I'm up-ding-ing on some mutually-contradictory posts, because it's an interesting discussion. 
The Imperial Moot in Classic Traveller
- Thread starter Garnfellow
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Two words
Imperial Warrant
If you have one you are effectively the Emperor and can do anything you want.
Appoint dukes, scrub planets, start wars, sign treaties...
The Emperor can do these things without a warrant, with no oversight.
Read Agent of the Imperium.
Imperial Warrant
If you have one you are effectively the Emperor and can do anything you want.
Appoint dukes, scrub planets, start wars, sign treaties...
The Emperor can do these things without a warrant, with no oversight.
Read Agent of the Imperium.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
LBB A1 p22, p40.
The Imperial Warrant would resurface later in the Fifth Frontier War tabletop wargame published in 1981.
Commander Truestar
SOC-13
I agree here.
While there may have been a parliament ruling England, Oliver Cromwell was as much an Autocrat as James I
While his justification to rule was different, and the mechanisms of government were different....they both ruled as a single point of absolute authority
Mike, that is just not how government typologies work.
As an example, in the United States, the President can assert extremely broad powers including the ability to violate laws by the work of his agents, but no one asserts the existence of these extraordinary powers changes the type of government of the worlds oldest democracy.
Well, that is part of the problem here, we have decades of writing canon to sift through and it isn't all consistent. I haven't read AotI and don't intend to.
I think MT and T4 paint a (more) reasonable (if flawed) picture of how the Imperium operates and came to be and different political powers that exist within it.
CT itself (and to a lesser extent Marc's writings about it elsewhere) describes what the feudal technocracy is and why it is not an absolute monarchy.
Commander Truestar
SOC-13
LOL
As I often tell my players, "This is NOT the United States"
However, this is "exactly" how government worked under Louis XIV in France.
Louis XIV was an autocrat.
He removed power from the nobility and gathered it all to the thrown (which was a good reason why the monarchy failed under the less able Louis XV and Louis XVI...)
He could, at need, send riders forth with a document stating "Cet homme parle avec La Voix Du Roi" (This man speaks with The Voice Of The King).
So, yes, there is a real Terra example from a period which Traveller mirrors (IE: Age of sail, with travel-based communications latency)
So, no, ole Louis never had to reach out to other worlds, but travel across France took days and sometimes weeks one way.
Don't limit yourself to what you believe......do the research
I'm not sure I follow you, Cmdr T.
Historically, Absolutism was a 17C continental European phenomena. France, Prussia, Austria, & Russia were all absolutist governments. By contrast, their English and Dutch contemporaries were NOT absolutists.
CT tells us many times and many ways that the 3I is not absolutist but feudal instead. It is more like 17C England than France, but of course it is neither.
Historically, Absolutism was a 17C continental European phenomena. France, Prussia, Austria, & Russia were all absolutist governments. By contrast, their English and Dutch contemporaries were NOT absolutists.
CT tells us many times and many ways that the 3I is not absolutist but feudal instead. It is more like 17C England than France, but of course it is neither.
Commander Truestar
SOC-13
You are correct and incorrect about their historic examples
In my comments, I focused on France, and Louis the XIV.
before Louis XIV, the nobility of France held a large amount of power....which led to a massive amount of corruption.
it is documented that Louis XIV came to realize this and started revoking the power granted to the nobility.
He gathered all that power to the Throne, and was able to wield it with amazing intelligence.
Sadly, history and study have shown (and many books explain) Louis XV was no where as able.
And, by the time Louis XVI came to the Throne, he "had" the option of Absolute power, but not the skill or wit. And, by then, there were no able nobles ready to step up and help the King while the King's ministers and appointees had returned to the corruption Louis XIV had warred against.
also, I said "You are correct and incorrect"
You are incorrect where what "We know" is based on what we have studied and what details we can find.
As is becoming obvious in genetic studies today, we understand the "Northern European and American" genome very well...
.....but, we are starting to realize that the sweeping statements we make based on what we're learning may not be correct when looking at Asian or African, or more indigenous, populations.
Why? Because most of the data we've collected(via 23&Me or other swab and send) have built a Huge library with a limited breadth. Participation is mostly from people of North American or European descent.
So, when you send in your sample and get the results back...
....a Northern European can get "From this village in this region of this country with strands from this other part of that country.."
....a person of Vietnamese ancestry "might get", from Vietnam, but will more likely get "from these areas in South Eastern Asia"
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Louis was traumatized as a child by revolting aristocracy, and wanted to ensure that never happened again.
He centralized them, forced them to spend their money on luxuries, and mitigated that through rituals and access.
I wouldn't mind handing him his handkerchief, but would decline the honour of being the Lord of the Toilet.
He centralized them, forced them to spend their money on luxuries, and mitigated that through rituals and access.
I wouldn't mind handing him his handkerchief, but would decline the honour of being the Lord of the Toilet.
Krikkitone
SOC-12
I think the Louis example is good because it shows the difference between what official powers the king had (relocating/demoting nobles), and how he used them to change the practical power he had. In the 3I, the Emperor has official absolute authority. However, practically the nobles have a lot of authority, and the fact that forcing them all to live at the capital to control them better (like Louis did) would be impractical since those communication lags are even worse. France is ~1000km across and horses could get at least 100km/week. so maybe 10 weeks across….faster with the very best messengers (horse relays get ~250 km a day so say 1 week across for fastest methods). The 3I is ~200 parsecs across….thats ~50 weeks at “normal” speed and ~33weeks at fastest theoretically possible speed.
