In fact, the smartest thing the Meresians could have done about the Terran Empire would be to maintain a 'cold peace', leave them alone, expand elsewhere, and wait for time and decadence to do its work.
Without the visible challenge of Meresia, the Terrans would probably have spent more time on their internal conflicts.
S.M. - True, and in a posited scenario where the Milky Way galaxy is wide-open and FTL travel is possible, sure ... but there have been plenty of "directions" for an expansionist power/society/state to consider in human history, other than into conflict with a peer competitor, and yet the decision makers repeatedly have chosen not to do so, or were precluded by the realities of economies and geography.
Anderson's own model for the Merseian-Terran conflict, the centuries-long confrontation of the ERE/Byzantines and the Sassanids/Persians, for example. Even setting aside the Mediterranean littoral for both powers, the Arabian Peninsula and Red Sea littoral, or the northern Black Sea littoral, offered (essentially) wide open frontiers, as did the Caspian Littoral, to a degree - no one really knew what, if any, those regions would have offered to either power at the time of their most bitter conflict.
Certainly going west or northwest for the ERE/Byzantium, and north/northeast or east for the Sassanids/Persians, offered opportunities for east that the umpteenth conflict over the Tigris/Euphrates region "probably" did not.
Great power conflict in Europe was - after the German and Italian unifications wars of the 1850s-1870s - shunted into the imperial conflicts of the scramble for Africa and similar expansion in the three decades after 1871 (for the most part; 1877-78 being the most significant exception); and in the case of the UK, that period - essentially - allowed the creation of 3-4 colonial "Little Britains," whose strength was very significant when the era of European great power conflict resumed in the 20th Century.
Ha! I agree, it would have made sense for Merseian Intelligence to deliberately seek to eliminate Flandry. Perhaps the fact he was often absent from Terra made that harder to do.
Ditto, what you said about how arrogance/vanity probably made Aycharaych discourage attempts at rubbing out Flandry.
And Flandry was not the only wily Imperial to thwart Merseian schemes! Chunderban Desai was crucial in foiling Aycharaych's plot for triggering a jihad that would have left the Empire "convulsed and shattered" in THE DAY OF THEIR RETURN.
In Chapter 3 of ENSIGN FLANDRY Brechdan Ironrede's son suggested exactly that, that Merseia should avoid conflicts with the Empire and expand around it. Two reasons why that would not work: (1) Terra was not yet so decadent that its rulers could not see what the Roidhunate was doing, and so would still oppose it. And (2) it was too late. After two centuries of clashes large and small there was too much anger in the Empire at being menaced by Merseia for the Roidhunate to dare disengaging from the Empire and turning its attention elsewhere (as was stated in THE GAME OF EMPIRE).
"but there have been plenty of "directions" for an expansionist power/society/state to consider in human history, other than into conflict with a peer competitor"
Sometimes a state has such an opporunity and takes it. After 1500 the European states with an Atlantic coast took the opportunity to expand overseas. They often ran into conflict with each other but generally benefited from expansion in that direction rather than fighting each other within Europe. Similarly Russia benefited from expanding mostly eastward into Siberia.
Toynbee noted the advantage for a state of being on the periphery of a 'civilization' & being able to expand in directions without peer competitors
Jim - Very true, although even with that, the 1500s-1700s were not exactly "quiet" when it came to great power conflict in Europe; those conflicts tended to become "world wars" because of the geographic reach provided by the Age of Sail, but they (generally) began as European conflicts.
The above is an interesting contrast with South Asia and East Asia in the same period, which certainly had - at least early on - relatively comparable maritime technologies, yet the expansionist South Asian and East Asian powers seem to have focused most of their competition (in a regional sense) on land - with a few exceptions, of course.
A better example of the phenomenon you described, a rising power expanding without clashing with a "peer competitor" might be the history of the US after the UK recognized American independence in 1783. Beginning with the Louisiana Purchase from France, the US expanded rapidly westward to the Pacific Ocean. The only opposition it faced were scattered Indian tribes at a Neolithic level of technology and a weak, strife torn Mexico. Unlike in Europe the US never had to contend with rivals as strong and tough as it.
Sean: bear in mind that after 1816, the US was an "unofficial Dominion" of the British Empire for a long time; Australia, Canada and New Zealand all had comparable trajectories.
Maybe de facto, to some extent. But I would not put too much stress on the US being a kind of Dominion of the UK. That might have been more true if Napoleon had decided to hold on to Louisiana--in which case Jefferson talked about how the US would need to "marry" the UK.
