Sovereignity of Imperial Worlds?

[Icosahedron]

sounds like a lot of work. This would put the imperium in the business of nation-building

Empire-building, actually.

Hard work maybe, but IMTU this is what the Imperium is for!

and squarely at odds with the majority of its member worlds, and that's a lot of hostile territory to hold.

No, the majority of worlds already run by Central Law

like the U.S. in Iraq times 11,000.

Ah, but you don't f*** with the Imperium IMTU. Any agro and the place gets levelled! They put enough resources in to get the job done right and they don't care what anyone else thinks. This ain't no namby-pamby democracy. Picture Hitler with WMDs and Ortillery.
There's no such thing as a power-vacuum; the Imperium goes in hard and stays in for enough generations for the dust to settle (radioactive dust if necessary).
You're much better off doing what the man in the black uniform tells you to do.

 

[flykiller]

You're much better off doing what the man in the black uniform tells you to do.

and where, exactly, does the man in the black uniform come from? where the wmd's and ortillery? "the imperium" is hardly an invading nation with its own base of support elsewhere, able to ignore what the locals think and believe. this version of the imperium would consist of the very worlds that it coerces. picture hitler with wmd's and ortillery, using them on germany. how long would that last? sounds about as stable as the soviet union.

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You're much better off doing what the man in the black uniform tells you to do.

and where, exactly, does the man in the black uniform come from? where the wmd's and ortillery? "the imperium" is hardly an invading nation with its own base of support elsewhere, able to ignore what the locals think and believe. this version of the imperium would consist of the very worlds that it coerces. picture hitler with wmd's and ortillery, using them on germany. how long would that last? sounds about as stable as the soviet union. </font>[/QUOTE]Or Cuba. Oh wait, they are still in power arn't they. Oh well, on to the next analogy ...

 

[Icosahedron]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You're much better off doing what the man in the black uniform tells you to do.

and where, exactly, does the man in the black uniform come from? where the wmd's and ortillery? "the imperium" is hardly an invading nation with its own base of support elsewhere, able to ignore what the locals think and believe. this version of the imperium would consist of the very worlds that it coerces. picture hitler with wmd's and ortillery, using them on germany. how long would that last? sounds about as stable as the soviet union. </font>[/QUOTE]Firstly, Flykiller, let me state that the example I gave was from MTU, which is non-canon and as I said, has no bearing on the OTU.

Secondly, let me state that I see little difference between the Imperium intervening to prevent wars or intervening to prevent amputations being carried out on graffiti artists. It's all 'nation-building' as you call it. If the Imperial representatives think something is wrong, they will act against it. It's just a matter of scale.

Now, my Imperium is a realm in which the core worlds view the Emperor as a Charismatic Dictator (analogy Germany or Mother Russia?) Coercion is not necessary here. (Armies of brown/blackshirts may have marched the streets stirring the public into a frenzy and weeding out opposition many centuries ago, but that - if it ever really happened - is ancient history and the core is long-since homogenised, ethnically or idealogically cleansed, call it what you will) Nearer the rim, newer conquests (satellite states?) have still to learn the 'correct' way of doing things and may require a little 'persuasion' at times. The core worlds, honoured to die in service to His Imperial Majesty, are more than capable of providing as many black uniforms and starships as prove necessary to expand the realm and bring in more taxes.

Perhaps Rome would be a better analogy. In the eternal city, the Emperor is a god. To the Armenian rebels he is a pain in the butt. However, that pain in the butt is in command of powerful legions and quite capable of mass crucifixions of local leaders.

Whether this situation is ultimately stable is of little consequence to the snapshot of time in which play takes place.

Bringer of light into the darkness, or evil regime of terror? Politics is in the eye of the beholder.

It works for me, and it keeps players in check.

 

[flykiller]

It works for me ....

yes, there is always fiat, though I was hoping to appeal to something more if-then.

The core worlds, honoured to die in service to His Imperial Majesty, are more than capable of providing as many black uniforms and starships as prove necessary to expand the realm and bring in more taxes.

yes, limitless selfless resources do eliminate any need for prioritization.

so, iytu the imperium is in fact an alien occupying power. this could work.

 

[sgbrown]

Originally posted by Icosahedron:
-clip-

Whether this situation is ultimately stable is of little consequence to the snapshot of time in which play takes place.
-clip-

The bit about the snapshot in time is important. Even with empires or democracies - the reality of the power situation changes with time. What worked for the US in the early 1900's is probably not workable in the early 2000's (situation is different). To be successful the Imperium will have to learn from history and yet still deal with the reality of the politics at hand.

 

[flykiller]

The bit about the snapshot in time is important.

it is. if the imperium has lasted 1100 years then certain things have to be assumed about it, but if one takes only a moment in time of a non-standard approach to what the imperium is then many more game settings become possible.

