StarDestroyer.Net BBS

It has been an entire millennium since the collapse occurred. The date, October 11th, 9234 CE, represents the end of perhaps the most encompassing institutions of human civilization....

...governance of the late First Secretary Ryghior was increasingly inept and burdensome, but the burdens were greatest under his reign as well. Management of a government over quintillions of citizens, non-citizens, and slaves was beginning to strain the physical laws of the universe itself. The bandwith capacity of the then predominant form of intragalactic communications was strained to it's limits. Besides a limited number of approved holovids, the remainder of what available bandwith after the state used was restricted to compressed text at high prices.

The Republic was suffering from what politisocio-economists called the Tower of Babel effect. Cultures and subcultures of worlds were divided. No single world besides the capital truly felt as if they were part of a single entity. No citizen would know the events of a neighboring star system, besides a few headline making tragedies or political events. Nearly everyone felt that central rule should end, but that central rule was crucial for regulating the key trade and communications activity that allowed each citizen to enjoy their high standard of living.... The ability of the political process to enact laws and reforms was hampered by rising apathy and control by minority interests....

...Homesoil, the then capital of the Galactic Republic, housed tens of trillions of people. A quarter of whom were administrators, the remainder practically existed to serve those administrators. At any point in time, there would be a trillion visitors, mostly bureaucrats meeting... The atmosphere on it's surface, a metal shell, was 50 atmospheres, comprised mostly of water vapors boiled away from the cooling vents....

... The decline was a slow choke on innovation and progress, but the end was swift. After Ryghior signed into law proposing a military demobilization and pay reduction after the successful crushing of the separatist rebellion, the charismatic Marshall Zar in minutes had destroyed the garrison of the Homesoil and instituted a blockade and jammed all out going communications. To the ignorance of the rest of the galaxy, his ships fired several gigaton bombs onto Homesoil. Killing what may have been at least billions instantly. Those who lived after that had a worse fate. The structural integrity of the shell was compromised, the internal walls incapable of handling the atmospheric pressures. Any emergency containment systems likely failed in the face of the hydraulic shock as it continued through shear momentum. Those living on lower levels would be more likely to survive the initial catastrophe, as every other floor was reinforced in the event of an external breach.

But the life support systems would fail within days, as the planetary superconducting grid would lose it's coolant. Who would expect with multiple redundant lines that all would be breached? Who could possibly plan for such a catastrophe? Or want to? ...

Homesoil was the lynchpin of central rule. After General Zar announced a horrible catastrophe had occurred on Homesoil, with the military conducting rescue efforts (none were). But Zar was a military strategist, not a theoretician, and he spent the remainder of his life trying to cement his rule over only hundreds of worlds while the rest of the galaxy descended into anarchy...

...was no indication that Zar regretted his actions...

Are you trying to mirror Gibbon or something? Your excepts is nothing like what a 18th century writer style of writing.

ray245 wrote:Are you trying to mirror Gibbon or something? Your excepts is nothing like what a 18th century writer style of writing.

Are you actually trying to ask me whether or not thousands of years into the future, people will write like Gibbons?

It reads a bit more like a low-level history textbook, or the galley proofs thereof.

Kind of generic. Was there any plan to write a narrative out of this, or was it just going to be Generic Imperial Decline based off Rome with the names changed and the serial numbers filed off?

ryacko wrote:

ray245 wrote:Are you trying to mirror Gibbon or something? Your excepts is nothing like what a 18th century writer style of writing.

Are you actually trying to ask me whether or not thousands of years into the future, people will write like Gibbons?

Well, you are the one who is copying the title of Gibbon's book.

Simon_Jester wrote:It reads a bit more like a low-level history textbook, or the galley proofs thereof.

Kind of generic. Was there any plan to write a narrative out of this, or was it just going to be Generic Imperial Decline based off Rome with the names changed and the serial numbers filed off?

Actually this is supposed to be a generic imperial decline, but focused on scale and numbers.

This reads nothing like a serious history book. Especially not one focused on numbers.

You need to choose a consistent voice for your fictional author (or editor).

No, 'guy getting laughs on webforum' is not a good choice.

ryacko wrote:Actually this is supposed to be a generic imperial decline, but focused on scale and numbers.

Would you expect people to care more about what you're writing if you make the numbers larger?

If so, why?

If not, why do you think "scale and numbers" are the important thing you want to write about?

This would be a great place to start from.

The Tough Guide to the Known Galaxy.

It covers a lot of common ideas seen in scifi and he actually goes through the generic cycle of empire quite nicely.

http://rocketpunk-observatory.com/spaceguideF-L.htm

FALL OF EMPIRE. This will happen to the FIRST EMPIRE, which may be either the TERRAN EMPIRE or GALACTIC EMPIRE. (Rarely both, since this would be rather duplicative.)
The cause given for the Fall of Empire should be noted, because it is usually a dead giveaway to the author's political and social biases. Authority, especially quasi-religious authority, became too stifling, choking off free thought. Or people ignored the old Imperial virtues, became decadent and hedonistic, and had far too much sex. Or the Imperial government choked the ECONOMY to death with exorbitant taxes. Or the rich got richer and arrogant, while the poor got poorer and desperate. These causes may be disguised by some TECHJARGON about Psychohistorical Dynamics or General Systems Collapse, but they are almost always there if you scope them out.

The Fall of Empire is second only to the initial COLONIZATION as the central defining event of of FUTURE HISTORY, during most of which the dominant themes will in succession be staving off the inevitable Fall, then surviving through it, then dealing with the resulting chaotic INTERREGNUM, and finally putting together a more enduring SECOND EMPIRE.

In this regard it may be said that the most influential writer in the history of SF was not Verne or Wells, or Hugo Gernsback, or Robert Heinlein, or even Isaac Asimov (who introduced this theme to SF), but Edward Gibbon.

jollyreaper wrote: In this regard it may be said that the most influential writer in the history of SF was not Verne or Wells, or Hugo Gernsback, or Robert Heinlein, or even Isaac Asimov (who introduced this theme to SF), but Edward Gibbon.[/i]

It is a sad thing when people are still relying on Gibbon to understand how the Roman Empire fell. Most writers seem uninterested in historical works by any other historian other than Gibbon.

I never read Gibbon. Too long.

ray245 wrote:It is a sad thing when people are still relying on Gibbon to understand how the Roman Empire fell. Most writers seem uninterested in historical works by any other historian other than Gibbon.

You can learn a lot about historiography from it, since the modern perspective buts it in pretty sharp relief.

Like reading Robert Graves. :V

ray245 wrote:

jollyreaper wrote: In this regard it may be said that the most influential writer in the history of SF was not Verne or Wells, or Hugo Gernsback, or Robert Heinlein, or even Isaac Asimov (who introduced this theme to SF), but Edward Gibbon.[/i]

It is a sad thing when people are still relying on Gibbon to understand how the Roman Empire fell. Most writers seem uninterested in historical works by any other historian other than Gibbon.

Who would you prefer as a more modern historian? And what do you think his greatest deficiencies are?

I think he is such an influence, talking about Roman history without mentioning him is like trying to talk fantasy without mentioning Tolkien.

Its interesting you mention fantasy and Gibbon together... :V

So what is your criticism of his work as it stands? Do you have particular facts and conclusions that have been rendered obsolete due to more recent scholarship, beyond what's mentioned on Wikipedia?

jollyreaper wrote:

ray245 wrote: It is a sad thing when people are still relying on Gibbon to understand how the Roman Empire fell. Most writers seem uninterested in historical works by any other historian other than Gibbon.

Who would you prefer as a more modern historian? And what do you think his greatest deficiencies are?

I think he is such an influence, talking about Roman history without mentioning him is like trying to talk fantasy without mentioning Tolkien.

I agree Gibbon is a influential figure in the study of the late Roman Empire, but most of his views are considered as outdated by modern day classical scholars for very good reasons. You should seriously try and read AHM Jones's The Later Roman Empire, 284-602 if you wanted to know what sort of progress the academia has made since Gibbon published his book.

Gibbon's main problem is that his views regarding the end of the Roman Empire is extremely outdated. I find that he offered few supporting arguments that Christianity were the main cause for the decline of the Empire. The mere existence and the survival of the Byzantine Empire is a good enough rebuttal towards Gibbon.

The Later Roman Empire, 284–602 (1964) is a more 'modern' look at how modern historians approach the study of the Roman Empire. He is a much bigger modern day influence on the later Roman Empire than Gibbon in my opinion.

Thanks for the pointer. I'll have to throw that on the read pile.

The thing I find funny about the study of history is how mutable the past is. As a sprog I always thought fact was fact and historians would do their level best to present it as such. It took a while to fully get at what Orwell was talking about and realize that the past is an active battleground and even if you can get two sides to agree on the what, they'll still argue about the why. David Barton is a real eye-opener in that regard. (Christian revisionist historian.) He's so convincing and so utterly wrong. But try engaging one of his supporters on the factual level. No doing.

jollyreaper wrote:Thanks for the pointer. I'll have to throw that on the read pile.

The thing I find funny about the study of history is how mutable the past is. As a sprog I always thought fact was fact and historians would do their level best to present it as such. It took a while to fully get at what Orwell was talking about and realize that the past is an active battleground and even if you can get two sides to agree on the what, they'll still argue about the why. David Barton is a real eye-opener in that regard. (Christian revisionist historian.) He's so convincing and so utterly wrong. But try engaging one of his supporters on the factual level. No doing.

You do not even need to look at Christian revisionist to see how historical debates can shaped the way we understand the past. Even among the academic circles, the sheer amount of views regarding whether the late Roman army was barbarianised was enough to generate numerous debate.

But seriously, look up AHM Jones's book. It has pretty much changed the way I started to look at historians and history books, not to mention the late Roman Empire.