I don't think that the presence of rulers with broad autocratic powers would be necessary &, in fact, could easily stir up more trouble than they're worth no matter who they claim to be loyal to.

You would never want someone with too much power esp if it was hereditary.

And then there's all those systems with their Imperial Charters & the subsector & sector governments.
That's where the real power should be. That's why there are 'subsector navies' comprised of 'colonial sqds'.
That's why there is an extensive Imperial bureaucracy, both civ & military.
That's what will provide stability & reliability. 

The last thing you'd want is to have a subsector/sector Duke with any sort of hererditary autocratic powers, much less an ArchDuke.

'Feudalism' in the long run is destabilising in & of itself. Which is why it was 'discarded' in RL.

On Tuesday, April 9, 2019, 1:44:12 PM MST, Catherine Berry <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:


I agree that an actual interstellar empire shaped by Traveller's parameters wouldn't be feudal in the medieval sense. It also wouldn't speak anything recognizable as a descendant of English, and wouldn't limit all travel to a single planar cut across the galaxy. :) To be playable as a game, it's essential that the players be able to transfer a lot of real-world knowledge into the game. That leads to adaptations and simplifications. For example, most people in the US are familiar with 2d maps, so the game uses a 2d map. Most people are vaguely familiar with how feudal government works, so the government of the 3I is feudal.

Whatever the actual form of government, it will have a couple of features essential to feudalism. Local rulers will have broad autocratic powers, and those rulers will also need to demonstrate their fealty to superiors, running up the chain to the emperor. Those who do not demonstrate fealty will be replaced. Replacement can involve anything from a pink slip to naval bombardment, depending on circumstances.

My sense is that the 3I being so large and long-lived is a historical outlier, based in part on its roots in the smaller but also long-lived Vilani empire. The Long Night scenario would seem much more likely, with small polities, few even a subsector in size, operating in various states of temporary antagonism or alliance with their neighbors. The 3I is metastable in much the same way the 2I was; all it would take is a big enough push to send it tumbling back to the small-polity equilibrium state.

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:29 PM Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:
The UK had 'Royal Govs' to, presumably, keep the 'colonials' in line. They were NOT hereditary however & they could very well be 'colonials' themselves.
(BenFranklin's son was the gov of NJ)

The 'sending out nobles to run  things' idea breaks down if they can become ensconced as hereditary 'mini-emperors'.

After a period of time they become the 'locals' that they were originally sent out to  deal with.

'Feudalism' in the medieval sense just doesn't cut it.

A post-modern society will require a post-modern solution & there may very well be some trappings of 'feudalism' involved.
But there will also be aspects of many other systems that will make the 3I more like the current UK.
'Feudal' aspects? Yes, but not just 'feudal'. 
Much more than just that.
Enough to question the label.

On Tuesday, April 9, 2019, 9:02:42 AM MST, Catherine Berry <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:


Well, how about acting like the American colonial leaders in 1776? There once again we find a group of prominent local citizens of a far-flung, slow-communication empire deciding that their own interests would be better served by grabbing control for themselves.

Any time a region has a tenuous link to the center of power, you're going to see this pressure to split off as an independent entity. It doesn't even have to be violent. E.g., Roman Britain just sort of faded into being plain old Britain as the power and reach of the (very) distant imperial core faded out. Nobody woke up one day and said "Hey, we're not Romans anymore!" But in 300 CE they were very much Romans, while in 600 CE they very much were not.

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:29 PM Kelly St. Clair <xxxxxx@efn.org> wrote:
Part of the issue is that the Imperium operates at (at least) two scales
and, often, two (or more) social paradigms.  There's THE IMPERIUM, a
sector-spanning feudal state; and there's individual systems and worlds,
which can be thoroughly modern societies.  And so we're stuck
considering how the latter set of attitudes and social behaviors slot
into the former.  It's not really plausible (IMO) for the leader(s) of a
TL12+ HiPop world to act and think like Iron Age chieftains when dealing
with their peers on the interstellar stage, just because that's their
place in the larger social order.

--
---------------
Kelly St. Clair
xxxxxx@efn.org

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://archives.simplelists.com


--
"What is now proved was once only imagined." - William Blake

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://archives.simplelists.com

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://archives.simplelists.com



--
"What is now proved was once only imagined." - William Blake

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=EwREIRgLK8vaUEhNlnoNdSGKwnjoID8a