languages, including Latin;
a Biblical quotation;
an exotic travelogue;
not only heroic deeds during a war but also the effects of war;
a returning villain;
a meeting of a German military committee;
patient Empire-building;
no doubt much more because I am less than half way through the book.
We always enjoy reading the deliberations of the other side in a fictional conflict. Poul Anderson gives us the Roidhun's Grand Council on Merseia. Ian Fleming gives us:
Russian intelligence heads (GRU, RUMID, MGB, SMERSH);
Goldfinger's Hoods' Congress, which includes the Mafia;
SPECTRE, chaired by Blofeld;
SPECTRE, chaired by Largo;
The Man With The Golden Gun's Group, which includes the Mafia and the KGB.
(I think that Fleming outdoes his competitors in this department.)
Possible Fates Of A Continuing Villain
killed at the end of the series
lives to fight another day
changes sides (very rare)
I am giving nothing away here because I have no idea what will happen to the Black Chamber's German antagonist.
5 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, we twice see meetings of the Roidhun's Grand Council in THE GAME OF EMPIRE, but, oddly, never any of the Roidhuns themselves. Even granting that Roidhuns reign, rather than rule, on Merseia, this seems a bit odd. A CIRCUS OF HELLS says the Roidhun might or not be a figurehead, DEPENDING on many factors. His influence would depend on how forceful the Roidhun was and how strongly he insisted on having more than a nominal role in governing.
We see some of the Terran Emperors more often, such Josip (while he was still Crown Prince in ENSIGN FLANDRY), Emperor Hans in A KNIGHT OF GHOSTS AND SHADOWS, and Gerhart in A STONE IN HEAVEN. And their formal powers are described as theoretically wide and sweeping, but limited in fact by the sheer vastness of the Empire and the impossibility of ruling it in detail.
Unfortunately, we don't see any meetings of the Policy Board, aside from key members privately meeting Lord Hauksberg in ENSIGN FLANDRY. The Board's role seems to be both advisory (to the Emperor) and the setting of policy for the Empire as a whole. Some Lord Advisers may have directed ministries or agencies of the Imperium as well.
And I do recall how the heads of Soviet intelligence conferred in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. And the curious mix of fear and ambition seen in that meeting.
I'm reasonably sure one of those effects of war mentioned in THEATER OF SPIES was how the British Naval blockade was driving Germany to slow starvation. Which helps to explain why Germany was so eager to get control of at least part of the fertile lands of Ukraine.
Sean
The model for the Mersian-Terran conflict were Rome and Persia, but while the Terran Empire's executive is rather like that of Rome (and Byzantium), the Mersesian government is much more like that of Japan under the Shoguns.
This has practical implications. The Roman Empire's monarchy started with a military coup in a republic, and this remained in the cultural memory for a long time. Rome never developed much of a sense of dynastic legitimacy; the whole thrust of Classical intellectual culture was anti-monarchic. Even Byzantium, where Christian Caesaropapism altered the balance, a successful general could seize the throne.
The Terran Empire functions roughly like this, though with a more modern governmental structure.
In Japan, though the Shoguns were ultimately of military origin -- the title means "Barbarian-subduing Generalissimo" -- the Imperial institution was genuinely ancient, surrounded by elaborate religious sanctions, and it's now going on 1500 years old in reality and more in myth and legend.
In other words, Roman emperors tried to acquire divine honors, but the Japanese -really- considered their Emperors to be quasi-divine.
Merseia seems to be roughly in that situation.
Sean: yes, the blockade figures in THEATER OF SPIES.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Many thanks for your always interesting comments. I agree it was a weakness that the Roman Empire that it never developed a truly strong hsense of dynastic legitimacy, which would have helped to stabilize it. Yes, the Eastern Empire, while it did develop some sense of the desirability of dynastic continuity, there were times when an ambitious general could seize the throne.
I would argue, as regards Anderson's Terran Empire, that it did have an awareness of the desirability of dynastic continuity, at least during the Argolid and Wang dynasties. We see the Founder of the Empire, Manuel Argos, deliberately planning to build that into the state he meditated fouding in "The Star Plunderer." As late as THE GAME OF EMPIRE there were people who wished there were still Argolid Emperors ruling Terra.
I agree with what you said about Japan and how it's basic political structure was analogous to that of Merseia. What you said about how ancient the Japanese monarchy was reminded me of how the closest we see to that in Western history was how France was uninterruptedly ruled by kings descended patrilineally from Hugh Capet from AD 986 onwards to the deposition of Louis XVI in 1792.
Sean
"British Naval blockade was driving Germany to slow starvation."
Nitrogen fertilizer from the Haber-Bosch process could have mitigated that, but I can see a few factors that would limit that effect.
1) Scaling up ammonia production enough for both ammunition and fertilizer production would be difficult.
2) IIMN labour for farming & horses for both farming and moving military supplies were limiting factors. Fuel for machinery that would replace horses for both was limited.
Have I got much wrong?
Post a Comment