Last edited:
Krikkitone
SOC-12
reply because time limit
The scales for Terran polities are almost never near that ~30 weeks for fastest possible messages.
The Mongol Empire had 4-6 weeks for news of the Great Khans death to reach Central Europe.
The closest we get is the Colonial naval empires (Spain,Britain,France, etc.) and those were explicitly colonial…all the power was in the homeland and the rest were explicitly subjugated.
The scales for Terran polities are almost never near that ~30 weeks for fastest possible messages.
The Mongol Empire had 4-6 weeks for news of the Great Khans death to reach Central Europe.
The closest we get is the Colonial naval empires (Spain,Britain,France, etc.) and those were explicitly colonial…all the power was in the homeland and the rest were explicitly subjugated.
Even with the advent of the telegraph, in the British Empire a high level of authority was devolved to the local Governors and Viceroys and from them to more junior officials. They were accountable for their decisions and actions, and there were limits to that authority (mainly that they couldn't declare war, but were expected to coordinate defensive efforts if their territory was attacked by a foreign power until orders came from the UK). Before the telegraph, when sailing ships were the only means to communicate the degree of devolved authority was higher still.
G. Kashkanun Anderson
SOC-13
Those three mentions are due to the fact that they are all non-dynastic choices. Nearly every other emperor on the list is specifically described as 'proclaimed', rather than (for example) 'ascended'. The proclaiming body, in every case but one (for sure), or possibly two, is the Moot, with the clear exception being Cleon I, who was presumably proclaimed emperor by the Sylean Federation Grand Senate.
The other possible outlier is Arbellatra (also a non-dynastic choice), who is described as being approached by 'the bureaucracy' to take the throne after seven years of being regent. This is probably intended to mean at least elements of the Moot, although it is also possible that the text is used to imply a different, but still institutional, way to be handed the Iridium Throne.
Don's Integrated Timeline, just for the record, explicitly describes each emperor's proclamation as coming from the Moot, where applicable.
Notably, four emperors are described in the Library Data supplement as 'self-proclaimed', clearly meaning that the Moot was not involved. All of them are Emperors of the Flag, including the most notorious one, Olav hault-Plankwell -- whose reasoning, as we all know, was 'by right of fleet control'.
EDIT: Special mention should also go out to Emperor Styryx, who was so closely associated with the disastrous Third Frontier War that he was made to abdicate. In the earlier case of the truncated reign of Cleon II, that was clearly established to be a voluntary arrangement. For Styryx, on the other hand, there is no such caveat, and he is left out to dry. By whom, it is never said, but the most likely candidate would be the Moot.
Last edited:
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Simply not true for what became the British Empire.
The colonies had extensive home rule, usually with a directly appointed Governor I grant you. They passed local laws and had local courts. The model was the homeland version of government, but it certainly wasn't subjugation.
British expansion in India was due to working with the local rulers often at their request.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
East India Company, which if not for post Napoleonic Wars strategic considerations, could have had a marketing area stretching from Persia to Indonesia.
As regards relocations and white elephants:
As regards relocations and white elephants:
Which is analogous to how the Third Imperium is organized, and why the 3I is not absolutist, just like British Empire was not absolutist, where France was.
(Just trying to bring this historical discussion back around to CT.)
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Except the British Empire was not an absolute monarchy. Since 1689 it has been a constitutional Monarchy with the real power in the hands of Parliament.
We are agreeing about Britain, Mike. To repeat myself from above, the 3I is more like Britain than France, though of course it is neither.
to wit:
The 3I allows the worlds to rule themselves.
The 3I has sub-sector dukes that are "subject only to broad guidelines from his superiors."
The 3I has sector dukes that emerge organically from among the sub-sector dukes.
These are not the trappings of absolutism; they are its opposite.
to wit:
The 3I allows the worlds to rule themselves.
The 3I has sub-sector dukes that are "subject only to broad guidelines from his superiors."
The 3I has sector dukes that emerge organically from among the sub-sector dukes.
These are not the trappings of absolutism; they are its opposite.
Last edited:
Kakistocrat
SOC-12
The 1661 charter from Charles II to the East India Company included the following:
[…] And moreover Our Will and Pleaſure is, and by theſe Preſents, for Us, Our Heirs and Succeſſors, We do give and grant unto the ſaid Governor and Company of Merchants of London, Trading into the Eaſt-Indies, and their Succeſſors, free Liberty and Licence for The ſaid Governor and Company, in case they conceive it neceſſary to ſend either Ships of War, Men or Ammunition, into any their Factories or other Places of their Trade, in the ſaid Eaſt-Indies, for the Security and Defence of the ſame: And to chooſe Commanders and Officers over them, and to give them Power and Authority, by Commiſſions under their Common Seal, or otherwiſe to continue or make Peace or War with any Prince or People, that are not Chriſtians, in any Places of their Trade, as ſhall be moſt for the Advantage and Benefit of The ſaid Governor and Company, and of their Trade: And alſo to right and recompence themſelves, upon the Goods, Eſtate or People of thoſe Parts, by whom The ſaid Governor and Company ſhall ſuſtain any Injury, Loſs or Damage, or upon any other People whatſoever, that ſhall any ways interrupt, wrong or injure them, in their ſaid Trade, within the ſaid Places, Territories, and Limits, granted unto The ſaid Governor and Company, or their Succeſſors, by this Charter: […]
In its 1683 charter, the Company’s ability to make peace or war were extended to “Heathen Nations” in “the Countries and parts of Aſia, Africa, and America, or any of them, beyond the Cape of Bona Eſperanza, to the Streights of Magellan, where any Trade or Traffick of Merchandize might be uſed or had”.
