Grossfyrd

[jatay3]

What does the SWC do when their is not a major war in progress? The question sounds humorous. However the fact is that it would need something to conduct border wars, and punitive expeditions, and provide a strategic reserve, so that SWC can't be caught off guard.
However SWC has no regular force to speak of.
Therefore it would have to provide for this by every year voting in the Council for that years contribution to the "Grossfyrd"(no it is not necessarily "gross" in the coloquial sense-though after a few weeks on campaign they would naturally have a tendancy toward grossness of course-so no puns) by the member worlds military. This process would be akin to deciding a budget.
The Grossfyrd would be a miniuture of the SWC forces when fully mobilized. In fact it would be the same thing-just smaller in peacetime.
This system is clumsey but it is the natural result of having no large forces under the direct command of the SWC.

 

[mike wightman]

Would it be some form of cadre force, multiplied by the mobilisation of member world's forces in the event of war?
Or is it a special unit composed of member world's forces "volunteered" to serve? Would its composition change from year to year as new units are asigned and others sent home?

 

[jatay3]

I think it would be more like the third. The cadre is provided by the Kriegstaab. And yes I think it's composition would vary from year to year, though units that have a tradition of offworld service, like the Champions Guard or the Gramutlandsher might be a fairly regular feature.
It would be like a feudal levy-remember how medieval kings had to beg their nobles for troops?

 

[jatay3]

My idea would be that "Grossfyrd" would simply mean the sum of troops taken into the service of the SWC at a given time. However wheras during a major war the "Grossfyrd" would simply be everything that can be scraped together, during peactime it would be more complicated, featuring a lot of political manuvering. Some governments would compete to be excused and others compete to have a place in that year's Grossfyrd(more influance for a given government and more glory for it's headstrong young nobles).

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by jatay3:
What does the SWC do when their is not a major war in progress? The question sounds humorous. However the fact is that it would need something to conduct border wars, and punitive expeditions, and provide a strategic reserve, so that SWC can't be caught off guard.

Jatay,

I think you're forgetting the SWC is a confederation, not a unitary state and not a federation but something more akin to a league or alliance.

Canon is quite explicit on this matter. The SWC 'navy' consists primarily of assets loaned to the Cconfederation goverment by the member states and the SWC 'army' consists primarily of assets loaned to the Confederation government by its memeber states. There are relatively small cadre and staff formations directly controlled by the Confederation, but there are no substantial assets at all.

By definition, the SWC doesn't do border wars, punitive expeditions, or any similar stuff under the banner of the Sword Worlds' Confederation. In the classic era, Excalibur had a multi-decade civil war sputtering on with no confederation interference whatsoever. The stuff you list is stuff that the Sword Worlds Confederation and all other real confederations simply don't do by definition.

As for a strategic reserve, the SWC's strategic reserve is the armed forces of its member states.

Now if a member world wants to loan assets to the Confederation government for some purpose and - very importantly - the other member states don't see problem with it, then that's another story. But, given the example of Excalibur, unity of purpose outside of a major war or threat of a major war is a rarity.

Now, I know you're going counter with questions like 'who patrols?' or 'who guards?' or 'who spies?'. Well, the types of patrolling, guarding, and spying you're thinking of aren't done by confederacies. What 'little' done is done by a confederacy's member states instead and 'little' is a relative term. It only seems 'little' from our unitary/federal government assumptions.

So the Confederation isn't going to have a lot of assets for 'adeventures' or even internal peacekeeping. There isn't going to be a rotating roster of loaned or levied units available to the Confederation. The Confederation's member states may have those assets, but whether the Confederation can use them for anything other than major war is something that requires a lot of political wrangling.

We should also remember that the Darrians have a very similar system!


Have fun,
Bill

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by jatay3:
What does the SWC do when their is not a major war in progress?

According to the Contact article in (print) JTAS #18, they have both the central pool of officers others have mentioned, plus "an interplanetary patrol which suppresses piracy, operates the starports, and administers customs and tariff regulations in non-planetary space."

Further: "The Patrol service acts as an interplanetary police and customs service within the Confederation. It suppresses piracy, is responsible for enforcing trade restrictions between the worlds of the Confederation and the outside, it protects the so-called metal worlds, and it adjudicates minor disputes between worlds."

 

[mike wightman]

Hmm, I wonder if Sword World planets become "flags of convenience" for ethically challenged merchants?

 

[rancke]

All these questions and many more are answered in GT:Sword Worlds.


Hans

 

[jatay3]

As for a strategic reserve, the SWC's strategic reserve is the armed forces of its member states.
------------------------------------------------
I meant one actually on duty
if there are no forces always on hand SWC could be caught before it could mobilize and all would be over.
As for border wars, etc some will be for the interest of the Sword Worlds in total rather than any individual world, and no world would be willing to take the full expense.
Furthermore I think the term Confederation implies far more than just "alliance". It has lasted for hundreds of years and has an ideological baggage of it's own. Remember that a number of Border Worlders left their homes for the sake of the SWC.
I think the SWC is analogous to the Holy Roman Empire and the strength of the central government varies. It is certainly low but if it were that low it would simply have disintegrated.

