Average lifespan of an interstellar polity?

[jatay3]

The Mongols weren't the only steppe empire existing at the time. Nor, of course, were Mongol armies unbeatable.
----------------------------
They were the only steepe empire during their heyday, which was short. and they were never conquered until gunpowder.
the main weaknesses of steepe empires was usually not tactical. It was usually political-they always had a succession problem because they respected a successful warlord but the heir had to prove himself. They were not inclined to instinctively revere law and custom-much like Vargr. Farmer-folks of course had lots of succession problems to but they could on the whole be more stable.
The other weakness was economic-when they got into an area that didn't support their horses they couldn't maintain their armies became just like any other. And of course they got less exercise after tasting the luxuries they had been deprived of on the steepe. Thus steepe-lords often founded a dynasty in farming country. But when they did their was no recognizable difference except that they might remember the steepes in their hunting and in how they envision the "stately pleasure domes" they desire to "decree".

 

[Maladominus]

Lifepsan of an empire probably depends on the conservatism of its inhabitants.

Remember that the K'kree Two Thousand Worlds have been around for what.... over 5,000 years?

That's because the K'kree are inherently conservative. They simply dont change. They dont WANT to change their old conservative ways and philosophies. The only *possible* threat of K'kree Empire collapse is from meddling by a SUPERIOR outside enemy.... The Hivers.

The K'kree Empire itself cannot forseeably collapse on its own weight or its own stupidity. There is hardly any dissent, nor is there any entropy generated from the K'kree masses. They simply dont have troublemakers there to cause any fractures or rifts or civil wars. And potential troublemakers are either exterminated, or brainwashed and Vegetarianized early.

Again, the only way they could collapse is from an outside force... those evil Hivers.

In contrast... Humans are humans. We love to kill each other and provoke each other. Humans are wonderful beings that enjoy killing and backstabbing their own kind (note: Dulinor). Human society (at least those from Terra) is such that we must frequently question authority.

End result? Most human stellar empires in Traveller can barely last over 1,000 years. In most cases, they won't even last that long (i.e. Second Imperium).

 

[mike wightman]

While the ultra-conservative first Imperium lasted about 3000 years.

Nice theory - that'll make it into the psychohistory books IMTU

 

[jappel]

Originally posted by Maladominus:
The only *possible* threat of K'kree Empire collapse is from meddling by a SUPERIOR outside enemy.... The Hivers.

The K'kree Empire itself cannot forseeably collapse on its own weight or its own stupidity.

Ah, but you're forgetting a very important fact about the K'Kree - they actively exterminate carnivorious life on their planets. This has got to have dramatic effects on these eco-systems. They're destroying these garden worlds in the name of their anti-carnivore crusade. I'm surprised that they don't have to keep expanding to make up for what they're destroying behind them.

(Yet another tidbit in the OTU that sounded good at the time, but the consequences of which were not thought through.)

And remember, folks, the OTU history is fiction. You can only mix conclusions based on actual history and this future history so far.

-John

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Maladominus:
The K'kree Empire itself cannot forseeably collapse on its own weight or its own stupidity. There is hardly any dissent, nor is there any entropy generated from the K'kree masses. They simply dont have troublemakers there to cause any fractures or rifts or civil wars.

Ah, but that isn't true. There is internal dissention. If there wasn't, there would be any K'kree splinter states, which there are (e.g. Lords of Thunder). We know (from descriptions in AM2 and GT:AR2) that there are ultra-conservative dissention to the "moderate" path of the rulers of the 2000 Worlds. We can probably assume there are also some "liberal" thinkers at work, too. (They are likely responsible for the "moderate" position the 2000 Worlds holds.)

There is plenty of political actions that can be used within K'kree space. They are not monolithic. Even the masses have effect, otherwise the rulers would not have to work so hard to keep some of their pragmatic choices hidden.

 

[Chuck Anumia]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Most historical governments last about 100-400 years for large polities; many reform with a similar identification but new political status.

I would agree

Originally posted by Aramis:
400 years seems to be about the limit for a state without a regime change.

Note also: Democracy and Republic both tend to have major problems about every 200 years... or less.

Soooo...

Perhaps we have a Regime change in the United States of America every time one party wins over another?

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Baron W. The PreacherMan:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
400 years seems to be about the limit for a state without a regime change.

Note also: Democracy and Republic both tend to have major problems about every 200 years... or less.

Soooo...

Perhaps we have a Regime change in the United States of America every time one party wins over another? </font>[/QUOTE]Better move this to Random Static...

Civil War counts for something. That's 87 years after the founding, and 140 years ago. Statistically, we're up for a major upheaval (i.e. not a mere election) sometime before 2050.

Great. And I thought retirement was supposed to be calm and relaxing.

Unless you count the Great Depression as being worthy of "major upheaval" status.

Whew. I was getting worried, there.

 

[Chuck Anumia]

Perhaps the Third Imperium Timeline needs to be modified according to the Psychohistory model(400-1,200 years)?

 

[archhealer]

This threat just brough to mind a great quote.. I wish I could remember who said it..

Everything that has ever happened, happened not because people are inherently good, or because people are inherently evil, but because people are inherently people.

 

[Merxiless]

I think it also has to do with the available living space.

I'm no sociologist, and this is just one Traveller referee's view:

Consider, when the world was not explored very much, there were a few countries, that dominated, seems to be based on charismatic leadership, or organization of the government, backed up by a strong military.

