Book 1 (1st Ed.) nobles

[Straybow]

Soc is simply who you will or will not associate with, and who will or will not associate with you. At least publicly.

Your peers (uncapitalized) may view you as winsome or loathesome, worthy or worthless; it doesn't matter much. You are peers and have to deal with each other. At least until one of you gets bumped up or down a notch.

 

[BillDowns]

Aramis, I only put that out because the thread title specified 1st Ed.

Use what you are used to, man. I respect your opinion on many things too much to try and impose my views on you.

 

[BillDowns]

Aramis, I only put that out because the thread title specified 1st Ed.

Use what you are used to, man. I respect your opinion on many things too much to try and impose my views on you.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by DaveShayne:
The first assumption being that a person of higher rank must wield greater power. Others have already shown many historical situations in which this is not the case.

Actually, the only assumption I'm making is that when someone writes about an empire of 'several stars', he isn't thinking about an empire of thousands of systems subdivided into domains, sectors, subsectors, and star clusters, but rather an empire with three or four or maybe even half a dozen star systems or so. This dovetails rathjer neatly with the 'assumption' that when he writes about dukes being outranked by planetary rulers, he actually means that the dukes he is talking about are a different kind of dukes than Imperial dukes.

But if you want to get into the other stuff, you're making the unsupported assumption that power is a factor at all. Sure, there tends to be a considerable correlation between power and social class, but that's not mentioned at all in the text I'm quoting. From SL 11 up all it talks about is pure rank.

The second assumption is that a subsector duke wields more power than a planetary monarch.

No, I'm not making any assumptions about relative power at all. I'm simply assuming that in the OTU that we've seen described in a lot of books now, Imperial dukes outrank planetary rulers who are not themselves dukes. I'm not saying that things couldn't thoretically be different, I'm just saying that that's the way they are in the OTU.

Do you see now how a planetary monarch could reasonably be seen to have a greater rank than a subsector noble? If not then truly we do need to agree to disagree on this point.

Yes, if the Imperium distinguished strictly between planetary rulers and Imperial nobles, a planetary monarch could concievably be more powerful than a subsector duke. Whether he would also outrank him is another question, but it's a moot one, since we know for a fact that the Imperium does not keep them distinct. Instead, it has a marked propensity for granting Imperial titles to powerful world rulers. Thus a powerful world ruler would be an Imperial duke or an Imperial count and would certainly be more powerful than the rest of the planetary rulers. And he would outrank them too.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by far-trader:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rancke:
Try a thought experiment. Take a world that is a carbon copy of Earth today, except that it is an Imperial world. Same population, same tech level, same sort of countries with the same sort of rulers. Assume that the Emperor has seen fit to grace some of the most important rulers of Pseudo-earth with Imperial titles. Who among the cognates of our illustrious world leaders has an Imperial title and what is it? And what is the rank of the Imperial noble that is associated with Pseudo-earth itself? Now tell me the social level of the Squire of Smallbridge and the Mayor of London.

Love thought experiments

The way I understand The Imperium the Emperor wouldn't grant world leaders titles. It's not his/her place nor mandate.</font>[/QUOTE]The ruler of the Mora System is also the Duchess of the Duchy of Mora. In this case the Emperor clearly gave a title to a planetary ruler. Why shouldn't he give Imperial titles to planetary rulers? It's not his place to give planetary titles to anyone (except possibly Sylean titles on Capital), but it seems perfectly reasonable for him to give a few titles to the most powerful world figures.

But let me rephrase the question then. What are the social levels of these aforementioned world leaders? When the Queen of Pseudo-England and the presidents of Pseudo-US and Pseudo-Russia and the Chairman of Pseudo-China all visit Capital and appear at the same dinner as an Imperial knight, an Imperial baron, and Imperial count, and an Imperial duke, how does the protocol officer arrange them in order of precedence?

So the social level of the Squire of Smallbridge and the Mayor of London would be the same as any other citizen of the Imperium who hasn't been elevated to The Nobility, between 2 and 10 depending on their perceived value of service to The Imperium.

