Lunar consitutional debate

From: Peter Metcalfe <>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:24:49 +1300

Gareth Martin:

>Well, ARE [the Lunars] from a civilised state? I mean, they do not
>appear to be from a state at all - they appear to be a federation of
>states rather than "a state".

The Lunar Empire is a state in that it acknowledges a single titular head as its ruler. A federation implies the existence of several sovereign leaders which is certainly not the case from the Western Reaches to the Provinces.

>The difference between Rome and the Lunar Empire, as I currently see
>it, is that one is a state with allied states, the other is
>socio-religious layer atop a functional federacy.

There's no scope for federacy beneath the Lunar government. The Few, the local aristocracy, are under the Lunar supervision and generally do what the Lunars tell them to (in terms of paying taxes or providing troops, drugs and dancing girls).

>HW says that each unit is raised locally, outfitted and trained locally,
>worships local gods and practices local techniques. I find it very
>difficult, under these circumstances, to understand what is "imperial"
>about the army. It has no Lunar units proper;

There manifestly are lunar units in the Imperial Army. The Bloodspillers, the Full Moon Corps, the Steel Sword Legion and the Mother's Guard (and some others, including most of the provincial armies) are formed from Lunar traditions.

>The analogy with Victorian Britain is interesting, but flawed I think.
>The British Empire was MUCH more centralised than the Lunar Empire.

With the Kingdoms, the Raj, the Dominions, the Colonies, the Possessions and the Protectorates?

>I think the difference is that Britain, or more accurately England,
>had enough clout to enforce obedience from any vassal state all by

Some yanks are bound to disagree. And the Irish and Scotsmen in the ranks are bound to take exception.

>The Lunar elements of the LE have no independant military arm -
>their units are on loan from satrapies, and enculurated locally.

The troops are not "on loan" from the Satrapies, any more than the Black Watch is on loan from Scotland or the Raj has loaned the 4th Bengal Lancers.

>There appears to be no central authority willing or able to crack
>down on renegades or separatists - especially not if they take
>their army with them.

Well, the number of states that has revolted or seceded permanently from the Empire is vanishingly small. Eastpoint is the only example that I can recall and Tarsh was forcibly reintegrated. The simple presence of a unified officer corps controlling the various regiments is alone a force to crack down on renegades or separatists.

>Hmm, I am reminded of the fact the the LE is meant to be a kind of
>parody of the USSR. There again, Russia as the central and dominant
>member had enough force to crush any opposition by an individual
>client state - unlike the LE.

Like it crushed Yugoslavia, Albania and Romania? I'll think you'll find that Soviet power was rather limited in its scope.

Powered by hypermail