The Terran captain to an Ansan:
"'It's a question of unifying the human race, ultimately this whole region of stars...'" (p. 409)
The Ansan in conversation with an Arzunian:
"'They aren't so bad, Valduma. The Empire means peace and justice for all races.'
"'Who speaks?' Her scorn flamed at him. 'You don't believe that.'
"He stood there for a moment. 'No,' he whispered. 'No, I don't.'" (p. 422)
It all depends on the point of view, especially when more than two sides are involved.
Unification for what purpose? Foreign policies serve the interests of big corporations: true during the Chaos and also during the later Solar Commonwealth although not during the early Terran Empire. Then, individual planets were free to engage in interstellar trade but also free to build unique economies and cultures while receiving protection from barbarians with spaceships and nukes. It would have made sense to join the Empire.
5 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I also thought of Pournelle's Co-Domnium timeline. The collapse of the Co-Dominium was provoked/followed by the Great Patriotic Wars, which devastated Earth and many other planets. Order and peace was finally restored by the first Empire of Man, with its capital on the planet Sparta. After four or five centuries the Secession Wars triggered by the Sauron super-men destroyed the First Empire. When the Second Empire arose its dominating, driving spirit was a passionate determination to prevent more such wars by uniting all of mankind under one rule or state. By force, if necessary.
So it's not too implausible to think the anarchy of the Time of Troubles following the collapse of the Polesotechnic League traumatized to many planets that they were willing to join the Terran Empire after Manuel Argos founded it. In return for paying a reasonable, even modest tribute, the Empire would defend them from outside aggression and keep the peace internally.
Most people would think that a darn good deal!
Ad astra! Sean
Other things being equal, unification is good -- because once unified under a single government human beings are much less likely to kill each other, and it promotes trade and hence prosperity.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree. But the problem is how humans, being all too human, flawed, imperfect, etc., keep bollixing up such efforts. Either they will fight each other for power;* or the state becomes corrupt, over centralized and oppressive; or people come to power with stupid, absurd, or hopelessly unworkable ideas/ideologies that wrecks everything.
Ad astra! Sean
*The Crisis of the Third Century in the Roman Empire being an all too classic example of that.
Sean: quite true. The problem with the Romans was that they got a monarchy in a society with a profoundly anti-monarchical political culture. Hence they (and their Byzantine successors) never managed to solve the succession problem. The Germanic tradition of dynastic legitimacy, combined with the Church pushing primogeniture, did a fair job of solving that in medieval Europe.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree. And that deeply ingrained belief in dynastic legitimacy is still the rule in the remaining European monarchies. And the Middle Ages also worked out safeguards for when the king was either a child or mentally/physically incapacitated. No need to murder a monarch who might have become a lunatic Caligula, a regent or council would assume the sovereign's powers for as long as necessary.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment