Real history is ambiguous, therefore so is Poul Anderson's Technic History. The Terran Empire is resisted successfully on Avalon and Freehold but unsuccessfully on Ansa, Aeneas and Brae. Ivar Frederiksen leads an ambush of Terran marines on Aeneas whereas Dominic Flandry works alongside the marines on Brae. Although Merseians were introduced as stereotypical space opera villains, complete with green, scaled skin, the members of their species who live on the human colony planet, Dennitza, are friendly and loyal to the Emperor, not to the Roidhun. Are rich merchants good or bad? We see both kinds. And so on.
5 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Are there plenty of ambiguities and grey areas in real history and life? Yes, but some sides are better, on balance, than others. The Terran Empire, despite its flaw, blunders, and outright cruelties, was still better than the Roidhunate. And so on for many examples I could cite from real history. E.g., Tsarist Russia was more preferable than the USSR.
Happy New Year! Sean
Sean,
Tsarism preferable to the USSR rather than just that both were bad?
We should never settle just for a lesser evil. We should always aim for something better.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, Tsarist Russia was vastly preferable compared to the monstrous horror that was the USSR! To restrict comments to events during Nicholas II's reign, from 1905 to the catastrophe of WW I beginning in 1914, the Tsarist regime made determined efforts at real reform. Esp during the premierships of Peter Stolypin and Count Kokovtsov in 1906-14.
You will almost NEVER get real improvement by overthrowing an imperfect but not intolerably bad gov't. Far more likely, the succeeding regime will be vastly worse, because that has been the actual pattern we see in real history. Thank you, I will take Louis XVI, Nicholas II, or Haile Selassie any day over tyrants like Robespierre, Lenin, or Haile Mengistu Mariam.
Happy New Year! Sean
The later Romanovs were not particularly tyrannical.
Stupid and obtuse and inefficient, yes: but the Russian economy was booming, serfdom had been abolished, and after Stolypin's reforms the peasantry were acquiring land as individual farmers and making rapid progress.
Nicholas' II's determination to live up to the terms of his alliance with France was the ultimate cause of disaster for his dynasty and country -- the road to Hell being paved with good intentions.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And the establishment of the State Duma would have meant, given time, an outlet for further reforms.
I agree, loyalty to the disastrous alliance with France was what brought down Nicholas II and Tsarist Russia.* Far better for Russia to have remained strictly neutral in 1914.
Ad astra! Sean
*And to the ghastly fate of the Romanovs at the House of Special Purpose in Ekaterinberg.
Post a Comment