Richard,

 

I think you misunderstood my post, or I wasn't clear enough. I am aware that Madden compares the U.S. to the Roman Republic. As I said, it was Edward Luttwalk who compared the U.S. to Rome's Principate (1st to 3rd Century). I was trying to put both into a broader perspective and show that such comparisons are first, nothing new, and second, exaggerated.

What I find unconvincing in Madden's arguments is precisely the comparison of ideals behind US citizens (you are in a better position than I am to judge whether those exists) and the Roman Republic's ones. The Republic was an oligarchy with very little freedom for the masses, where key policies were decided by whoever gained the upper hand among the senatorial classes at every point in time, e.g. securing a consulate. It was not a nice state to live in unless you were a Senator.

If anything, long-run policies were led by the need to secure resources abroad (e.g. 200 years' campaign to obtain Hispania's richesses, starting with the silver and gold mines), and honestly I do not think those are the U.S.' motivations for going abroad (but correct me if I am wrong).

I think Madden is falling into the same trap as Luttwalk and emphasizing superficial similarities.

Btw, Madden is not a Roman historian---his field is the middle ages, especially the crusades.

Anyway, back to Traveller (if I may), I guess we are discussing all this because the different interpretations of the idea of Empire deliver different flavors for alternative 3Is. The Moot has some parallelisms with the Roman Republic's Senate, but I think the coincidences (with the 3I) stop there. Now, the idea to have an interstellar Empire along those lines (instead of the pseudofeudalism of the 3I) is intriguing. What would be the key elements? For me (YMMV), the essential one would have to be the consulate. That is, instead of a hereditary emperor, the Moot/Senate elects two consuls for a limited time window, typically among its ranks. I see no reason why that should not work. The Romans faced communication problems due to the large distances involved, while the 3I faces communication problems due to the 1-week jump concept, so both can benefit from having a consul with extensive powers travelling to problem regions with his own legions (Rome) / fleets (3I).

The second factor for achieving a 3I with a Roman-republican flavor might be the caste-like system of Plebeians, Equestrians, and Senatorials (not to forget the slaves and other non-citizens), but in practice that would mostly affect only the "core worlds", in very much the same way "provincials" were not universally Roman citizens until the edict of Caracalla in the second Century.

The third factor might be hopeless, though. Rome's military power was based on the legions, and at least during the Republic those were recruited (and sometimes disbanded) as needs arose. The ad hoc recruiting of legions makes no sense for the technologically advanced 3I, however, and that probably spoils the parallel: the Navy is really the backbone of the 3I's power, and the fleets are not recruited and disbanded as the Emperor or the Moot see fit. The IN is a rather permanent structure, with the consequence that Navy Admirals would hold considerable power for longer periods than the consuls. In the hypothetic 3I-as-a-Roman-Republic, those Admirals would most likely belong to the Senatorial class, and it would be only a matter of time until one of them would decide to seize power.

So it might not be long before our "republican" 3I became an "imperial Empire" as the OTU's 3I, or worse, it would plunge into civil war as acclamation by the Navy became the only means to become emperor and competing Admirals led fleets against each other (the 3rd century's military crisis or the OTU's barrack emperors come to mind).