The US did not require a powerful navy for most of the 19th century; when it did decide to build one, it was because the US was rich and full of beans, not because it was in any way -essential-.
After 1816, the US made a foreign policy decision not to be consistently hostile to the British -- not to try and annex Canada, for example.
(That was one of the basic aims of the War of 1812.)
And since the Napoleonic Wars were over, a lot of the arrogant British behavior (like impressment) just fell by the wayside.
The War of 1812 had made it clear that the price of a hostile policy towards the British would be very heavy -- a massive investment in a navy, and a substantial standing army.
(If the US had had the standing army and the navy the Federalists wanted, it would almost certainly have -won- the War of 1812 and come out of it in possession of Upper Canada at least.)
This meant that the US didn't need to tax itself to rival the Royal Navy; in fact, it could use the Royal Navy as a shield, given the British decision to use their naval predominance to isolate the Western Hemisphere from European intervention.
(In the Latin American Wars of Independence from Spain, for example, and in ensuring that Portugal and its potential backers didn't try to halt Brazilian independence either).
This was what gave the Monroe Doctrine teeth without the US having to pony up for it.
Meanwhile, the US could take advantage of Britain's move to Free Trade (which removed the trading advantages of being formally in the Empire) and get vast inflows of British immigrants and capital investment.
It was a win-win situation, and US politicians could be -rhetorically- hostile to London, as long as nobody took it too seriously.
Note that Polk was prepared to declare war on Mexico, but studiously avoided any -real- challenge to Britain. He was studiously moderate and reasonable there.
Despite "54-40 or fight!" rhetoric in the election.
I have to mostly agree. The largely failed campaigns waged by the US in the war of 1812 bears out what you said. I think the US did fight well enough that the UK decided it was not worthwhile to demand painful concessions from DC in the Treaty of Ghent ending the war.
Yes, only the RN enabled the US, prior to the Civil War, to get by with a ridiculously small army and navy.
14 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And that bit from THE GAME OF EMPIRE was written to show us Tachwyr's disappointment, frustration, despondency!
Ad astra! Sean
Indeed. There is plenty of pathetic fallacy. Winter, harrying wind, crashing sea, shrilling wind...
Kaor, Paul!
I agree, and I think the Protector also felt cold.
Ad astra! Sean
It must be frustrating for the Meresians, all the devilishly clever schemes for the downfall of the Terran Empire frustrated by Flandry... 8-).
Actually I'm surprised they didn't make a serious effort to kill him after the first few.
Perhaps Aycharaych subtly restrained them because he found Flandry a challenge?
In which case, his vanity and arrogance were richly repaid!
In fact, the smartest thing the Meresians could have done about the Terran Empire would be to maintain a 'cold peace', leave them alone, expand elsewhere, and wait for time and decadence to do its work.
Without the visible challenge of Meresia, the Terrans would probably have spent more time on their internal conflicts.
S.M. - True, and in a posited scenario where the Milky Way galaxy is wide-open and FTL travel is possible, sure ... but there have been plenty of "directions" for an expansionist power/society/state to consider in human history, other than into conflict with a peer competitor, and yet the decision makers repeatedly have chosen not to do so, or were precluded by the realities of economies and geography.
Anderson's own model for the Merseian-Terran conflict, the centuries-long confrontation of the ERE/Byzantines and the Sassanids/Persians, for example. Even setting aside the Mediterranean littoral for both powers, the Arabian Peninsula and Red Sea littoral, or the northern Black Sea littoral, offered (essentially) wide open frontiers, as did the Caspian Littoral, to a degree - no one really knew what, if any, those regions would have offered to either power at the time of their most bitter conflict.
Certainly going west or northwest for the ERE/Byzantium, and north/northeast or east for the Sassanids/Persians, offered opportunities for east that the umpteenth conflict over the Tigris/Euphrates region "probably" did not.
Great power conflict in Europe was - after the German and Italian unifications wars of the 1850s-1870s - shunted into the imperial conflicts of the scramble for Africa and similar expansion in the three decades after 1871 (for the most part; 1877-78 being the most significant exception); and in the case of the UK, that period - essentially - allowed the creation of 3-4 colonial "Little Britains," whose strength was very significant when the era of European great power conflict resumed in the 20th Century.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Ha! I agree, it would have made sense for Merseian Intelligence to deliberately seek to eliminate Flandry. Perhaps the fact he was often absent from Terra made that harder to do.
Ditto, what you said about how arrogance/vanity probably made Aycharaych discourage attempts at rubbing out Flandry.
