Average lifespan of an interstellar polity?

[Flynn]

Good morning, All,

In the process of exploring the creation of a homebrew universe (mostly as a thought exercise), I seemed to recall that someone (maybe Chris Thrash, though I can't be certain of that) had mentioned to me a number of years ago that they had derived the average lifespan of an interstellar polity from an article in Analog magazine about real-world psychohistory, which applied mathematical methods to empirical observations about history, to determine the mean time between failures (MTBF) for nations and such.

I don't have that information, but I'm hoping that someone on these boards might be able to point me in the right direction. If you know of any resources in these regards, please feel free to post them here.

Thanks in advance,
Flynn

 

[Malenfant]

Googling reveals that there was an "introduction to psychohistory" article in Analog written in 1988 by a namesake of yours

Michael F. Flynn, "An Introduction to Psychohistory," Analog, April 1988, May 1988;

I dunno if that's the one you're thinking of, but at least it may narrow the search down

 

[Flynn]

I can't seem to find the article online anywhere, but am actually interested in the information within it, namely what was said in regards to how long a unitary state (which should expand to interstellar polities) lasts on the average before it fails and another will rise to take its place.

I could just guess and say that the average polity lasts 400-600 years or so, historically speaking, but that'd be a guess. If someone else has already done the research, that's one less thing I have to do.

Thanks, Mal, for the name of the article, though. Didn't know it was written by Michael Flynn. Hehehe.

-Flynn

 

[shield]

Flynn

based on info in hardtimes and the T4 milleu 0, + examples from FASA far frontiers.

Most polities that emerge from a collapse, only seem to last a decade or so before disagreements spilt it up. About 10% seem to survive and last into the 100 years mark, and possibly upto 300-400 yrs. Of these I am guessing that no more than 1 per sector lasts several for a time until the next empire arrives (based upon the cultural regions that survived the long night). The solomani rim seems to be at the high end with the Easter Concord, the Dingir League and the Old Eart Union, but the rim is an unusual area. core had several polities that survived the night or arose during it, but most were decaying when the 3I arose.

Hope this helps a little bit.

Cheers
Richard

of these survivors

 

[Flynn]

Thanks, Richard,

That affirms my thoughts with some canonical insight into the problem, and I will go with something like that if I cannot find anything more substantial. What about here on Earth, pre-Jump history, though? What about the average length of the various roman and greek empires, or the chinese dynasties, etc.?

We have, in microcosm on this planet, a model for how long people can work together before things change. What would Earth's history suggest as a viable lifespan of a nation? I'm not a historian, so I don't know these things, though I have my wild guesses, of course.

-Flynn

 

[jchurchill]

What would Earth's history suggest as a viable lifespan of a nation? I'm not a historian, so I don't know these things, though I have my wild guesses, of course.
=================================================
That is a very interesting question and world history is filled with examples of long lived and short lived nations, empires, and countries.

Switzerland for example appears to be about 500 years and still going.

The Romanovs ruled Russia for 300 years but the general nation state of "Russia" goes back further than that and still exists today as "Russia" but certainly not the "Russia" (USSR) of 1991. Or even 1941.

Germany, or at least the Germany we know in 2004 did not come into being until January 1871. It then grew and shrank over the years intil it was divied into 2 [1945-1990] but during most of my younger years it was assumed by most that it would remain didvided for many decades or perhaps even a few centuries into the future.

Italy is also a "young" nation state -- [1860] but of course there were smaller Italian states before that but they were not thought of as "Italy" proper.

The Roman Empire lasted from roughly 44BC [arbitrary date] to 450 AD [arbitrary date] but some would argue that the eastern half lived on until the mid 13th century. [1243 ad]

Its bastard offspring the Holy Roman Empire, [all together now ..."Neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire] 800 ad or 900 AD till 1806 ad. Various stage of power until final collapse.

Austria- 1526-1918. The British Empire -- 1700 to 1960? 1948?

The modern US empire? 1898-??

France? A nation called France has existed at least since Louis XIV as a relatively unified entity. but from 1660 to 2004 France has had 2 monarchies, 2 empires under a charismatic leader, and 5 republics. 3 of those republics were in 1 century and 1 republic [the 4th] only lasted from 1945 to 1958. But underneath it all it was still "France"

So 2 general principles ---

1. political entities and empires are like individual people-- some live a very long time and some vanish fairly quickly.

2. Groups of people may remain homogenous but will change names and "official" forms of government much more often.

ps. Of course there are the Eygptian and Chinese empires that also lasted over 1000 years and then collapse rapidly when contact is made a new force.

 

[RainOfSteel]

If anyone ever digs up info on this, please post it here.

I'm very interested in hearing more about this.

 

[vutpakdi]

Originally posted by Flynn:

What about here on Earth, pre-Jump history, though? What about the average length of the various roman and greek empires, or the chinese dynasties, etc.?

Part of the problem that you have here on Earth is determining what constitutes a single polity. For example, with regards to Rome is the Roman Republic through the Byzantine Empire a single polity? Or, would it be better divided into three polity periods: republic, empire, split empires?

I think that the Roman, Greek, Japanese and Chinese dynasties tended to last on the order of hundreds of years (say 100-600 off the top of my head), with the Chinese lasting the longest. It's been too long since university history classes.

On the other hand, some would be empires don't last more than a decade or two, if that (Napoleonic, Third Reich, some more modern dictatorships).

Maybe the dictatorships that survive the initial period that tend to fall apart a generation or two later when there is a weak heir?

Maybe part of the determining factor is cultural cohesion and memory? How much the culture tends to identify itself as belonging together and remembering shared history and identity?

Ron

 

[Flynn]

Very good points, All. I wish I had adequate answers to some of them, but for now, I'll have to ruminate and come up with some comments later. Thanks, btw. This is turning into a very interesting discussion.

-Flynn

 

[BrennanHawkwood]

It may only be my perception, but it seems like the more "modern" the era the more likely it is that a polity will not last a long time.

 

[jchurchill]

Ron wrote:

I think that the Roman, Greek, Japanese and Chinese dynasties tended to last on the order of hundreds of years (say 100-600 off the top of my head), with the Chinese lasting the longest. It's been too long since university history classes.

On the other hand, some would be empires don't last more than a decade or two, if that (Napoleonic, Third Reich, some more modern dictatorships).
================================================
Yes, exactly and the thing that strikes me about these nnow is that it appears as technology shifts and changes more rapidly, empires come and go more rapidly.

Also empires that "live by the sword" tend to "die by the sword" rapidly.

And finally, the balance of power does tend to work although not in the clean clockwork way that the 19th century diplomats and leaders thought. When ever possible, a powerful state tends to draw the less powerful states together to balance and oppose continued expansion.

 

[jchurchill]

Ron also wrote:

"Part of the problem that you have here on Earth is determining what constitutes a single polity. For example, with regards to Rome is the Roman Republic through the Byzantine Empire a single polity? Or, would it be better divided into three polity periods: republic, empire, split empires?"

See my point about this above....when did Rome finally wind down? 450 ad or 1200ad? etc etc....

 

[jchurchill]

Actually a former professor of mine by the name of Paul Kennedy wrote a little book about these issues --- the rise and fall of the great powers.

Paperback: 704 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 1.28 x 7.99 x 5.25
Publisher: Vintage; Vintage edition (January 15, 1989)
ISBN: 0679720197



It's worth reading.

 

[Flynn]

Very cool, Thrash! I greatly appreciate you posting this.

I wonder how these tie in to TL advancement, if at all? Still, this is definitely going in my files for future reference.

With Warm Regards,
Flynn

 

[jatay3]

On the other hand, some would be empires don't last more than a decade or two, if that (Napoleonic, Third Reich, some more modern dictatorships).
------------------------------------------------
Both these states took place in an area that shared a common military culture-a culture which happend to be flexible enough to copy or counter tactical innovations. By contrast other Empires were able to develop a system so out-of-the-league that it couldn't be copied. For instance the Mongol system was based on mounted archery, which required a nomadic life to produce a sufficient number of warriors(artificial means like warrior cliques or slave-soldiers only keep it up so much). Thus everyone would be at a disadvantage in copying them. In Europe however everyone had the same military style and thus tactical advantage was temporary(the Royal Navy was almost an exception but not quite: it's success was not based on doctrine but on experience and Britains ability to give it a bigger budget share because of being an island).

Both these Empires grew in an area that is considerably tooled to the defense with numerous artificial and natural obsticles. Thus the enemies of both had time to adapt.

Neither of these Empires could make a naval doctrine to match their land innovations.

Technological capibility like tactical capibility was the same all along the line. So again a temporary advantage would soon disappear.

With all tactical advantage being temporary things always even out. Long wars between Europeans(including Americans, Russians, Australians, etc as well as and non-Europeans trained in European fashion) often follow this pattern.

