Dominic Flandry suggests revolution on Unan Besar but later says that he is against revolutions in
The Game of Empire. However,
that is later. Also, the two situations are entirely different. Revolution in the Terran Empire means changing who is Emperor, not worth fighting over. A planetary population that wants a more egalitarian society can have it within the Empire as long as it continues to pay a modest Imperial tax and accept Imperial protection. A planet's internal affairs are its own affair but, if it seeks external help from Merseia, then it makes a serious mistake and the Empire has to intervene.
19 comments:
The Terran Empire is probably simply too big to be very centralized.
(So was the Roman Empire, btw. For most of its existence there was a very high degree of local autonomy, as long as the local panjandrums accepted the Empire.)
Kaor, Paul!
I do have a few quibbles or comments. The regime ruling Unan Besar, Biocontrol, does not deserve to survive, being utterly corrupt, incompetent, oppressive, etc. Unlike most real world gov'ts not dominated by a fanatical ideology, Unan Besar's gov't doesn't have the usual exasperating mix of the good and bad that makes them tolerable.
I would not be so dismissive of the question of who is Emperor of Terra. It does matter who is Emperor and how he came to the throne. Ideally, legitimately and according to the laws of the Empire regulating the succession. Altho that broke down after Josip died, we see people like Flandry supporting Hans Molitor because he was the least bad of the usurpers contending for the throne.
And I don't believe in things like "A planetary population that wants a more egalitarian society." ALL human societies thru out known history and the archaeological record has been stratified. They all had leading groups, more or less formalized means of governing themselves, poorer or wealthier persons, etc. Humans are too DIFFERENT in abilities, talents, virtues (and vices!), etc., for social stratification NOT to emerge.
But, yes, I can see the Empire not objecting to some colonies setting up somewhat peculiar ways of living, as long as they did not bother their neighbors, paid their share of Imperial taxes, and did not intrigue with enemies of the Empire like Merseia. E.g., I can imagine some planets being settled by the Amish. Their way of life probably comes as close as its possible to being "egalitarian." If you don't mind their Anabaptist faith/theology and dislike of advanced technology.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, the Empire Flandry served was too big, even with FTL, to be tightly governed. For the most part, and wisely, Terra did not try to do that. Heck, the mostly bungling efforts of the US gov't to rule in a centralized way (since at least FDR's time) has not been notably successful. We have seen an endless stream of fiascoes, complaints, foot dragging, opposition, criticisms, incompetence, etc., resulting from that centralization. And the US covers only a part of Earth!
As for the Roman Empire, it helped a LOT if those local panjandrums had been Romanized. That made them WANT to accept the Empire.
Ad astra! Sean
Most local elites in the Roman Empire embraced Romanization willingly and thoroughly -- by the 4th century Ausonius and other Gallic aristos were indistinguishable in their way of life, the language they spoke, the books they read and even their household furnishings, from someone like Pliny the Younger centuries earlier. Much earlier, Trajan and Hadrian came from southern Spain -- Baetica, what's now Andalusia -- and nobody had any objection; the region might as well have been part of Italy.
The East was a partial exception; but there Hellenization was notable too, and by the 2nd century the Greeks had become a more or less willing part of the Empire too.
A notable and real exception was the Jews. They were the unmeltable part of the Roman melting pot.
It's really astonishing what the Roman Empire was like at its height. There wasn't a European city as large as Rome in Marcus Aurelius' time until London in 1800, and it wasn't until the 1870's that London had a water system as good as Rome at its peak.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Yes, the amazingly successful Romanization of large parts of the Empire was a big factor in how and why it survived so long. And helped to explain why Emperors not born in Rome or Italy were so easily accepted--because they were as Roman as anybody from there.
Even the Greeks couldn't escape some Romanization! Greek absorbed many Latin loan words and most Greeks came to think of think of themselves as Romans, NOT Hellenes.
Agree, the Jews were the most prominent exception to this cultural Romanization. Unfortunately, this resistance included bloodily futile rebellions against Rome.
Technologically, Rome might have advanced even further if the implications of those experiments with steam power in Alexandria had been grasped and developed by Roman entrepreneurs. Something your time travelers stranded in Antonine Rome might take an interest in!
