One of my favourite passages in Poul Anderson's Technic History is Chunderban Desai's after dinner conversation with his opposite number, Uldwyr. The passage informs, or reminds, us that the Merseian has a "...crocodilian tail which counterbalanced his big, forward-leaning body..." (p. 83) but omits to add that he would have been squatting on this tail while conversing with the seated Desai.
Uldwyr refers to:
Starkad
Jihannath
Talwin
the recent insurrection in Sector Alpha Crucis
the Domain of Ythri
- and thus touches on the contents of the previous four novels in the Technic History. (The Jihannath crisis and the Alpha Crucis insurrection were contemporaneous, therefore featured in a single novel.)
Desai knows that he is:
"...Uldwr's honorable enemy, therefore his friend. By giving him opposition, I give meaning to his life." (p. 84)
That is the social psychology of the Merseian Roidhunate. Many beings find meaning without opposition. "Honorable Enemies" is, of course, the title of the second Captain Flandry story, published earlier although set later.
In Ensign Flandry, Brechdan Ironrede had explained to one of his sons why the Roidhunate cannot simply expand around the Terran Empire and Desai here confirms Brechan's words:
"Lest the balance of power be upset, we block them, we thwart them, wherever we can; and they seek to undermine us, grind us down, wear us out." (p. 84)
The Roidhunate must (!) deal with the Empire before it can expand any further. The Empire performs the historically useful role of demoralizing the Roidhunate so that, millennia later, it is not in control of the galaxy.
16 comments:
Generally speaking, it's easier to make things -not- happen than happen.
For a historic example, by the 1850's the Russians were fully capable of destroying the Ottoman Empire and annexing its territories.
But the other European great powers, at first France and Britain, then Germany too, wouldn't let that happen.
Eg., after the Russian-Ottoman war of 1876-78, the Russians got to within a few miles of Constantinople, beat the Turks like a drum in eastern Anatolia, and forced a treaty on the Ottomans creating the "Big Bulgaria", intended to be a Russian puppet-stalking horse, that extended over most of the southeastern Balkans.
But the other Great Powers forced a conference in Berlin which trimmed "Big Bulgaria" back, subtly guaranteed its independence, gave Romania a boost, and restricted Russian territorial gains -- which were extensive, but not as huge as the Russian-Ottoman balance of forces at the end of the war would have indicated.
The consensus on keeping the Ottomans standing as a buffer against Russia only broke down in 1914, when France and Britain were forced to conceed that Russia would get Constantinople and most of the territory between there and the Caucasus.
The only thing that prevented that was the Russian Revolution. In fact, covert Soviet aid was crucial to Kemal Attaturk beating the Greeks and leaving a substantial Turkish successor-state to the Ottoman Empire.
Without that aid, probably the Greeks would have annexed large chunks of Anatolia, the Armenians would have gotten territorial revenge and a big chunk of eastern Anatolia, and the British and French would have taken more bites from the south.
Leaving only a starving, impoverished rump Turkish state in central Anatolia.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Fascinating comments! I recall reading, in Edward Crankshaw's THE SHADOW OF THE WINTER PALACE, his history of Tsarist Russia from 1825 to 1914, of how the Russians had advanced to the walls of Constantinople during the Russo/Turkish war of 1877-78. All they needed was the Tsar's command and they would seize the long coveted City. But Alexander II did not quite dare to give them the GO order.
I have wondered what might have happened if Alexander had decided to defy the other great powers and ordered his generals to conquer the City, even if the Russians were not able to keep it? The UK,
Germany, Austria-Hungary, and France would all unite to oppose a complete destruction of the Ottoman Empire.
Not because anyone loved the Turks! They were hated or despised by all their neighbors, including even by other Muslims, because of their cruelty, tyranny, corruption, etc. The great powers did not want a complete destruction of the Ottoman Sultanate because of the chaos that would cause from the Balkans and the entire Near East at least as far as Persia. Everything would be up for grabs and no one could predict who would survive or come out on top!
