"'It is a fact, verifiable by standard stratigraphic and radioisotropic dating methods, a fact that a mighty civilization kept an outpost on Aeneas, six thousand thousand years ago. It is a reasonable inference that those beings did not perish, but rather went elsewhere, putting childish things away as they reached a new stage of evolution." (16, p. 200)
The second proposition is not a reasonable inference but just one of several hypotheses. It incorporates Biblical language.
"Outpost of Empire" and The Day Of Their Return, two Technic History installments set between the Young Flandry Trilogy and the Captain Flandry series, could be collected in a single volume as Outposts Of The Terran Empire. Aeneas, currently an outpost of the Terran Empire, was formerly an outpost of the Chereionite Empire. Thus, the proposed title becomes doubly significant.
Both current outposts resist the Terran Empire, Freehold successfully, Aeneas unsuccessfully.
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, what you quoted was not a reasoned, reasonable argument, but merely an example of wishful thinking.
I like the idea of collecting THE DAY OF THEIR RETURN and "Outpost of Empire" in a single volume. And that should be done if a COMPLETE COLLECTED WORKS OF POUL ANDERSON is ever compiled. I would slightly modify the title of such a volume and call it simply OUTPOSTS OF THE EMPIRE, as being shorter and crisper than the original suggestion.
I would argue that the Outbackers of Freehold convinced the Empire it was better to settle for a compromise, instead of a "victory" gained by means too likely to ruin the entire planet. Also, the Outbackers defeated other Freeholders, meaning the people of the Cities.
Ad astra and Merry Christmas! Sean
The empire made a very bad mistake on Freehold - trading lower costs now for more later, showing that they could be backed down by a weaker but more determined opponent. That,s an invitation to being nibbled to death. In the Empire’s position I’d have told the Outbackers that if they surrendered unconditionally I’d execute all their leaders, exile their extended families as individuals to widely scattered planets, and hit the rest with fines that would have them rebuilding the cities.withtheir bare hands for the next couple of generations.
And that this was not subject to discussion or negotiation, with a tight yes-no deadline and if they said ‘no’ then I would bombard Freehold from space until the crustal plates cracked and the oceans boiled, but starting slowly so they could watch their children die of radiation poisoning.
I might not carry out the full program if they gave up, but I would do enough to show that anything else was unforced mercy that could be withdrawn at my sole will.
Never concede under pressure, and never make a threat you won’t carry out. That was the Roman maxim, and it worked - ‘debellare superbos, pacere subjectis’. Spare the obedient, beat hell out of the proud.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling,
There’s no denying that that kind of inflexibility and brutality can work, but it can bring problems of its own. A culture that practices that kind of behavior can find it coming home to bite. Rome conquered the Mediterranean world and more, but Romans fought multiple civil wars against Romans, and in time Roman citizens, the descendants of free people who had done the conquering, were the slaves of the emperor, who now controlled the legions. Also, if you commit yourself to crushing resistance, whatever the cost and however long it takes, you may find yourself committed to spending blood and treasure fighting against minor nuisances who are not an existential threat, leaving your armies weakened and unable to respond effectively to a major invasion elsewhere. One thinks of China under the Sui Dynasty, making a costly and unsuccessful attempt to conquer Korea, for example. Or, although the circumstances were different, the United States spending years and many billions of dollars in the Vietnam War quagmire, which its major power opponents were able to keep going at much lower expense, in the form of aid to North Vietnam.
Poul Anderson did write, “The Season of Forgiveness.”
Best Regards,
Nicholas Rosen
Thanks, Nicholas. My view is that a regime that can only survive by brutality should not be supported and does not deserve to survive. (Although, of course, we might find ourselves obliged to support it!)
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I understand your point, and I even agree that sometimes the use of force is necessary and justified. But I can't agree with the kind of EXTREME force you suggested. Because I think the issues involved on Freehold were tangled and complicated enough that no really satisfactory solution was possible.
The Outbackers were in the wrong when they destroyed the Cities. But that was provoked by the error of the Cities when they did not take into account the views and wishes of the Outbackers when the Cities petitioned the Empire to annex Freehold.
It had taken centuries for the Cities to grow and reach the stage they had attained before the Outbackers destroyed them. On a planet not truly CONDUCIVE for that kind of culture. Which means I agreee with John Ridenour's view that it would be futile to attempt rebuilding them.
BUT, Ridenour did not propose letting the Outbackers get all that they wanted scot free! They would still have to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Empire and agree to paying heavy compensation to the former residents of the Cities. That would seem to be still putting the Outbackers in their place!
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean: no, because they won their essential aims and imposed a solution more favorable to their interests by force against the Empire's wishes.
As I said, that's an invitation for others to try. It's essentially to demonstrate that the mathematically inevitable result of that will be nothing but despair, defeat and death -- then they won't try.
It's not a matter of who's abstractly right or wrong, but of whose will prevails.
There's a very bad movie about Masada, which has one very good scene: Peter O'Toole, playing a Roman general, says he can sum up empire in a very brief demonstration.
He then grabs the person by the neck, cocks his other hand back and says: DOG, HERE IS MY FIST. DO WHAT I WANT, OR I WILL HIT YOU WITH IT.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
In strict logic, I can't disagree with you, despite my personal or moral revulsion at the EXTREME means that would be needed to break the Outbackers.
I would argue, however, that in REAL history, we see great powers acting on a spectrum ranging from weakness, mildness, firmness, STRONG firmness, down to the kind of violence you believe would have been necessary to bend the Outbackers to the will of the Empire. My impression has been that a great power can be weak, foolish, or extremely ruthless, depending on circumstances. We have certainly seen the US being all or most of those things!
However ruthless and brutal the atomic bombings of Japan were in 2945, I believe they were necessary and finally broke Japan's will to continue the war.
Ad astra and Happy New Year! Sean
Drat! I meant the year 1945 in my previous comment, not 2945!
Sean
Post a Comment