisions on her own because she did not have a husband and according to religious views of the time the husband was the head of household and only one capable of making that decision for her--or her father, who was dead) --She was the queen of England and even she did not have full authority. She had to convince the religious leaders to sever their ties with the pope in order to allow English protestants to freely and legally worship, otherwise the pope could mandate that these protestants were heretics and enemies of the state and should be killed.

The American Civil war was sparked by a simple political problem: King cotton was too powerful. I'm sure an argument could be made comparing cotton to our modern oil industry. Cotton was just too powerful of an economy and it threatened many industries and the whole global political climate. The rest of the world put pressure on the U.S. to get rid of slavery. The North put pressure on the South to get rid of slavery because it gave southerners more political power in the senate than the North felt was fair (due to population issues and etc.). When Lincoln was elected president, and before he took office, Southerners feared the abolition of slavery and that it would ruin their entire economy and culture, and so they withdrew from the Union. It was their belief that their state was voluntarily associating with the other states and that they could withdraw that association at any time.
The North framed their secession as open rebellion, however, initially, president Lincoln played a game of rhetorical politics in which he claimed that the south "stole" Federal Union property when it brought U.S. forts along with it into the secession. The biggest initial burden on the U.S. when the south seceded was the issue of military: many generals left (which was the definition of desertion), forts and supplies were no longer on U.S. soil, and soldiers in U.S. uniforms were suddenly traded over. How should the president handle the situation? Honorably release them for abandoning country? Give the supplies to the south? He carried on as if nothing happened--not mentally, but in his actions: He resupplied forts and ignored any letters from the confederacy that they cease supplying them. When the war started, he made certain that the south fired the first shot.


If all social animals were submissive and fully willing to rationally compromise in their debates, none of these 'new' nations would have formed. I specifically put quote on the word "new" because they have since been framed to appear as though they have always existed. When Lincoln took office, his rule was radical--he freed the slaves and ensured that our country was a federal country, not a union of free agent nations. Japan truly was a new nation. Rome was no longer a republic but an empire/Monarchy, and Elizabeth ensured that the religious politics controlled by the pope didn't interfere in her country's politics and essentially did away with (in part) the divine right of kings.

Life is not historical. Although England is still England, America is still America, Japan is still Japan, and... well, Rome is dead, none of these are anywhere near the same as they were before their great civil wars. Rome, in fact now, is still around as far as I am concerned. It lives through it's religion, which has penetrated every continent and politically meddled with most nations. Roman thought and politics still exists in all countries. --Rome, though it's empire is dead, still lives just as much as Babylonian moral practices still exist everywhere.
You either have to accept that life is always changing and every political change, even small ones, are large shifts in the pond; or you have to assume that all of the structures in life, all of the conflicts, the politics, the rhetoric--none of that is new and our true roots as nations extend back to the time of the original superpowers: Egypt, Carthage, Phonecia, &c..