"'The officers merely assumed you would cooperate, as a law-abiding - citizen.' Desai had barely checked himself from saying 'subject of His Majesty.'" (p. 121)
There is diplomacy for you.
Flandry:
"'...it is not the Emperor's wish that any members of the human family be cut off. At the very least, I bring you his brotherly greetings.' (That was subversive. It should have been 'fatherly.' But Oleg Khan would not take kindly to being patronized.)"
-Poul Anderson,"A Message in Secret" IN Anderson, Captain Flandry: Defender of the Terran Empire (Riverdale, NY, February 2010), pp. 341-397 AT III, p. 350.
More diplomacy and it is time for me to get up from morning coffee.
12 comments:
Those instances might also be considered "tact".
Tho' in the Roman Empire that the Terran Empire is partly modeled on, depending on the date, there would be similar problems since Roman Emperors assumed that they had "imperium sine fine" -- basically, eternal power everywhere.
"Terran Tact" would have been a better post title.
Kaor, Paul!
I was reminded of what Commander Abrams said in Chapter 14 of ENSIGN FLANDRY: "Point of law, Hand. By the Covenant of Alfzar, Merseia confirmed her acceptance of the rules of war and diplomacy which evolved on Terra. They evolved, and you took them over, for the excellent reason that they worked." I've understood that to mean the civilized space faring powers (the Empire, Merseia, Alfzar, Ythri, etc.) agreed to suitably modified versions of the Geneva, Hague, and Vienna conventions. That last one, the Vienna Convention, being a codifying of the laws and customs of diplomacy modified for use on an interstellar scale, which is what we see Abrams invoking here.
And Flandry being so careful to extend the Emperor's "brotherly" greetings to Oleg Khan strikes me as an example of understated humor by Anderson in "A Message in Secret," the funniest of the Flandry stories!
Mr. Stirling: True, what you said about the Roman Emperors claims to worldwide Imperium. But, my understanding is that by Sassanid times Rome accepted that the Persian shah was the equal of the Emperor.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yes, they did -de facto-, and by Byzantine times formally as well.
My protagonist in TO TURN THE TIDE reflects that something will have to be done about Persia before the Sassanids take over. Parthia was a ramshackle state and often in crisis (nearly every time a Shah died) but the Sassanids were another kettle of fish entirely.
Fortunately that takeover isn't due for 60-odd years and will probably be butterflied away anyway.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
True, Arsacid Parthia was frequently troubled by disputed successions and revolts by provincial barons. The Sassanids were much more organized!
Another thing, incidentally, your stranded time travelers butterflied away would be the rise of Mohammed and Islam. Mohammed was one of the worst catastrophes to happen to the world as Anderson had Anson Guthrie saying. And I agree!
Ugh, compared to Islam, I would far rather have Zoroastrian Persia!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yes, nothing is going to happen in the 600's CE the way it did in our history.
OTOH, that doesn't mean some -other- prophet won't arise... 8-).
One of the time-travellers' aims is a politically unified planet.
That's been -technically- possible since the development of the telegraph and the steamship and railway. Together those expedite the transmission of data and the movement of goods and people sufficiently.
In 165 CE, the Roman Empire was a technical tour-de-force of political/military organization, and probably about as large as a lasting state -could- be. By the 19th century, political units of more than a million square miles were fairly routine.
There are both advantages and drawbacks to large states. On the one hand, they can mobilize more power. On the other hand, they tend to have problems maintaining legitimacy -- the spontaneous allegiance which is crucial.
A 'world state' (a truly -universal- universal state, to use Poul's terminology) is an interesting bit of speculation, I think.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Just as everything would have been different if there had been no Sarajevo in 1914.
True, some other power hungry false prophet might have arisen if there had been no Mohammed.
Conquer the world??? And I thought simply having your time travelers helping Marcus Aurelius to conquer what is now the Czech Republic and Germany a plenty big deal!
I agree modern tech makes it technically possible for somebody to conquer the world from 1850 on. Trouble is, there are too many other powers capable of fighting back hard makes it very difficult for a would be Napoleon to do that.
Correct, anyone who forcibly unified the world runs into the problem of how to get the new universal state accepted as legitimate.
I certainly don't think the world will be unified rationally, peacefully, or quickly!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: legitimacy is usually the result of someone being in power long enough that other conditions are out of living memory.
Someone or some system. De facto becomes de jure.
Note that the biggest single contribution the first Augustus (Octavian) made to the Roman Empire was coming to power fairly young and then living to 75 -- hence, by the time he died, the overwhelming majority of the Empire's population had never known any other form of government.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Not only Augustus but also the four successors of his family who ruled Rome until AD 68. Tiberius and Claudius were able Emperors who basically followed the lines and precedents of Augustus. Even Nero, during at least the first five years of his reign, did likewise. Caligula was the sole member of the Julio/Claudians who was wholly a dud.
So, by the time Nero committed suicide in 68, the Principate Augustus founded was so solidly built it survived the civil war of the Year of the Four Emperors in 68-69.
I would conclude we would be lucky if anybody who managed to unify the abilities of Augustus and lived long enough for the state he founded to take firm root. And had able successors who did likewise. With a lot of luck a century should be long enough for the new universal state to gain legitimacy.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment