There is a lot of criticism of Traveller for portraying "Yanks in Space", to the exclusion of other models. Much of the debate is centered at the lowest (tactical) level, which is after all where most PC's spend their time. The British Empire in its heyday is offered most often as an alternative. Not too long ago, I came upon this quote from "The New World Order," by Henry Kissinger: Throughout its history, Russia has been a special case. It arrived late on the European scene -- well after France and Great Britain had been consolidated -- and none of the traditional principles of European diplomacy seemed to apply to it. Bordering on three different cultural spheres -- Europe, Asia, and the Muslim World -- Russia contained populations of each, and hence was never a national state in the European sense. Constantly changing shape as its rulers annexed contiguous territories, Russia was an empire out of scale in comparison with any of the European countries. Moreover, with every new conquest, the characer of the state changed as it incorporated another brand-new, restive, non-Russian ethnic group. This was one of the reasons Russia felt obliged to maintain huge armies whose size was unrelated to any plausible threat to its external security. Sound familiar? Here is a strategic model for the astro-political situation of the Imperium: (1) The Solomani are much like the former Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern Europe and the newly-independent former Soviet Union countries. (2) The Vargr states correspond to the Islamic countries. (3) The Zhodani are equivalent to China, although in an historically isolationist phase. (4) Internal divisions and struggles (viz. Chechnya) are almost more important than external threats. (5) Consider what images are conjured up by the phrase "Soviet Client State," as an anology for Imperial Client States. This model, like any other, breaks down if pushed to extremes. In particular, it only applies to the Big Picture, and not to the day-to- day specifics of how the Imperium operates. It's probably too late to incorporate these ideas in GT: Ground Forces, but the GT: Imperial Nobles book has yet to be written, and should be pitched at just this level of discussion. At 08:52:16, May 27, 2000, David Pulver (dlpulver@) wrote: > I would say that the biggest difference is that there is > no analogy to Western Europe (and by extension, America) in the > model. Russia has always had a love/hate relationship with W. Europe, > with the fear that it it is less civilized/developed/being invaded by > it. Yes, I thought of that. Other social factors (Vilani conservatism, a mania for standardization, distate for psionics, distrust of robots, etc.) may serve a similar function. > In contract, the Imperium is the foremost technological power, and > claims legitimacy as the successor to previous Great Powers. So it is > sort of like Russia, if Russia incorporated Istanbul and the > Dardanelles and thus could claim direct succession to Byzantium and > the Roman Empire. Oooh, I like it. Now, what if Tzar Nikolas and the royal family had been assassinated on the throne, instead of while under house arrest... The question of the feudal nature of the Imperium is also a point of major difference, as is the "naval" aspect of interstellar travel. > Oh, other analogies: > > K'Kree = India on the border with elements of "more agressive China" > Hivers = Western Europe, but less so. Perhaps if more was made of > Hiver's advantages as a society and high tech, and if some Imperial > border states actually *wanted* to join the Hiver Federation. I wouldn't push the analogy too far. My point is that the Imperium is a major power but scarcely a unified nation-state, surrounded on all sides by powerful and accessible enemies and vulnerable to revolt from within. It may be more useful to examine how the Russians (particularly the Tzars) dealt with a situation with similar parameters, rather than (say) the British Empire. [Mental image #3: Vargr in Cossack uniforms...] At 22:30:38, May 27, 2000, Charles Li (ImperialOne@) wrote: > The Imperium v. Russian Empire analogy also fails the comparison with > the "interstellar ocean of space." The Russian Empire was always > fairly landlocked, ramifications which a 20th and 21st century Soviet > Union/Commonwealth of Independent States faces today. You are confusing a strategic perspective with tactical details. From a strategic and operational standpoint, the Imperium is just as "landlocked" as Russia. Both are vulnerable to direct attack along significant fractions of their borders. In order to occupy the strategic position of the great maritime powers (the British Empire, or the United States), the Imperium would have to be surrounded on all sides by rifts and/or militarily insignificant competitor states -- secure from direct attack. This is not the case, and it should have a profound influence on how Imperials view their astropolitical situation. I am aware, and made a point of mentioning, that the tactical details of interstellar transport and warfare are clearly maritime -- the Imperial Navy should look nothing like the Russian Navy in its organization, mission, or employment. But the Imperial military _as a whole_ has concerns that are more reminiscent of the Russian military than (say) the British. > There are many good similarities here, just as there are for the > Britsh Empire of the 19th Century. Fact of the matter is that the > Imperium is not necessarily modeled after any one of them (but draws > influence from many historical precedents), and thankfully, won't be > when Loren writes the Nobles book. No one, least of all I, ever said that the Imperium was "modeled after" any one historical example (except perhaps the Roman Empire). But your comments illustrate precisely the point I was trying to make: we become enamoured of certain correspondences -- the "interstellar oceans of space" -- and continue to apply them when they are no longer appropriate. Analogies and models are tools, nothing more. The trick is to make certain that the tools we use are appropriate to the task. In this case, the "Russians in Space" tool may shed some new light on the strategic position of the Imperium. This has never been examined in detail, but is sure to figure prominently in the upcoming GT: Imperial Nobles and GT: Espionage and Diplomacy sourcebooks. Copyright (c) 2000 by Christopher B. Thrash
Comments: thrash@io.com