Author Topic: The AFFS High Command: Forward Observation Post (No Dogs... er, Dragoons) (Read 14126 times)

Taurevanime · « **Reply #450 on:** 21 April 2011, 16:35:52 »

Also do not forget that the Federated Suns and Lyran Commonwealth were just coming out of the bloody FedCom Civil War when the Jihad kicked off. Which is another major contributing factor as to why it was so hard to resist attacks.
3067 really was the only year the Word of Blake could launch the Jihad. Even if it wasn't planned, they were very fortunate that it happened when it did and not 5 years of peace and rebuilding later for example.

Moonsword · « **Reply #451 on:** 21 April 2011, 17:45:36 »

There's something to that. It was a moment in history, a convergence of conflicts and tensions. Off hand, I can identify four, possibly five of the early strains of the Jihad that really had relatively little to do with what happened one winter day on Tharkad - the FS-Taurian conflict, the Word/Dragoon showdown, the FWL's political troubles (albeit perhaps not to the same scale), and the Black Dragons, with the possible entry of the Case White attack. The losses contributed to that lack of firemen I mentioned above and the DC and CC both had their own losses from other conflicts to deal with.

Honestly, the only people who went into the Jihad with a largely intact military were the FWL but the political mess and the penetration by the Word into their fleet neutralized a lot of that advantage.

Neufeld · « **Reply #452 on:** 21 April 2011, 23:19:37 »

Quote from: Moonsword on 21 April 2011, 17:45:36

There's something to that. It was a moment in history, a convergence of conflicts and tensions. Off hand, I can identify four, possibly five of the early strains of the Jihad that really had relatively little to do with what happened one winter day on Tharkad - the FS-Taurian conflict, the Word/Dragoon showdown, the FWL's political troubles (albeit perhaps not to the same scale), and the Black Dragons, with the possible entry of the Case White attack. The losses contributed to that lack of firemen I mentioned above and the DC and CC both had their own losses from other conflicts to deal with.

Add to that the fact that it is 15 years after Tukayyid.

Moonsword · « **Reply #453 on:** 22 April 2011, 03:43:29 »

Wasn't Tukayyid regarded as a dead letter by the Crusaders after the Great Refusal anyway?

ArkRoyalRavager · « **Reply #454 on:** 22 April 2011, 04:23:01 »

Nope. Clan Wolf certainly wasnt bound by both of those.

Moonsword · « **Reply #455 on:** 22 April 2011, 05:38:43 »

Are you agreeing with me that the Truce of Tukayyid was no longer considered valid? My understanding is the Great Refusal was held to reject a coordinated invasion but the Crusaders felt they could still pursue it on their own as well as tossing Tukayyid out the window.

FedSunsBorn · « **Reply #456 on:** 22 April 2011, 13:33:30 »

Quote from: Moonsword on 22 April 2011, 03:43:29

Wasn't Tukayyid regarded as a dead letter by the Crusaders after the Great Refusal anyway?

Perhaps unofficially but I seem to recall a passage from Prince of Havoc where Khan Ward states to Victor that while he does not consider the Great Refusal Binding due to his "tie" against Kai Allard-Liao, he does consider the Truce of Tukayyid binding for the rest of the 15 years.

ArkRoyalRavager · « **Reply #457 on:** 22 April 2011, 19:51:52 »

Quote from: Moonsword on 22 April 2011, 05:38:43

Are you agreeing with me that the Truce of Tukayyid was no longer considered valid? My understanding is the Great Refusal was held to reject a coordinated invasion but the Crusaders felt they could still pursue it on their own as well as tossing Tukayyid out the window.

All the Clans considered the Great Refusal overturned Tukayyid as the final word on the Invasion, but the Wolves, as FedSunsBorn stated, was not bound by the Refusal. Vlad simply waited out the Truce of Tukayyid as a matter of 'honor' before invading again.

Individual Crusader Clans had differing views of the Great Refusal, either as a permanent end of any invasion or just the end of the "first Clan Invasion". The Horses and Hellions probably had the former views, as both did not choose new IS territory to conquer, while the Adders certainly made their support of the latter view clear in FM:U. The Wardens simply ignored both events and regarded the IS as fair game for "protecting", like the Dominion and Raven Alliance.

Rorke · « **Reply #458 on:** 23 April 2011, 11:44:54 »

Ahhh the hoary matter of interpretation, and the horrifying flexibility of the concept.

Taurevanime · « **Reply #459 on:** 23 April 2011, 18:21:14 »

Proof that Kerensky's great plan for a utopia was doomed from the start because he took lawyers with him on the Exodus.

Crunch · « **Reply #460 on:** 23 April 2011, 23:44:34 »

Quote from: Taurevanime on 23 April 2011, 18:21:14

Proof that Kerensky's great plan for a utopia was doomed from the start because he took lawyers with him on the Exodus.

Actually most likely because he didn't a Lawyer wouldn't have allowed a clan justice system that boils down to "Whatever I want with as many slaves as possible."

Belisarius · « **Reply #461 on:** 24 April 2011, 00:33:05 »

Quote from: Crunch on 23 April 2011, 23:44:34

Actually most likely because he didn't a Lawyer wouldn't have allowed a clan justice system that boils down to "Whatever I want with as many slaves as possible."

Doesn't that depend on the lawyer, his/her client, and the law of the land? Maybe his JAG Officer was from the RWs or some pirate paradise...

Arkansas Warrior · « **Reply #462 on:** 24 April 2011, 12:08:06 »

Quote from: Crunch on 23 April 2011, 23:44:34

Actually most likely because he didn't a Lawyer wouldn't have allowed a clan justice system that boils down to "Whatever I want with as many slaves as possible."

Except that it isn't at all like that. For one thing there's only so much that can be changed via trial. For another, there's no such thing as slaves in the Clans. Bondsman can be used in a similar manner, but when it comes down to it, even the bondsmen belong to the Clan, not the bondholder.

3rdCrucisLancers · « **Reply #463 on:** 24 April 2011, 14:05:40 »

Quote from: Arkansas Warrior on 24 April 2011, 12:08:06

Except that it isn't at all like that. For one thing there's only so much that can be changed via trial. For another, there's no such thing as slaves in the Clans. Bondsman can be used in a similar manner, but when it comes down to it, even the bondsmen belong to the Clan, not the bondholder.

In the sense that nobody is actually called a slave, sure, there are no slaves in the clans.

Caesar Steiner for Archon · « **Reply #464 on:** 24 April 2011, 14:50:22 »

Quote from: 3rdCrucisLancers on 24 April 2011, 14:05:40

In the sense that nobody is actually called a slave, sure, there are no slaves in the clans.

I never call mine slaves. And I pay them, too, in real genuine Stampede Bux!

Arkansas Warrior · « **Reply #465 on:** 24 April 2011, 15:10:36 »

Quote from: 3rdCrucisLancers on 24 April 2011, 14:05:40

In the sense that nobody is actually called a slave, sure, there are no slaves in the clans.

No one owns anyone, because very few actually own anything, and that very little. There's an element of servitude sure, but serfdom and slavery aren't the same. Especially when even the Khan is a serf.

Gracus · « **Reply #466 on:** 24 April 2011, 19:37:00 »

The clans can best be summarized as caste collectivists by force. The Capellan Confederation is, by comparison, a bastion of free will and individualism. It's probably their greatest weakness.

Crunch · « **Reply #467 on:** 24 April 2011, 20:20:52 »

As a real discussion of caste slavery would almost certainly break board rules I'll let it pass.

Arkansas Warrior · « **Reply #468 on:** 25 April 2011, 07:29:50 »

Fair enough.

News:

Author Topic: The AFFS High Command: Forward Observation Post (No Dogs... er, Dragoons) (Read 14126 times)