And Flandry was not the only wily Imperial to thwart Merseian schemes! Chunderban Desai was crucial in foiling Aycharaych's plot for triggering a jihad that would have left the Empire "convulsed and shattered" in THE DAY OF THEIR RETURN.
In Chapter 3 of ENSIGN FLANDRY Brechdan Ironrede's son suggested exactly that, that Merseia should avoid conflicts with the Empire and expand around it. Two reasons why that would not work: (1) Terra was not yet so decadent that its rulers could not see what the Roidhunate was doing, and so would still oppose it. And (2) it was too late. After two centuries of clashes large and small there was too much anger in the Empire at being menaced by Merseia for the Roidhunate to dare disengaging from the Empire and turning its attention elsewhere (as was stated in THE GAME OF EMPIRE).
Ad astra! Sean
"but there have been plenty of "directions" for an expansionist power/society/state to consider in human history, other than into conflict with a peer competitor"
Sometimes a state has such an opporunity and takes it.
After 1500 the European states with an Atlantic coast took the opportunity to expand overseas. They often ran into conflict with each other but generally benefited from expansion in that direction rather than fighting each other within Europe. Similarly Russia benefited from expanding mostly eastward into Siberia.
Toynbee noted the advantage for a state of being on the periphery of a 'civilization' & being able to expand in directions without peer competitors
Jim - Very true, although even with that, the 1500s-1700s were not exactly "quiet" when it came to great power conflict in Europe; those conflicts tended to become "world wars" because of the geographic reach provided by the Age of Sail, but they (generally) began as European conflicts.
The above is an interesting contrast with South Asia and East Asia in the same period, which certainly had - at least early on - relatively comparable maritime technologies, yet the expansionist South Asian and East Asian powers seem to have focused most of their competition (in a regional sense) on land - with a few exceptions, of course.
Kaor, Jim!
A better example of the phenomenon you described, a rising power expanding without clashing with a "peer competitor" might be the history of the US after the UK recognized American independence in 1783. Beginning with the Louisiana Purchase from France, the US expanded rapidly westward to the Pacific Ocean. The only opposition it faced were scattered Indian tribes at a Neolithic level of technology and a weak, strife torn Mexico. Unlike in Europe the US never had to contend with rivals as strong and tough as it.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: bear in mind that after 1816, the US was an "unofficial Dominion" of the British Empire for a long time; Australia, Canada and New Zealand all had comparable trajectories.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Maybe de facto, to some extent. But I would not put too much stress on the US being a kind of Dominion of the UK. That might have been more true if Napoleon had decided to hold on to Louisiana--in which case Jefferson talked about how the US would need to "marry" the UK.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: it was true in the most basic sense.
The US did not require a powerful navy for most of the 19th century; when it did decide to build one, it was because the US was rich and full of beans, not because it was in any way -essential-.
After 1816, the US made a foreign policy decision not to be consistently hostile to the British -- not to try and annex Canada, for example.
(That was one of the basic aims of the War of 1812.)
And since the Napoleonic Wars were over, a lot of the arrogant British behavior (like impressment) just fell by the wayside.
The War of 1812 had made it clear that the price of a hostile policy towards the British would be very heavy -- a massive investment in a navy, and a substantial standing army.
(If the US had had the standing army and the navy the Federalists wanted, it would almost certainly have -won- the War of 1812 and come out of it in possession of Upper Canada at least.)
This meant that the US didn't need to tax itself to rival the Royal Navy; in fact, it could use the Royal Navy as a shield, given the British decision to use their naval predominance to isolate the Western Hemisphere from European intervention.
(In the Latin American Wars of Independence from Spain, for example, and in ensuring that Portugal and its potential backers didn't try to halt Brazilian independence either).
This was what gave the Monroe Doctrine teeth without the US having to pony up for it.
Meanwhile, the US could take advantage of Britain's move to Free Trade (which removed the trading advantages of being formally in the Empire) and get vast inflows of British immigrants and capital investment.
It was a win-win situation, and US politicians could be -rhetorically- hostile to London, as long as nobody took it too seriously.
Note that Polk was prepared to declare war on Mexico, but studiously avoided any -real- challenge to Britain. He was studiously moderate and reasonable there.
Despite "54-40 or fight!" rhetoric in the election.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I have to mostly agree. The largely failed campaigns waged by the US in the war of 1812 bears out what you said. I think the US did fight well enough that the UK decided it was not worthwhile to demand painful concessions from DC in the Treaty of Ghent ending the war.
Yes, only the RN enabled the US, prior to the Civil War, to get by with a ridiculously small army and navy.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment