Elite: Lore
23 Jun 2021, 10:06pm
Henson Duval: "Hi, my name is Henson Duval. My sister Marlin, whom you loved so much, just died in a very weird and unfortunate accident. So I thought, why not use this opportunity to abolish the republic and make myself Emperor? I hereby promise to never let anyone take my place except my children and grandchildren. Empires are family businesses, I'm sure you understand that. Well, how does that sound?"
The plebs: "Good idea! All that republic stuff, with elections, freedom of speech, freedom of the press etc., was too bothersome anyway. We'd rather have someone tell us what to do. So yeah, sounds great, Henson!"
Emperor Duval: "What did you just call me?"
The plebs: "Forgive us, Your Highness."
Emperor Duval: "That sounds better. Next topic on the list: reintroduction of slavery..."
23 Jun 2021, 10:12pm
Just speculation, but if I had to guess, Henson had a lot of powerful backers in his corner who either condoned the assassination or looked the other way when it happened.
That's usually how these things go, right? Not that it really matters. The truth probably wouldn't tear the Empire apart or convince those devoted to the monarchy that the institution they serve has corrupt origins.
They all do, after all. Even the Marlinist cause and the colonies have been born out of treachery and violence.
23 Jun 2021, 10:16pm
Isaiah EvansonDoes it really matter?
It would... for the Marlinists at least.
Rebecca HailOf course the Imp blames the Federation for whatever goes wrong in their little Empire. But we're used to it, aren't we?
Hey, be fair: I pointed out all 3 possible options here, just said which I think is the most likely.
SakashiroHenson's rise to power is probably the biggest plot hole in the lore.
Henson Duval: "Hi, my name is Henson Duval. My sister Marlin, whom you loved so much, just died in a very weird and unfortunate accident. So I thought, why not use this opportunity to abolish the republic and make myself Emperor? I hereby promise to never let anyone take my place except my children and grandchildren. Empires are family businesses, I'm sure you understand that. Well, how does that sound?"
The plebs: "Good idea! All that republic stuff, with elections, freedom of speech, freedom of the press etc., was too bothersome anyway. We'd rather have someone tell us what to do. So yeah, sounds great, Henson!"
Emperor Duval: "What did you just call me?"
The plebs: "Forgive us, Your Highness."
Emperor Duval: "That sounds better. Next topic on the list: reintroduction of slavery..."
Don't forget that the Republic of Achenar was facing a forceful annexation by the Federation when they sent out an expeditionary force to "convince" it to rejoin the Federation, and Henson Duval did defeat them and sent them running with their tails between their legs. So his raise to power is not that illogical.
23 Jun 2021, 10:24pm
The FIA would've surely known Henson and his agenda. Far better for them to allow Marlin to continue and manipulate her democracy like only the Feds know how to!
Maybe Henson and his backers saw that, and knew they had to act.
23 Jun 2021, 11:12pm
Amata LireinDon't forget that the Republic of Achenar was facing a forceful annexation by the Federation when they sent out an expeditionary force to "convince" it to rejoin the Federation, and Henson Duval did defeat them and sent them running with their tails between their legs. So his raise to power is not that illogical.
The annexation attempt by the Federation is another plot hole. Wars are fought over scarce resources, and a federation by definition is a union of partially self-governing entities. Resources aren't scare if you have FTL travel and an entire galaxy at your disposal for expansion. And why would the Marlinists allow the republic they just defended with their lives to turn into a monarchy, a form of government worse than the one they ran away from? None of this makes any sense. Which is probably why no one bothered to flesh out that narrative. The game needed a conflict between galactic superpowers, and the war over Achenar was the deus ex machina event to create one.
24 Jun 2021, 8:56pm
There is a middle ground between the two, however.
A lot of countries which are a self-governing democracies but existed within historical borders as part of British Empire still recognize King or Queen of Great Britain as a leader, although only on paper and without any rule over administration (mostly because ever since The Stuarts and English Civil War the monarchs are not in charge of United Kingdom but the Parliament), existing as factual democracies. Other good example is Japan - and I might say that's the best example over here - because even though Japan became a democracy, it still recognized Emperor as a major, continuous symbol to the Japanese and it has been the longest royal family ever existing. Even if Emperor's rule was highly questionable and mostly puppet-like, as Japan (as feudal states, then as a nation at some point) was ruled by various figures or groups across its history.
If Empire was to change its way of governing, the logical evolution would be Senate gaining most of the power with a hereditary monarch remaining as symbol of stability with little to no influence over politics, like in case of United Kingdom or Japan...
...unless that's what Empire already is, at least partially. When you look at the Empire from this point of view, it has a byzantine bureaucracy in form of thousands of star systems - with Emperor giving only the major direction while rest... rests upon the shoulders of levels of administration with each system having its own needs, requirements and so on? Because, if we look at the Empire, the closest thing we could compare it to would be Holy Roman Empire which in theory had a single sovereign but stayed dozens of dozens of decentralized puzzle pieces, each with its own territory, needs and goals - unlike other monarchies like Austria or France.
The other example could be Roman Republic and Roman Empire, given that even if Emperor had a lot to say, every province in it was ruled by a figure with its own advisors for better coordination and rather high level of authority to self-govern as long as loyalty to the sovereign, and his requirements, were met. I think this is why comparing Empire of Achernar to Ancient Rome (especially in Republican/Imperial period) is one of the best things, given that both entities face the same problem with instantaneous communications, although the scales differ by, nomen omen, light years.
Not that Republic being reformed into Empire might be also copycat of Ancient Rome, because reformation of Rome into Empire in the latter case was a necessity after turbulent period of later Republic that almost exploded due to internal power struggle sank deep in corruption and stagnation for at least two centuries until Julius Caesar started to place stones, with Octavian finishing reformation into more stabilized form of government with a single, strong leader. Ironically, that also might be a good example to address the issue with shuffling cabinet without any logical continuity - as every party switch ends with old regulations and replace them with other ones - I pointed out in previous paragraphs.
I also disagree with assassination of Marlin Duval as Federation's doing. Let's not forget that, even if done for sake of avoiding destabilization and fracturing of Ancient Rome, Octavian Augustus is still argued as one of the plotters against Julius Caesar.
This is also worth a read, if you want to compare something to Republic of Achernar becoming the Empire.
Last edit: 24 Jun 2021, 9:49pm
24 Jun 2021, 9:49pm
Rho TefnutetMonarchy - in any form, be it absolute or constitutional - isn't really a bad choice for one reason: leader stability.
Nope, I totally disagree with that. The Monarchy is one the most divisive and contentious issues in the "United Kingdom".
Rho TefnutetWhen you look at the Empire from this point of view, it has a byzantine bureaucracy in form of thousands of star systems - with Emperor giving only the major direction while rest... rests upon the shoulders of levels of administration with each system having its own needs, requirements and so on?
Yes, this is how I'm reading the lore on the Empire too.
Rho TefnutetThe other example could be Roman Republic and Roman Empire...
Pretty sure I've read something from Michael Brookes on the Empire taking a lot of analogy from Rome's transition from Republic to Empire, and how the Imperial bureaucracy is set-up.
24 Jun 2021, 9:53pm
Morgan JamesNope, I totally disagree with that. The Monarchy is one the most divisive and contentious issues in the "United Kingdom".
I might look at it from Polish point of view, as Election Monarchy was something that seemed to be a good idea (after all, that's one of the pieces that created modern democracies), but in the end led into serious power issues that demised Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which would be easily countered with hereditary monarchy. Why? Noble Democracy had a major flaw according to which everything could be vetoed, what led into dissolution of voting session. Add this up to different camps wanting different candidates as their elected kings... yeah.
It doesn't mean the elected kings were bad (a lot of them were great leaders that surpassed even the hereditary monarchs), but it was nobility which became pretty corrupt and prone to sell their offices and votes -- with kings becoming mere tools in time with no right to oppose. Plus, like I added up, conflicting interest led into a major conflict in 1733 with one candidate gaining extreme majority of votes by Polish nobles had to abdicate after a War of Polish Succession which in most simple explanation was conflict between Bourbons and Habsburgs - all because of the part of Polish nobility chose a different candidate with external help. In the end, it shook Noble Democracy so hard it was a final approach to partitions - with the last election of Polish king in 1764 being fully controlled by the Russian Empire.
Morgan JamesPretty sure I've read something from Michael Brookes on the Empire taking a lot of analogy from Rome's transition from Republic to Empire, and how the Imperial bureaucracy is set-up.
That would be rise to power of Octavian Augustus after Julius Caesar's death.
Last edit: 24 Jun 2021, 10:23pm
25 Jun 2021, 12:12pm
25 Jun 2021, 1:29pm
GaaveraGiven that Imperial society is totally rigid,and probably similar to castes, what does this say about life for commoners, in other words people who are not of the client castes (client,patron,senator)?
This document might be helpful.
25 Jun 2021, 3:53pm
Amata LireinGaaveraGiven that Imperial society is totally rigid,and probably similar to castes, what does this say about life for commoners, in other words people who are not of the client castes (client,patron,senator)?
This document might be helpful.
Nice link, but not really helpful for answering questions about the life of commoners, i.e., those living on the bottom rung of society, not including the slaves.
As much I am against 'corporate cronyism & corruption' the Feds system does provide an incentive to make more of oneself, regardless of the chances. People play the lottery for similar reasons, Hmm?
The Empire seems worse & reminds me a lot of the current "welfare state" in that with said "safety net" there's little incentive to make more of oneself so long as all the basic necessities are provided. It's human nature to make as little effort as possible for the greatest reward possible. People tend to grow accustomed to the living conditions if all their basic needs are met.
Either system, "Life Is Good" for the ones at the top. Not so much for the ones at the bottom; for the Feds at least, if one sinks so low, death is always an alternative & might be preferable to life in utter destitution, but at least, that provides an incentive. For the Empire, for those with no interest in achieving anything more than the bare minimum there's that "Safety Net" which for some at least, there's no incentive provided their basic needs are met. In other words, 'why work when all the basic necessities are provided?'
25 Jun 2021, 5:54pm
25 Jun 2021, 6:59pm
XeknosThis entire premise is flawed. People don't become lazy when their basic needs are met. You enable them to pursue their passions and dreams. The greed that drives late-stage capitalism has been a far bigger threat to human development than anything the socialists/communists could dream up. Our lack of regard for basic humanity is tearing us apart.
This.
To suggest that welfare states make people lazy is typical right-wing guff.