I see. You think the Imperium actually assigns a specific social level to every one of the 15 trillion people in the Imperium and that the level isn't based on the station each individual holds in life but on his percieved value to the Imperium.

Well, it's certainly a scheme that would work, I'll say that much for it.

I'll also say that it bears little resemblance to the Imperium as I've imagined it based on what I've read about it for the last 25 years. I'm not sure that I could prove your vision wrong, however, so for the moment I'll just say that our visions of the Imperium is too far apart to make further discussion on this subject worth while.

And you only get that (in MTU at least) through Imperial Service...

No offense, but since we're discussing whether the society that we glimpse in 1st Edition Traveller is the same as the society of the later edition OTU, conditions in your TU is besides the point. I'll freely grant you that your suggestion is ingenious and that if conditions in the OTU is like that, you're right and I'm wrong.

I just don't think that conditions are like that, but I'm not quite sure that I could demonstrate it through canonical quotes.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Border Reiver:

at least to those of us who likes our Traveller universes to have a modicum of verisimilitude.

in Traveller?
with j-drive?
grav plates?
the ancients? </font>

What's your point?


Hans

 

[Plankowner]

I'll give your ranking/seating order a shot Ranke. As always, YMMV.

What are the social levels of the Queen of Pseudo-England and the presidents of Pseudo-US and Pseudo-Russia and the Chairman of Pseudo-China all visit Capital and appear at the same dinner as an Imperial knight, an Imperial baron, and Imperial count, and an Imperial duke, how does the protocol officer arrange them in order of precedence?

Well, this is why they pay protocol officers the big credits!

I would say that in general, the leader of a country on a balkanized world would be perceived as about the same social status as a Baron. Marquis' rule entire worlds, so in general, the ruler of an entire planet would get tagged as a Marquis. Obviously sovereign powers might get bumped a bit if the Imperium wants to play nice.

BUT, depending on what the Imperium wants from these leaders will have more to do with their seating order at the dinner table then their relative rank. If the Imperium is trying to negotiate a treaty for a Downport on Pseudo-Earth then depending on which of the above mentioned countries are most inclined to sell the Imperium the necessary land will probably get preferential treatment.

Here's what I would do:

Duke
Count
USA or China and the Baron (depends on which leader I want the most from)
China or US (the one not seated above)and Russia
England and Knight

This is IMPERIAL pecking order. None of the rulers deserve to be treated better than the Baron. By placing the Baron with the top Earth leader, the Imperium is reminding everyone where they truly belong.

 

[Plankowner]

I'll give your ranking/seating order a shot Ranke. As always, YMMV.

What are the social levels of the Queen of Pseudo-England and the presidents of Pseudo-US and Pseudo-Russia and the Chairman of Pseudo-China all visit Capital and appear at the same dinner as an Imperial knight, an Imperial baron, and Imperial count, and an Imperial duke, how does the protocol officer arrange them in order of precedence?

Well, this is why they pay protocol officers the big credits!

I would say that in general, the leader of a country on a balkanized world would be perceived as about the same social status as a Baron. Marquis' rule entire worlds, so in general, the ruler of an entire planet would get tagged as a Marquis. Obviously sovereign powers might get bumped a bit if the Imperium wants to play nice.

BUT, depending on what the Imperium wants from these leaders will have more to do with their seating order at the dinner table then their relative rank. If the Imperium is trying to negotiate a treaty for a Downport on Pseudo-Earth then depending on which of the above mentioned countries are most inclined to sell the Imperium the necessary land will probably get preferential treatment.

Here's what I would do:

Duke
Count
USA or China and the Baron (depends on which leader I want the most from)
China or US (the one not seated above)and Russia
England and Knight

This is IMPERIAL pecking order. None of the rulers deserve to be treated better than the Baron. By placing the Baron with the top Earth leader, the Imperium is reminding everyone where they truly belong.