One of those what ifs of history, speculating about what might happen from a Russian seizure of Constantinople in 1878.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: but that illustrates the point that it's easier to stop things than do them.
Russia was expansionist, but at that period was as committed to maintaining the overall international system as the other Great Powers.
The newly-founded German Empire was also, under Bismarck, rather conservative in its foreign policy. As far as he was concerned, Germany had all it needed or wanted and his job was to see they kept it.
Note that Bismarck's Germany, somewhat to the disappointment of radical nationalists, was "Klein Deutschland", -little- Germany, not the Greater Germany of their dreams. He'd made no attempt to bring the German-speakers of the southeast and east into the new Empire.
In fact, the country Bismarck made -blocked- that aspiration; it wasn't achieved until the 1930's, and then temporarily.
Lord Salisbury in England explained his policy as "drifting gently downstream, occasionally extended a pole to fend off an obstacle".
What really upset the applecart was Germany becoming a 'revisionist' power.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Yes, for all Russia's expansionist hopes, the gov't in St. Petersburg did not want to completely upset the international apple cart. Hence the grudging acceptance of the peace imposed by the Berlin Conference.
Yes, Bismarck, aside from fiascoes like the Kulturkampf, followed basically conservative, cautious policies after 1871. The pan-German revisionists had a freer hand after Wilhelm II "dropped the pilot" in 1890.
Ad astra! Sean
Note that one of Bismarck's motivations for a "Little German" solution to the national problem was that he didn't -want- more South Germans in the Reich. That would make it much harder for Prussia to dominate it.
He once defined Bavaria as "the only link between Austrians and the human race".
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Iow, Bismarck was an anti-Catholic bigot. Too many of those south Germans were Catholics. The Kulturkampf was one of his rare mistakes, where Bismarck allowed his prejudices to get the better of cold objectivity.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: there was plenty of prejudice on both sides in Germany. Remember, that was where the 30 Years War was mostly fought, and it cut the population by about 1/3.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Of course! But Bismarck was the aggressor, unleashing the Kulturkampf as part of his efforts to have Prussia controlling the Church in Germany.
An old, old story, secular states trying to dominate the Catholic Church.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Europe tended to have "national" churches. Rulers in Catholic countries aspired to control ecclesiastical appointments too -- one of the Habsburgs remarked that his family regarded the Pope as more or less their chaplain. They just did it from within rather than without.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I know, and I say that is bad, wrong, contrary to the will of God. I recall as well how the Church resisted as much as it could such pressures even from Catholic nations for the state to meddle with the Church. Caesaro-Papism is not something God approves!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Caesaro-Papism may be contrary to the will of God, but it's also quite common. The alternative is mainly an officially secular state which just doesn't usually -care- much which denomination people belong to.
Or in the case of, exemplia gratia, France, the State only withdrew from influencing ecclesiastical appointments when it became -militantly- secular, under the Third Republic.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And the Third Republic botched that "withdrawal" by doing so in a viciously anti-Catholic way. To say nothing of the hostility shown by the regime to religious believers. E.g., recall the affair of the Cards, where lists were made of the political and religious views of Army officers. Officers known to be devout Catholics were to be passed over for promotion.
Harassment of the Church never ends. in Australia, the gov't of the Capital Territory has been seizing Catholic hospitals because of them refusing to take part in euthanasia or "assisted suicide" abominations.
Ad astra! Sean
I'm agreed that euthanasia is a slippery slope; it leads inevitably to -involuntary- assisted suicide, which is quite common in some EU countries now.
Involuntary suicide is not suicide.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: One of the grimmest things I read lately was "The End of Medicine" (NATIONAL REVIEW, (October 2, 2023), discussing euthanasia/"assisted suicide," and the resulting horrors. Things like forcing euthanasia on patients who don't want it, sometimes with persons who don't have terminal illnesses. I read of cases were sick persons were smothered with pillows. And the fanatics pushing euthanasia simply hate Christian doctors and nurses because of how they oppose such crimes. So we see Catholic hospitals being seized or Christian physicians/nurses forced out of the medical profession.
Paul: I call it murder.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment