From: Alex Ferguson (alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Fri 12 Jan 1996 - 01:22:01 EET
Nick Brooke ponders the Eternal Question, are the Lunars like the Romans,
and if so, _which_ Romans?
I found myself thinking about this recently, when contemplating a Lunar
political board game, originally conceived to be something of a
_Republic of Rome_ knock-off. (Great artists steal.) But the analogy
doesn't really work, as Lunar power is _considerably_ more
centralised. I mailed Greg about this, and he said that while pashas
had a relatively free hand within their own stomping grounds, central
authority is essentially entirely within the Emperor's grubby paws, to
the extend that he has the zeal to exercise it (lacking which, it falls
to the bureaucracy).
> I usually use Roman Imperial parallels: the Dara Happan staid, upright,
> patriarchal 'ancestral values' have a Republican feel to me (in this day and
> age); there was still severe internal strife under the Empire (look at the Year
> of the Four Emperors!)
Look at the other 31 scenarios in Imperium Romanum II, too. ;-) But
the Lunar empire doesn't really seem to have "proper" civil wars, just
mini-wars at the sultanate level, at worst. (So my back-up plan to
steal elements from IRII is a non-starter too.)
> The Dara Happan Senate is IMHO as relevant to contemporary Lunar politics as the
> Roman Senate was under the Empire.
The "Senate", or whatever exact form of aristocratic oligarchy
resembled one, was probably pretty irrelevant even before the Lunars
came along. After all, it didn't supercede the Dara Happa People's
Republic, did it now?
Blaming Nick for the shoddy quote format,
Alex.
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:28:47 EEST