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I'm bemused by the first paragraph of my first comment in this combox. I was talking about Unan Besar and Biocontrol as tho it was a real planet with a real gov't. which goes to show how convincingly Poul Anderson could write!
Ad astra! Sean
"Technologically, Rome might have advanced even further if the implications of those experiments with steam power in Alexandria had been grasped and developed by Roman entrepreneurs"
When I raised this point with a historian with a particular interest in the science & technology of that era, he pointed out that the scientists were in the far south east of the empire & the coal that might have made the early & inefficient steam engines useful enough for further development were in the far northwest of the empire. That is a major part of why steam power was just a toy as far as those scientists were concerned.
Kaor, Jim!
I don't think this gentleman was right. My thought being that an entrepreneurial minded Roman businessman who observed these experimental steam powered devices in Alexandria could have taken designs, plans, models, even some technicians to the NW parts of the Empire and done further developing there.
I've also wondered if slavery made labor so cheap in the Roman Empire that there was simply not much incentive for inventing steam powered labor saving devices. Or maybe the right kind of culture needed for taking an interest in such things did not exist. I recall Anderson suggesting the latter idea in IS THERE LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS?
Ad astra! Sean
Another thing is that Heron's 'aeolipile' was just a toy with little obvious way to get useful work out of it. The early steam engines that lead to Newcomen's & Watt's engines were piston devices & my impression is that cannon lead to the development of the devices for casting & boring metal cylinders that could be used in such steam engines.
Kaor, Jim!
I think you made some excellent points, what you said about pistons and how manufacturing cannon required learning how to invent devices for casting and boring metal cylinders. All of which were, I believe, unknown to the Roman Empire.
But, almost certainly, the time travelers Stirling stranded in the Rome of Marcus Aurelius knew about these things!
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, To All Interested!
I've been trying to remember a story I THINK was written by Anderson: 20th century time travelers went back to the Rome of Augustus' time, shanghaied a random selection of Romans to bring back and study. BUT, these "primitives" soon escaped and disappeared. The bulk of the story is a letter from one of these Romans to another reminiscing on how they had fared since then. Very well in fact; better than the moderns who tried to visit Augustan Rome.
I went thru my collection of the works of Anderson, esp. collections of his shorter works, trying to find this story, but did not find it. Is what I wrote above brings to mind any of Anderson's stories? Or was it by another writer?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I don't know but it sounds to me as if it is another writer.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I almost think this story was by Anderson, but I'm not sure. Perhaps it was something Turtledove wrote. Vexatious!
Ad astra! Sean
Practical steam engines require very precise engineering. Watt spent ten years after he had the -concept- of his engine developing the machining necessary for the cylinders and valves, and a lot of John Bolton's money too, and that was in the center of the most advanced manufacturing tech on the planet in the 1760's (Birmingham, center of the metal trades).
Eg., the steam engine needed cast iron (which the Chinese had in antiquity, but nobody else until the medieval period), and boring machines capable of working consistently on hard cast iron to within small fractions of an inch. Those were originally developed to bore out cast-iron cannon, and then Watt and his helpers refined them.
Furthermore, the steam engine required -conceptual- and theoretical breakthroughs first. For example, there had been centuries of research on atmospheric pressure and the power of the vacuum first. The Classical thinkers had no concept of air pressure, just to start with.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Dang! That means the idea of the Roman Empire of Marcus Aurelius' reign having practical steam powered railroads and ships would have been most unlikely. Unless the time travelers you stranded there were able to jump start the process.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: you'll see... ms. winging its email way to you now! 8-).
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Many thanks!
Sean
S. M. Stirling:
What is the title of your time travelers in Antonine Rome story, & when should it be available? I do want to read it eventually.
Also I have wondered whether something like the Bessemer process for cheap steel could be made to work with water power & no steam engines. This was in the context of David Weber's Safehold series, if some rules lawyer hadn't found a way to stretch the rules to allow steam engines.
Steel wheels on steel rails for horse drawn vehicles would be considerably better than wagons on roads for cargo transportation.
Post a Comment