One side will prevail for awhile because of better doctrine. It will start getting into it's groove as experience grows the value of this experience will be greater then the cost of attrition, for a time. However experience will sooner or later start to yield diminishing returns. At this same point the enemy will be in the upswing. The doctrinal difference will dissappear too as the enemy anylises it both on the spot and at home in intell reports, professional journals, etc. Finnally a state of rough equallity will prevail and numbers and mass will win. In Europe at least where resources are roughly equal, mass will be a function of diplomacy: the faction that attracts the most allies wins. And since everyone knows about balence of power the odds in the long-term are against the aggressor.
This is what happend in both the Napoleanic wars and World War II. It also happend in the American Civil War though there were a few twists because Other powers had little interest in the results. Thus diplomacy had little play and it was a strict one-on-one. Also the term "aggressor" in that case does not really apply to either side as it was a secession war rather than an invasion. However the "attrition dynamic" I described above certainly applied in the military sphere.

Because of the things I described it is not supprising that neither Hitler nor Napolean lasted long.

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by jatay3:
By contrast other Empires were able to develop a system so out-of-the-league that it couldn't be copied. For instance the Mongol system was based on mounted archery, which required a nomadic life to produce a sufficient number of warriors(artificial means like warrior cliques or slave-soldiers only keep it up so much). Thus everyone would be at a disadvantage in copying them.

The Mongols weren't the only steppe empire existing at the time. Nor, of course, were Mongol armies unbeatable.

In fact, the Mongol "empire" fragmented with the death of the Great Khan. The last successor state was, IIRC, the Crimean Khanate, polished off by the Russians in the late 18th century. The British had whacked the Mughal Empire in India a few decades before.

Before the Mongol invasion, China was divided along north-south lines. Northern China was ruled by various dynasties whose origins were just as nomadic as the Mongols. Southern China was under Chinese rule, and held out against the Mongols for some years after northern China fell.

Mongol style armies are best suited to steppe type terrain. In forested, mountainous, or urbanised terrain, they have no particular advantages over other forces.

To make it worse, the economy which they are based upon can not support large population densities. This is why, historically, settled populations have tended to conquer and rule nomadic populations more often than vice versa.

 

[The Oz]

There are things in mathematics called "power laws" that relate the quantity of something in a category to their rank (according to some characteristic) within that category.

The most famous such law is called "Zipf's Law" after the guy who discovered and he related to the use of words in language and the size of cities. It was only later found to apply much more widely. Zipf's Law says that if you take the most populous city and assign it to the first rank, you will find that the next most populous cities will have half the population of the first rank city, while the third rank of cities will have a population of 1/3rd the first city, the fourth rank cities a population of 1/4 the first city, etc, etc.

This might apply to the endurance of civilizations. You'll have a few that last and last and last, while more last for a while but not that long, and many don't endure long at all.

It probably also applies to the size of such civilizations. There should be only a very few really big powers, a few medium-sized, and lots of small fry.

 

[aramis]

Most historical governments last about 100-400 years for large polities; many reform with a similar identification but new political status.

England, for example, has major reforms every 3-4 centuries, which strongly effect it's political and governmental makeup.

Russia, likewise, can be broken into chunks:
pre-mongol
Mongolian Principality
Peter the Great and Tsarist
Nicholas II and Anarchy resoling in
Soviet period
followed by Capatalist period.

Peter severs the link to the mongolian heritage, and reforms the government strongly. Nicholas II ends the tsarist regime. He was in a limited constitutional monarcy for a while, but the government continued unchanged until the Revolutions of the 19-teens.

Likewise: Rome. Rome has several clear periods, about 400 years apart... Republic, Empire, Christian Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Divided Europe

400 years seems to be about the limit for a state without a regime change.

Most states do, however, utilize ethnocultural identity and/or claiming descendency from an older government.

Note also: Democracy and Republic both tend to have major problems about every 200 years... or less.

Note also: many times, a regime change, possibly including a complete rework of governance and/or ethnocultural identification, can still have far older elements of older polities still at work in governance. (EG: the Brittish College of Heralds and Orders of Knighthood)

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Most historical governments last about 100-400 years for large polities; many reform with a similar identification but new political status.

<snip of much goodness>

The Imperium has similar periods.

Cleon I.
Conquest/Pacification
Antebellum
Civil War
Restoration
Post-Restoration
*Rebellion OR No Rebellion
*Hard Times OR Virus
*Unknown OR TNE
TNE:1248

Yes, that's not quite how they're typically portrayed, but I've begun thinking of them this way lately.

 

[aramis]

Oh, and those stable islands are often punctuated by severl very short (5-20 year) revolutionary governments.