Welcome to BookBoardz.com!
FAQFAQ   SearchSearch      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log in/Register/PasswordLog in/Register/Password

How evil is a classical empire?

 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
   Book Forums (Home) -> Isaac Asimov RSS
Related Topics:
Julactic Empire? - I picked up a paperback copy of a few days ago, & the blurb on the back refers to the story being set in the days of the 'Julactic Empire', as does the small blurb inside. I read (& re-read) the whole Empire & Robot..

Foundation and Empire - Hi, I'm reading the great book and and I have 2 doubts: (a) what are the from needed in order to and Where may I find a brief of (b)

Empire series? - The 3 Empire books seems to be hard to get hold of - has them at over £15 (@$25) which is crazy. Anyone know why this is, or if a publisher plans to them soon? Boz

Glitch In Robots And Empire - Page 197 of paperback The Naked Sun by Isaac Asimov: Robot Daneel Olivaw sees Solarian Jothan Leebig die right in front of him (Leebig had taken poison because he, more than most couldn't stand the idea of someone being in his..

Which Asimovs' short stories belong to Robots-Empire-Found.. - Could anyone give me a listing of all the Asimov's short stories belonging to the Universe? Some of stories which are published in "The Complete like or don't obviously belong to this Universe. On..
Author Message
Damien Sullivan

External


Since: Nov 24, 2007
Posts: 1



(Msg. 46) Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:22 am
Post subject: Re: How evil is a classical empire? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>arts>sf>written, others (more info?)

dbd DeleteThis @gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>David Johnston <david DeleteThis @block.net> wrote:

>>Oh, incidentally the idea that anyone could run a viable interstellar
>>empire at slower than light speeds is absurd.
>
>Eh. 1) Aliens who lived much slower than humans do, or humans slowed down
>to ridiculously-slow speed; 2) if there were FTL _communication_ that might
>stabilize things quite a lot; 3) depends how LARGE said empire is - maybe
>it's in a globular cluster...

Or aliens/humans who live a lot longer than humans do. Sure, it'll be a
somewhat decentralized empire, with general guidelines[1] rather than
micromanagement, and sure, it may take centuries for Imperial reprisals
to arrive if you disobey, but that doesn't help if you can otherwise
expect to still be alive when they come. How many dekamillennia of life
are you willing to lose for a few centuries of defiance?

[1] Of course, at the high-tech end those guidelines can include a
mental copy of the Emperor.

-xx- Damien X-)

 >> Stay informed about: How evil is a classical empire? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Nobody in particular

External


Since: Nov 15, 2007
Posts: 2



(Msg. 47) Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:22 am
Post subject: Re: How evil is a classical empire? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Damien Sullivan" <phoenix RemoveThis @ofb.net> wrote in message <news:fi7qsa$rd2$2@naig.caltech.edu>...

> dbd RemoveThis @gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>David Johnston <david RemoveThis @block.net> wrote:
>
>>>Oh, incidentally the idea that anyone could run a viable interstellar
>>>empire at slower than light speeds is absurd.
>>
>>Eh. 1) Aliens who lived much slower than humans do, or humans slowed down
>>to ridiculously-slow speed; 2) if there were FTL _communication_ that might
>>stabilize things quite a lot; 3) depends how LARGE said empire is - maybe
>>it's in a globular cluster...
>
> Or aliens/humans who live a lot longer than humans do. Sure, it'll be a
> somewhat decentralized empire, with general guidelines[1] rather than
> micromanagement, and sure, it may take centuries for Imperial reprisals
> to arrive if you disobey, but that doesn't help if you can otherwise
> expect to still be alive when they come. How many dekamillennia of life
> are you willing to lose for a few centuries of defiance?
>
> [1] Of course, at the high-tech end those guidelines can include a
> mental copy of the Emperor.


This is more or less how the interstellar empire in "Dark Sky Legion"
works. The roaming enforcers are copies of the senators on Earth.
All copies of an official may be arrested for the crimes of a single,
possibly rogue, copy

 >> Stay informed about: How evil is a classical empire? 
Back to top
Login to vote
djinn

External


Since: Nov 24, 2007
Posts: 1



(Msg. 48) Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:41 am
Post subject: Re: How evil is a classical empire? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>arts>sf>science, others (more info?)

On 11ÔÂ21ÈÕ, ÉÏÎç9ʱ26·Ö, Howard Brazee <how... DeleteThis @brazee.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:33:16 -0800, "Brion K. Lienhart"
>
> <bri... DeleteThis @lienhart.name> wrote:
> >> Alan Dean Foster's Pip & Flinx universe has some evil coming towards
> >> the galaxy. Flinx knows it is evil, but that's basically all he
> >> knows. I'd rather have it be hungry or something that is more real
> >> than a vague "evil".
>
> >ISTR recall that it is destroying all matter in its wake, on an
> >inter-galactic scale. Sounds pretty "evil" to me.
>
> I suppose if a meadow sensed the mind of a sheep coming its way - what
> the meadow would sense would be "evil".
>
> Or maybe not.
 >> Stay informed about: How evil is a classical empire? 
Back to top
Login to vote
bernardz

External


Since: Nov 20, 2007
Posts: 6



(Msg. 49) Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:36 pm
Post subject: Re: How evil is a classical empire? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Nov 24, 4:52 am, Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork....RemoveThis@hush.ai>
wrote:
> On 22 nov, 11:32,bernardZ<Berna....RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <ohf9k39ckfnk8cr3loiaicigecn2822....RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
> > how....RemoveThis@brazee.net says...
>
> > > Certainly today's despots are similarly limited - so there must be a
> > > threshold that divides True despots from False despots.
>
> > It depends on time and place. In Brezhnev time millions of people were
> > in Russian jail and falsely sent to mental institutions.
>
> I believe that this estimate is misleading.
>
> > Yet compared to
> > Stalin, he was no despot.
>
> The number of people in Gulag, in time of Stalin, would have been a
> few millions. Sure, the total number of victims would have been
> considerably higher - but a great majority of them did not last all
> that long. Many died in a few years, and quite some were released even
> in Stalin´s time (usually followed by exile/residence restrictions). I
> think the number alive and in jail at any given time would not have
> exceeded ten millions.
>
> In time of Brežnev or Hruštšov, after most political prisoners had
> been released? Considerably fewer. Note that Russia is a large
> country, and many people would have been in Russian jail for common
> crimes. I think that throughout Brežnev´s time, political prisoners
> were far outnumbered by criminals.
>
> Falsely sent to mental institutions? Well, mental patients would
> generally have been somewhat fewer than jail inmates. And they would
> also have been mostly genuinely insane. I think that the people
> falsely sent to mental institutions might have been thousands, maybe
> tens of thousands but not more.
>
> > Although I am sure if Putin tried it today he
> > would be branded a despot.

My argument would still be vaild whether the numbers were a few
million or a few thousand.


Anyway you may find this article interesting.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n12_v40/ai_6794635
 >> Stay informed about: How evil is a classical empire? 
Back to top
Login to vote
bernardz

External


Since: Nov 20, 2007
Posts: 6



(Msg. 50) Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:51 pm
Post subject: Re: How evil is a classical empire? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Nov 23, 4:10 am, Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork....DeleteThis@hush.ai>
wrote:
> On 22 nov, 11:34,bernardZ<Berna....DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote:> In article <av19k311jo5n73fqfbi3mgd3cchppvo....DeleteThis@4ax.com>, da....DeleteThis@block.net
> > says...
>
> > > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:56:11 +1100,bernardZ<Berna....DeleteThis@nospam.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >In article <m3y7csx8l5.....DeleteThis@localhost.localdomain.i-did-not-set--mail-
> > > >host-address--so-tickle-me>, t....DeleteThis@localhost.localdomain says...
> > > >> Imperial China didn't have the technologies or methodologies
> > > >> required for modern totalitarianism or genocide. While the
> > > >> Emperor was a supreme autocrat, his reach was very much
> > > >> limited by distance, tradition and bureaucracy, which was also > > >> limited by distance and tradition.
>
> Genghis Khan´s reach was not limited by tradition. Distance, slightly.
> The Mongol generals in the field could not consult the Khan about the
> fate of every individual town they took. But they had general orders
> and instructions - which proved quite enough for large scale policy of
> genocide.
>

Yep. it really depends the aims of the empire.



> > > >> "The Mountains are High and the Emperor is Far Away", as
> > > >> the chinese proverb put it.
>
> > > >I would expect a Galactic Empire to be even further away.
>
> > > Won't make a difference if they have Star Wars Style "We can be
> > > anywhere in the galaxy in a couple of weeks or less".
>
> > If it is faster then light it is not physics but fiction.
>
> In which case, any galactic empire is unphysical. Which is trivially
> true. But possession of unphysical technologies does not
> authomatically alter human social psychology.

It takes it out of science into fiction.

>
> > > And of course if the Empire can't closely administer its
> > > possessions, then it's no unlikely that the latterday Herods of
> > > places like China would continue unrestrained by anything except > > the need to pay their tribute and keep their hands off Imperial
> > > citizens.
>
> > Unless it is some sort of information, I cannot see any tribute in
> > Galactic terms worth the transport costs.
>
> Then why would a Galactic Empire exist in the first place?
>

Security maybe.

Maybe like the Islamic empires, the aim is to turn people into
Muslims.


> If a Galactic Empire collects only information, what stake would they
> have in promoting peace, let alone freedom?
>
> You could very plausibly have aliens who actively promote war on
> Earth. If travel across interstellar distances is prohibitively
> expensive, then no one on Earth can hurt the Empire at home with any
> dangerous amounts of weapons, even if those weapons are supplied by
> the Empire itself. The Empire could turn the Earth into a testing
> ground for weapons and warfare - if anyone looks like winning and
> enforcing peace on Earth, they just supply the drawings for a next
> superweapon to the losing side thus making sure no one ever wins, and
> if the parties get exhausted by fighting and want to make peace, it is
> the first party to break the peace who is promised the drawings of
> another superweapon.
>
> So... why would an empire want peace unless warfare hinders tax
> collection?


Indeed. You may find this discussion interesting


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
 >> Stay informed about: How evil is a classical empire? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Asdrubal

External


Since: Nov 25, 2007
Posts: 1



(Msg. 51) Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:05 pm
Post subject: Re: How evil is a classical empire? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On 26 nov, 02:51, bernardz <berna....RemoveThis@mail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 4:10 am, Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork....RemoveThis@hush.ai>
> wrote:

> > > Unless it is some sort of information, I cannot see any tribute in
> > > Galactic terms worth the transport costs.
>
> > Then why would a Galactic Empire exist in the first place?
>
> Security maybe.
>
Maybe prestige. Considering the existance of milionaires who could
provide themselves
with any degree of material confort, one migh also ask WHy they would
try to add
to their fortunes... The answer, or course is PRESTIGE - or social
status in their case.
There is also the fact that they ascended to their privileged
economical situation by
becoming adept at the "game" of making money. By the time they reach a
point of
sufficient wealth, they are just too adicted to the game to stop. The
same could happen to
the elite who ruled an empire - Only, of course, it is the "power"
game.
 >> Stay informed about: How evil is a classical empire? 
Back to top
Login to vote
IsaacKuo

External


Since: Nov 26, 2007
Posts: 2



(Msg. 52) Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:26 am
Post subject: Re: How evil is a classical empire? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Nov 26, 12:05 am, Asdrubal <asdrubal.arr... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 4:10 am, Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork... DeleteThis @hush.ai>
> > wrote:
> > > Then why would a Galactic Empire exist in the first place?

> [...] There is also the fact that they ascended to their privileged
> economical situation by becoming adept at the "game" of making
> money. By the time they reach a point of sufficient wealth, they
> are just too adicted to the game to stop. The same could happen to
> the elite who ruled an empire - Only, of course, it is the "power"
> game.

I like the "addiction to power" answer. It's not that everyone
who has power is addicted to greedily grasping for even more
power. But there will be some who are addicted to grasping
more power. That's the sort of people who will set up a
Galactic Empire, even if there's no economic reason to do so.

It's not hard to see how such a system could arrise.
Historically, there's often been a great difference between
those who were good at conquering and those who were
good at governing. Many empires were strong and vibrant
as long as they had wars to fight and territory to conquer,
but the power structures so adept at expansion simply
weren't suited to governing an empire at peace. It's not
implausible for a galactic empire to arrise from a potent
interstellar empire whose power structure and institutions
simply lacked the capacity to stop expanding.

It's essentially power for its own sake.

Isaac Kuo
 >> Stay informed about: How evil is a classical empire? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Crown-Horned Snorkack

External


Since: Nov 17, 2007
Posts: 7



(Msg. 53) Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:22 am
Post subject: Re: How evil is a classical empire? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On 26 nov, 17:26, IsaacKuo <mech....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 12:05 am, Asdrubal <asdrubal.arr....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 4:10 am, Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork....TakeThisOut@hush.ai>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Then why would a Galactic Empire exist in the first place?
> > [...] There is also the fact that they ascended to their privileged
> > economical situation by becoming adept at the "game" of making
> > money. By the time they reach a point of sufficient wealth, they
> > are just too adicted to the game to stop. The same could happen to
> > the elite who ruled an empire - Only, of course, it is the "power"
> > game.
>
> I like the "addiction to power" answer. It's not that everyone
> who has power is addicted to greedily grasping for even more
> power. But there will be some who are addicted to grasping
> more power. That's the sort of people who will set up a
> Galactic Empire, even if there's no economic reason to do so.
>
Setting up an empire must at a minimum be economically feasible.

> It's not hard to see how such a system could arrise.
> Historically, there's often been a great difference between
> those who were good at conquering and those who were
> good at governing. Many empires were strong and vibrant
> as long as they had wars to fight and territory to conquer,
> but the power structures so adept at expansion simply
> weren't suited to governing an empire at peace. It's not
> implausible for a galactic empire to arrise from a potent
> interstellar empire whose power structure and institutions
> simply lacked the capacity to stop expanding.
>
An empire must at least have the economic capacity to keep up with
resistance. If the empire exceeds their logistical limitations then
they simply lack the resources to overcome the mounting resistance.
 >> Stay informed about: How evil is a classical empire? 
Back to top
Login to vote
IsaacKuo

External


Since: Nov 26, 2007
Posts: 2



(Msg. 54) Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:29 am
Post subject: Re: How evil is a classical empire? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Nov 26, 11:22 am, Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork... DeleteThis @hush.ai>
wrote:
> On 26 nov, 17:26, IsaacKuo <mech... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I like the "addiction to power" answer. It's not that everyone
> > who has power is addicted to greedily grasping for even more
> > power. But there will be some who are addicted to grasping
> > more power. That's the sort of people who will set up a
> > Galactic Empire, even if there's no economic reason to do so.

> Setting up an empire must at a minimum be economically feasible.

Sure, but that's not the same thing as requiring that an
empire be _profitable_. An empire may be economically
feasible even if it costs more to maintain than anarchy
(which costs nothing to maintain).

> > It's not
> > implausible for a galactic empire to arrise from a potent
> > interstellar empire whose power structure and institutions
> > simply lacked the capacity to stop expanding.

> An empire must at least have the economic capacity to keep up with
> resistance. If the empire exceeds their logistical limitations then
> they simply lack the resources to overcome the mounting resistance.

You're making the assumption that there would be
mounting resistance and that this resistance would
necessarily overcome the expanding empire. But
a lot depends on how expensive it is to attack vs
defend. With interstellar lasers and/or relativistic
planet killers, it's possible that attack is much less
expensive than defense. In that case, the empire
may not need to spend very much in resources to
destroy resistance. Each unconquered star system
then has a terrible choice to make--martyr themselves
for the sake of strangers many light years away who
they've never met, or submit to the Empire?

In such a situation, perhaps the unconquered star
systems will eventually band together to form a
unified front against the empire. Perhaps not.
Either way, you're looking at the replacement of
a bunch of independent star systems into
interstellar organizations (federation or empire).

Isaac Kuo
 >> Stay informed about: How evil is a classical empire? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Remus

External


Since: Nov 26, 2007
Posts: 1



(Msg. 55) Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:59 pm
Post subject: Re: How good is a classical empire? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Nov 17, 3:36 am, Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork....TakeThisOut@hush.ai>
wrote:
> The classical SF often features a Galactic Empire or something
> similar. Often based on Roman Empire. Like Asimov´s Foundation Series.
>
> The Empire of Foundation is perceived as a good thing by Hardin, and
> Gaal Dornick. It is decaying, inevitably, but it is better than the
> Four Kingdoms and the disintegration of Periphery. Things look worse
> by the time Hober Mallow and Lathan Devers see the Empire. But it is
> emphasized that the Galactic Empire before decay was yet much better
> than what Seldon saw.
>
> Now, let us compare what we see of the historic Roman Empire at its
> best. Governor Plinius of Bithynia and his correspondence with
> Traianus... Traianus was quite often regarded as the best Roman
> emperor, ever. And Plinius was one of the few most conscientious and
> well-meaning governors - like Cicero was in his time.
>
> Greece was the favourite province of Roman Empire. Especially for Nero
> and Hadrianus, but generally much of the time.
>
> How would a early 21st century Earth, or middle 20th century Earth,
> take it if one day a fleet showed up outside atmosphere, and next they
> know they have a provincial government of a Galactic Empire to deal
> with? Governing in the spirit of Plinius and Traianus?
>
> (Remember the pearls like Traianus explaining the ban on volunteer
> fire squads).

Basic facts about travel between the stars would
have to be covered to be able to speculate
about any real scenarios.

First and foremost would be could the speed
of light be overcome? Conversely, if it could
by them, would time travel be possible by
them as well?

If it could not, then the reality of the basics
of travel between the stars would come into
play.

Most notable would be several facts about
stars in the galaxy.

1. This galactic civilization might have existed
for time scales many orders of magnitude longer
than human lifespans or even human civilization.

A galactic civilization that started only several
hundred million years ago would have had a
long time to develop.

Furthermore, if they found out about Earth only
five or ten million years ago that would be more
than enough time to blanket the earth with Hydrogen
Bombs and kill off any proto-apes they might
find before human civilization ever got started.

2. No star remains at a fixed point in the galaxy
in relation to the other stars.

There is not nearly such a thing as an isolated
backwater solar system in the galaxy like there
would be for say an isolated island in the
remote Pacific.

Many stars orbit the galaxy in orbits of
sometimes a hundred million years or more
depending on the distance of that star from
the center of the galaxy. Throughout that time,
a star will drift past one star, then another,
then another, and so forth.

Barnard's Star, for instance, will become
the closest star to the Sun rather than
Proxima Centauri around the year 11,700 AD,
and over the last several million years many
other star systems have been the closest
to the Sun rather than the other two as
they would drift close to the Sun and then
away from it.

Probably the major factors if one would
think of a galaxy 'geographically' as one
might think of various regions on the Earth
would be.

1. Distance from the center. There tend to
be a greater general density of stars per
volume of space as one goes closer in.

2. Globular clusters. These are aggregates
of thousands or millions of stars much closer
together than stars not in globular clusters.
They almost might be thought of as one
vast solar system of thousands or millions
of stars. They tend to have been formed
during earlier time periods in the universe,
and have low metallicity, however.