Then, with sea travel, the major land powers, with colonies world wide.

Then the colonies were sort of solidified as to territory.

Then those countries fought over land use, or for political ideology, whatever.

Now, we have a world that is pretty much divided up, staked out and set, with anyone making a move towards agression being opposed, world wide.

There is no space on earth left, except in deserts (until terraforming, or weather control) Space (not efficient to go there en masse, unless and until Gravitics makes a breakthrough), or on the ocean, and we don't have the tech for Aqualogies, yet (if ever).

So on Earth, we've run out of area, and either must keep down the population, or have wars to keep it down. (I believe this is called Malthusian? Theory?)

So as an analogy, I guess, using these concepts, it depends on how much space you might have available IYTU. If the population can expand freely, there will be less wars over the infighting or control over worlds.. although there is a nod to Critical, strategic worlds, or worlds with minerals required to extend the space travel capability.

This seems to me to be a factor, and is a large factor in my own homebrew CT setting.

Even so, people do strange things, cultures change, and sometimes accuracy of the setup might adversely affect the clarity of the story you are trying to tell.

In the end, I use a chart like this for each specific subsector (and then try to tie them together), which seems to work just as well as anything else:

Take a chunk of 10,000 Years

Every 400-500 Years, roll:

1 Adverse Stellar Event
2 Tech Level Superiority / Advance
3 Pocket Empire Rises / Falls
4 Expansion of Territory
5 Cultural Zenith
6 Large-Scale War

Adverse Stellar Event is a Black hole, Supernova, or similar that either destroys 1d6 systems, Destroys a few and makes the rest hell to live on, or makes most of the area uninhabitable for centuries.
This could also be something like the TNE virus on a small scale, nanotech run amok, plague, virus from space, comet smash, mass suicides (for whatever reason, likely religious) or something else.


Tech Level Advance means a raise in the overall tech level of the subsector, by a point, or of a few specific worlds that seem likely by d3 points.
This is just to give either an idea of who will likely win or perhaps survive (or start) the next conflict / stellar event (a la hard times) or just for flavor/ range of their ships.

Pocket Empire Rise / Fall means just that. If there is none, make one, grouping up d6 or 2d6 worlds around a central hub. If there is one already, fracture it into independant states however you like.

Expansion means either attack a neighboring subsector with one or more pocket empires, or failing that, settle on the E and X worlds remaining in the subsector that are not totally worthless.

Cultural Zenith means the world with the highest standing has achieved some measure of stability, and builds a lot of monuments, and buildings, that later on will survive to become ruins post-collapse (Rome, Troy, Egyptian Ruins are all models of this, only with a more high-tech feel.)

Large scale war means whatever you wish.. between worlds, mini empires, subsectors... Because it depends on how you have it set up.

I am a firm believer in the concept that no government will last on the average, for more than 300 - 400 years, + or -. Egypt lasted because it was in the middle of a desert, and thus isolated generally, and had the nile to water, and thus feed it's population. Others, I don't know all that much about.

I think it's generally true that governments might change form or change ideology, or the culture will change, such that the reason it was set up no longer exists. But in the end, it's all dust, and nothing lasts forever.

My own CT campaign has lots and lots of ruins of the past to explore and find lost tech in, along with wars, plagues, and things going on, all the time. So, I guess it is a lot like Earth, on an interstellar scale, that way.

But I'm no sociologist.

 

[aramis]

Only one major mistake there, that I can really see:

Egypt should not be considered as a single government. It's a series of governments. Akhenatun's religious revolution is one of many breaks that really define different governments.

The 3-5 century rule seems fairly well historically established.

For China and Egypt, use the dynasties, not the overall identity, when looking at polities. Likewise, Rome cycles through several different polities, first a republic, then an empire, than a group of empires allied together.

The british have, likewise, reworked governance every few hundred years. In the 600's, a feudal system influenced by saxons arises. In 1066, a new regime is imposed by William the Conquerer. Then there is a civil war, and another civil war, and a late 19th-20th century peaceful dissolution of empire.

And we do have the tech for surface aqualogies, but neither the political will nor the sociodynamic need to make the huge economic outputs to make aqualogies possible. Sub-surface are somewhat easier, but far more expensive and far less rewarding. Major changes of usage require political will, which often is a result of oppression.

 

[jatay3]

Lifepsan of an empire probably depends on the conservatism of its inhabitants.

Remember that the K'kree Two Thousand Worlds have been around for what.... over 5,000 years?
---------------------------------
Republic of Venice-which was the second longest run state in the Western world(the first was Rome-Byzantium)was hardly "ultra-conservative" in the Kree sense(one conservative comentator described this attitude as "antinomian"-reflexive hostility toward the new and described conservatisim simply as concern about avoiding throwing out the baby with the bathwater). In fact Venice was something of a happy medium between innovation and custom and well worth learning from.
In any case this brings up a point. A society needs both qualities to survive. It needs concern to preserve what is worth preserving, as well as enough open-mindedness to accept the new when it is worth accepting.
Their are examples enough of societies that made either error. I suppose being to set in one's ways is more common-but the opposite error is not unknown.

 

[jatay3]

(one conservative comentator described this attitude as "antinomian"-reflexive hostility toward the new and described conservatisim simply as concern about avoiding throwing out the baby with the bathwater).
_______________________________
On the other hand, another thread I passed described anti-nomian as a theological term for a forgotten sect. the matter is not of importance but being caught in a mistake is annoying.