 

[Icosahedron]

Originally posted by flykiller:
so, iytu the imperium is in fact an alien occupying power. this could work.

Alien in the American usage, yes, mine is a human galaxy. As the Empire expands and homogenises its conquests or annexations, they will gradually become new core worlds helping to bring other more distant worlds into the fold.

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The bit about the snapshot in time is important.

it is. if the imperium has lasted 1100 years then certain things have to be assumed about it, </font>[/QUOTE]The snapshot idea is a bit of a getout, but I think that my Imperium might be pseudo-stable if it continually expanded - like a shark continually swimming - if it survived its initial growth period so that the rim was wide enough that worlds can be continually annexed yet allow many generations of homogenisation to pass before they themselves have to support a putsch (sp?) it could last a long time. (China does all right, annexing one or two countries per century, and 'correcting' ideology for generations.)
But - if the Imperium expands too quickly, its troops may be unreliable, and if it expands too slowly its member worlds may turn on each other for lack of a common foe/purpose. A third danger is meeting up with another star empire.

My Imperium is not necessarily aggressively militaristic, however, things are seldom black-and-white. Many worlds could agree to annexation for the economic benefits then change their 'anomalous' laws gradually to fall in line with the majority, as in the EU today. Some of the population may be in favour of annexation and some may be against it. Lots of intrigue for the Imperial representatives (and players) to get mixed up in.

It still comes back to the three tiers of Imperial Law, Central Law, and local law that we were originally discussing, and the concept of Citizenry. IMTU Citizens might be tenth generation members, perhaps? - more likely to say "I hear and obey, Majesty" than "Who does that creep think he is?"

Is that enough if - then for you?

 

[aramis]

The truth is that any government evolves over time... I can't see the early 3I being anywhere near the same approach to nobility nor governance as the late 3I ca.1050-1115... they are such vastly different scales and needs.

But again, sovereignty and subject/citizen/nobleman issues define particular views of the Imperium and it's role.

Most especially the role of Imperial Nobles. Are they virtual representation? Are they Governors-general, able to override local laws? Are they consuls for the imperium to the local world? How much pull does the subsector and sector moot have, and how much does the noble in said moot have?

All these decisions about nobles strongly shape the role of the 3I as a whole.

 

[flykiller]

Is that enough if - then for you?

nope. lots of if, not much then.

china, cited, seems unsupportive of such a fiat. china may be stable as a people and a culture, but as a nation it routinely cycles between centuries of grand stability and centuries of chaotic anarchy. it is filled with intrigues and esoteric power grabs, yet is only infrequent and often unsuccessful in its attempts to dominate nations at its borders. vietnam has defeated it twice, once after centuries of occupation. observe how japan, adjacent to china, has been independent of it for thousands of years. probably the real reason china is "introspective" is because there is so much more to be gained by seizing power internally than launching military actions externally - who wants to kill and educate the barbarians when there is so much more to be had at home? and who says the barbarians don't have something to offer themselves? notice how after 2000 years of confucianist culture the nation's captital was filled with protestors at tienamen square demanding to live the ideology of an upstart barbarian nation. yes, it was suppressed, but the rulers of that nation know that even after all this time they do not have their population's undivided loyalty, either as a culture or as a government.

all of this is driven by human nature and seems appropriate to any large polity. the imperium you describe has no room for human nature, but seems merely an artifice towards an end.

 

[flykiller]

All these decisions about nobles strongly shape the role of the 3I as a whole.

indeed. and the biggest decision of all is, where do these nobles come from? who are they? answer that and a whole bunch of other questions answer themselves.

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Most especially the role of Imperial Nobles. Are they virtual representation? Are they Governors-general, able to override local laws? Are they consuls for the imperium to the local world? How much pull does the subsector and sector moot have, and how much does the noble in said moot have?

All these decisions about nobles strongly shape the role of the 3I as a whole.

This is correct.

Generally speaking, my answer is that the nobility are predominantly drawn from local elites. They rule the worlds, and the more powerful ones rule more than one world. And others control the megacorporations, the fleets, the armies and the bureaucray. And the major churches, and...

The idea is that you buy their loyalty by giving them fancy hats to wear, and giving them a stake in the status quo.

If they get out of line, you stomp them, of course. But that only works as long as only some of them rebel. If more than one Domain was to rebel, the Imperial government would have to strain to suppress them. Even a single sector rebellion can end up taking decades to suppress, like the Ilelish Revolt.

Incidentally, if the Imperial government wasn't nervous about other sectors and domains joining that revolt, they probably weren't paying attention. That could well have been a reason why they played their hand so carefully with Ilelish.

Back to the main point: how much clout does the individual noble have? That depends. If they are hereditary President of the Democratic Republic of Bigworld, lots. If they are Mayor of Southern Boondocks City, not lots. If, however, they are also the favourite nephew of the subsector duchess, the Mayor may well have comparable levels of unofficial clout.