3. Metallicity. If a star formed from a nebula
without many heavy metals, then there was
nothing solid within it to generate the dust needed
to form rocky terrestrial planets. The heavy element
nebulas needed to help form rocky planets tended
to be formed later on after the formation of the universe.
The Sun is one of these later generation stars, and
it does have rocky terrestrial planets, like the Earth.
Later generation stars, and high mettalicity nebula,
tend to often form in the periphery of galaxies, and
not necessesarily near the center. Throughout time,
the central regions of some of the larger types of
galaxies have even had their gas and dust driven
away from it, or have been depleted to the point
that there are no longer any nebula present, and
there is no further star formation.

Only ten million years is almost a blink of an eye
when it comes to hundreds of millions or billions
of years when it comes to cosmic time scales,
and if the Earth were discovered by them only
ten million years ago, that would be more than
enough time for them to scratch their pseudo
heads and decide to blanket the Earth with
Hydrogen bombs and cull off any apes they
might find, if they really wanted to.

One notable thing about a Galactic Civilization
without a FTL type drive or time travel, however,
is that each star would be vastly distant from
each other, and the time of travel from each point
to another one would have to be taken into
account. This would only be different in globular
clusters, which might have their own problems,
due to the fact that they usually have low metallicity.
 >> Stay informed about: How evil is a classical empire? 
Back to top
Login to vote
bernardz

External


Since: Nov 20, 2007
Posts: 6



(Msg. 56) Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:21 pm
Post subject: Re: How evil is a classical empire? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Nov 27, 6:29 am, IsaacKuo <mech... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 11:22 am, Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork... RemoveThis @hush.ai>
> wrote:
>
> > On 26 nov, 17:26, IsaacKuo <mech... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I like the "addiction to power" answer. It's not that everyone
> > > who has power is addicted to greedily grasping for even more
> > > power. But there will be some who are addicted to grasping
> > > more power. That's the sort of people who will set up a
> > > Galactic Empire, even if there's no economic reason to do so.
> > Setting up an empire must at a minimum be economically feasible.
>
> Sure, but that's not the same thing as requiring that an
> empire be _profitable_. An empire may be economically
> feasible even if it costs more to maintain than anarchy
> (which costs nothing to maintain).
>
> > > It's not
> > > implausible for a galactic empire to arrise from a potent
> > > interstellar empire whose power structure and institutions
> > > simply lacked the capacity to stop expanding.
> > An empire must at least have the economic capacity to keep up with
> > resistance. If the empire exceeds their logistical limitations then
> > they simply lack the resources to overcome the mounting resistance.
>
> You're making the assumption that there would be
> mounting resistance and that this resistance would
> necessarily overcome the expanding empire.

Would the empire be seen as bad to join? It provides security,
information and prestige to those that join it. Perhaps we should look
more like a political organizations like world postal system, science
or the net today.

It could be something that people are proud to join. From an
information point of view, you may cost you x to send off your share
but you get back a billion times X in return.


> But
> a lot depends on how expensive it is to attack vs
> defend. With interstellar lasers and/or relativistic
> planet killers, it's possible that attack is much less
> expensive than defense. In that case, the empire
> may not need to spend very much in resources to
> destroy resistance. Each unconquered star system
> then has a terrible choice to make--martyr themselves
> for the sake of strangers many light years away who
> they've never met, or submit to the Empire?
>

Conversely there is nothing we could do to hurt the empire.


> In such a situation, perhaps the unconquered star
> systems will eventually band together to form a
> unified front against the empire. Perhaps not.

Many countries have complaints about the existing order for example
Tibet, PA ad Taiwan and imagine only one of these small country on
Earth decided to join this empire and everyone else refused. What
would be the result?

What about groups of people say a CEO of a company or a leader of a
social club?


> Either way, you're looking at the replacement of
> a bunch of independent star systems into
> interstellar organizations (federation or empire).
>
> Isaac Kuo

Which would be an empire too!
 >> Stay informed about: How evil is a classical empire? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
   Book Forums (Home) -> Isaac Asimov All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]