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by rancke:
Actually, the only assumption I'm making is that when someone writes about an empire of 'several stars', he isn't thinking about an empire of thousands of systems subdivided into domains, sectors, subsectors, and star clusters, but rather an empire with three or four or maybe even half a dozen star systems or so.

So your argument hinges on the meaning of the word several? I think you've just lost the argument. Because while most definitions of several that I can find give a definition of, "more than two but less than many" in practice the word is much less precise - often just used as a synonym for more than one. Consider, what title would a ruler of exactly 2 planets have considering the statement given and the definition quoted above? Also what title would a ruler of many worlds have? Using the statement as read with the strict definition neither of those cases are defined. Using the looser definition several could encompass anything from a pocket empire of two worlds up to the entirety of the Imperium.

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by rancke:
Actually, the only assumption I'm making is that when someone writes about an empire of 'several stars', he isn't thinking about an empire of thousands of systems subdivided into domains, sectors, subsectors, and star clusters, but rather an empire with three or four or maybe even half a dozen star systems or so.

So your argument hinges on the meaning of the word several? I think you've just lost the argument. Because while most definitions of several that I can find give a definition of, "more than two but less than many" in practice the word is much less precise - often just used as a synonym for more than one. Consider, what title would a ruler of exactly 2 planets have considering the statement given and the definition quoted above? Also what title would a ruler of many worlds have? Using the statement as read with the strict definition neither of those cases are defined. Using the looser definition several could encompass anything from a pocket empire of two worlds up to the entirety of the Imperium.

 

[jawillroy]

For the love of...

There is no *reasonable* interpretation of the word "several" that encompasses "tens of thousands." Sorry. No. Won't buy it.

The whole discussion is pretty much spiraling out of control: It'd make a sight more sense if we either confined it to "IMTU" observations OR "OTU" interpretation.

 

[jawillroy]

For the love of...

There is no *reasonable* interpretation of the word "several" that encompasses "tens of thousands." Sorry. No. Won't buy it.

The whole discussion is pretty much spiraling out of control: It'd make a sight more sense if we either confined it to "IMTU" observations OR "OTU" interpretation.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Imperium Festerium:
It'd make a sight more sense if we either confined it to "IMTU" observations OR "OTU" interpretation.

IIRC, both The Spinward Marches and Kinunir were written using the 1e rules. Again IIRC, both use the Soc codes of B, C, D, &c to represent Imperial nobles, not planetary nobles. (I don't have my books handy to check to be sure.) If that's the case, it would seem to me to be pretty compelling evidence that the 1e Soc codes did not apply solely to planetary nobles.

Is that OTU enough?

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Imperium Festerium:
It'd make a sight more sense if we either confined it to "IMTU" observations OR "OTU" interpretation.

IIRC, both The Spinward Marches and Kinunir were written using the 1e rules. Again IIRC, both use the Soc codes of B, C, D, &c to represent Imperial nobles, not planetary nobles. (I don't have my books handy to check to be sure.) If that's the case, it would seem to me to be pretty compelling evidence that the 1e Soc codes did not apply solely to planetary nobles.

Is that OTU enough?

 

[jawillroy]

Sure it is, 'far as I'm concerned.

 

[jawillroy]

Sure it is, 'far as I'm concerned.

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by Imperium Festerium:
There is no *reasonable* interpretation of the word "several" that encompasses "tens of thousands." Sorry. No. Won't buy it.

Several is an imprecise word. In this context I think it is reasonable to read it as a synonym for 'more than one'. I always have at any rate.

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by Imperium Festerium:
There is no *reasonable* interpretation of the word "several" that encompasses "tens of thousands." Sorry. No. Won't buy it.

Several is an imprecise word. In this context I think it is reasonable to read it as a synonym for 'more than one'. I always have at any rate.

 

[jawillroy]

"Imprecise," yes. But using it to refer to anything more than what you can count on fingers smacks of "indiscriminate."

 

[jawillroy]

"Imprecise," yes. But using it to refer to anything more than what you can count on fingers smacks of "indiscriminate."