I was, of course, referring to their local titles just then. The Hereditary President is probably an Imperial Marquis, or even a Count, and the Mayor may only be an Imperial Knight.

YMMV, IMTU<>YTU, etc.

 

[Hal]

This perhaps may be a question that belongs in another thread, but since it has been raised here, let us pursue it further...

The Imperium as a charismatic Dictatorship sounds like an interesting premise. The Imperial nobility and "Where do they come from" is even more of an interesting question to pose. In light of the body of MEGATRAVELLER history, this next question should make a few people ponder <evil grin>

During the period of the Barracks Emperors, it became common for a wannabe Emperor to raise a fleet, march on Rome, er Sylea, and depose the old ruler and sit on the now vacant throne.

Supposedly, one Emperess decided that she would break the cycle and let the Moot choose the next ruler, but only after she raised a force of her own.

Using the snapshot of history, yet trying to avoid the "inevitability of history" in the form of "future knowledge" (ie, pretend you're alive in those times and the future is uncertain!)

a) how do you go about keeping more periods of "Barracks Emperors" from coming into being

b) how do you account for the fact that worlds present within the Imperium have not begun to acquire a uniform conformity across the board?

Put another way regards to b?

Would not worlds adopt a uniform code of law and uniform code of technology as they embrace the "Imperial Way"?

Just some thoughts <g>

 

[Icosahedron]

Originally posted by Hal:
Would not worlds adopt a uniform code of law and uniform code of technology as they embrace the "Imperial Way"?

This is exactly the point I was making when I mentioned 'Central Law'. Usually, conformance will be a natural process and can be allowed to happen naturally or by political expedience. Sometimes, probably quite rarely, they may need a little 'encouragement'. Actually, wasting worlds with WMDs is just a deterrent. Who says it ever happened? You can't believe everything you hear.

 

[Icosahedron]

Originally posted by flykiller:

Is that enough if - then for you?

nope. lots of if, not much then.

china, cited, seems unsupportive of such a fiat. china may be stable as a people and a culture, but as a nation it routinely cycles between centuries of grand stability and centuries of chaotic anarchy. it is filled with intrigues and esoteric power grabs, yet is only infrequent and often unsuccessful in its attempts to dominate nations at its borders. vietnam has defeated it twice, once after centuries of occupation. observe how japan, adjacent to china, has been independent of it for thousands of years. probably the real reason china is "introspective" is because there is so much more to be gained by seizing power internally than launching military actions externally - who wants to kill and educate the barbarians when there is so much more to be had at home? and who says the barbarians don't have something to offer themselves? notice how after 2000 years of confucianist culture the nation's captital was filled with protestors at tienamen square demanding to live the ideology of an upstart barbarian nation. yes, it was suppressed, but the rulers of that nation know that even after all this time they do not have their population's undivided loyalty, either as a culture or as a government.

Ok, so maybe China is not an ideal analogy, probably nothing is.
Japan though, is a powerful outside empire - they even invaded China. The USA is also a powerful outside 'empire'.

all of this is driven by human nature and seems appropriate to any large polity. the imperium you describe has no room for human nature, but seems merely an artifice towards an end.

Apologies, but politics is not my forte and I'm neither qualified nor inclined to debate it. I'm a SF buff who likes RPGs. My empire, like that of Mr Lucas, serves to provide some structure to a series of yarns. If it succeeds in this, it is sufficient. I have neither the time nor interest to write a constitution for it. If there are internal inconsistencies, see Rule #1.

Rule #1: The GM is always right.

 

[FreeTrav]

Originally posted by alte:
Presumably Cleon's Warrant of Restitution in the Milieu 0 book continues to be the foundation of the Imperium:

Article IV supports free trade (but apparently only in the negative sense of forbidding piracy and smuggling - tariffs and outright bans on imports and exports don't rate a mention).

I'd have to look up that text, but as I recall (I wrote it), there is (or at least was supposed to be) a prohibition on unequal treatment of trade goods based on source (provided that all sources under discussion were Imperial Member Worlds - you could discriminate against extra-Imperial worlds all you wanted) - IOW, you couldn't put a tariff on blue shalaps from the Donkeykong system if you were letting blue shalaps in with no tariff from the Poleposition system.

Article VI prohibits slavery

Chattel slavery, not all slavery. Poorly-structured Indentures? That's fine. Peonage? Also fine. Bonded servitude as a penalty for a crime, or to clear a debt? Go right ahead. I seem to recall an article (JTAS?) about a world where damn near half the population voluntarily enslaved themselves collectively to the other half collectively, or something like that, and there was a debate as to whether it was a violation of VI Warrant. My take was that it wasn't.