 

[jatay3]

Furthermore I think the term Confederation implies far more than just "alliance". It has lasted for hundreds of years and has an ideological baggage of it's own. Remember that a number of Border Worlders left their homes for the sake of the SWC.
I think the SWC is analogous to the Holy Roman Empire and the strength of the central government varies. It is certainly low but if it were that low it would simply have disintegrated.
--------------------------------
Or take "Articles of Confederation" US-and imagine if that had remained the basis for the government until now.
------------------------------------

"The Confederation's member states may have those assets, but whether the Confederation can use them for anything other than major war is something that requires a lot of political wrangling."

exactly, that is the whole point. the wrangling for those assets is so fammiliar that it has become institutional.

remember the Spinward Marches are not like Central Europe where there is a clear deliniation between war and peace. Every state there has to be prepared for operations-other-than and the Confederation Patrol, gallant folk though they are, doesn't always have the heft for such things

 

[jappel]

Jatay,

IYTU you can do as you like, of course. But your position doesn't jibe with published canon, which is from which Bill and Hans speak. (Note that Hans is one of the authors of GT:SW, so this is the guy who wrote some of that canon, though he expanded on previously published material as I understand it.)

Take another read of the description of the Sword Worlds from the original Spinward Marches supplement:

The Sword Worlds are a loose confederation of worlds all colonized in the same era (400-200 PI). Through the centuries, their relationship has varied from fledgling empires to scattered trading pacts, but the worlds have always maintained their affinity for each other. The current confederation, with a capital at Joyeuse, has endured the longest (established 852) and maintains its power by allowing a wide latitude in local government operations.

All member systems in the Sword Worlds maintain independent local Navies. The confederation charter calls for conferalization of these forces in times of need; in other circumstances they patrol local systems.

Everything written since that I've seen has been consistent with that description. The situation you posit simply doesn't exist in the OTU.

But IYTU, do as you like! If you prefer your model, go for it! It's no crime to diverge from what's written. "Canon is for authors."

Of course, you can always start from scratch and make up your own milieu...

- John

- John

 

[Whipsnade]

With regards to a Sword Worlds' "strategic reserve" ...

Originally posted by jatay3:
I meant one actually on duty
if there are no forces always on hand SWC could be caught before it could mobilize and all would be over.

Jatay,

So, just because they aren't 'on duty' as Sword Worlds' assets means they are never 'on duty' as Sacnotian assets, Tizonian assets, Joyeusian assets, Gramian assets, and fill-in-the-blank assets?

Are you suggesting that the substantial military assets of all those member worlds are never 'awake' or 'active' unless they are under the Confederation banner?

Sacnoth isn't going to be caught with it's pants down because the Sacnotian military is just as aware and ready as any other OTU military. Ditto for Tizon, ditto for Gram, and ditto for every other Sword World with a native military establishment; i.e. all of them.

Not being 'confederalized' means nothing with regards to their professionalism.

As for border wars, etc some will be for the interest of the Sword Worlds in total rather than any individual world, and no world would be willing to take the full expense.

Just how many border wars have the Sword Worlds fought? The answer is one in 788 against the Darrians and they lost. Other than that short conflict and their Zhodani-subsidized participation in the Frontier Wars, the only wars the Sword Worlds have fought have been amongst themselves.

You're making unitary state/federation assumptions about a region whose largest polities have been either loose confederations, very short lived empires, or collections of warring states.

Furthermore I think the term Confederation implies far more than just "alliance".

Go to dictionary/com and read the description of 'confederation'. Any poli-sci textbook will have the same.

It has lasted for hundreds of years and has an ideological baggage of it's own. Remember that a number of Border Worlders left their homes for the sake of the SWC.

Germany had an ideological indentity before Julius Caeser was born. Taking into account the Cold War inspired FRG-GDR split, Germany been unified for less than a century. So much for ideological or cultural unity always creating political unity.

I think the SWC is analogous to the Holy Roman Empire...

The prosecution rests. Remember the old saw? The HRE wasn't holy, wasn't Roman, and wasn't an empire. You're making unitary/federal state assumptions about a region whose greatest and longest lasting level of political intergration has been as a confederaton.

... and the strength of the central government varies. It is certainly low but if it were that low it would simply have disintegrated.

And it has disintergrated several times during the life of the Third Imperium. The current government only dates from 852 and it only included most of the Sword Worlds after the end of the Third Frontier War.

Canon is clear on this point. Canon also has no place IYTU if you don't wish it to.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[jatay3]

With regards to a Sword Worlds' "strategic reserve" ...

quote:Originally posted by jatay3:
I meant one actually on duty
if there are no forces always on hand SWC could be caught before it could mobilize and all would be over.Jatay,

So, just because they aren't 'on duty' as Sword Worlds' assets means they are never 'on duty' as Sacnotian assets, Tizonian assets, Joyeusian assets, Gramian assets, and fill-in-the-blank assets?
-----------------------------------------
Each of which is guarding it's respective interests, thus allowing them to be defeated in detail. By strategic reserve I mean a force held back as a fire-brigade. The individual prowess of the respective World's assets is interesting but is irrelevant if an invader gets between them thus allowing it to concentrate on each by turns.

-------------------------
Go to dictionary/com and read the description of 'confederation'. Any poli-sci textbook will have the same.

and read the history of such states describing themselves as "confederations" and you will find that the strength of the central government varied

-------------------------------
think the SWC is analogous to the Holy Roman Empire... The prosecution rests. Remember the old saw? The HRE wasn't holy, wasn't Roman, and wasn't an empire. You're making unitary/federal state assumptions about a region whose greatest and longest lasting level of political intergration has been as a confederaton.

I am most certainly not making "unitary/federal" assumptions-I am assuming it was like the actual Holy Roman Empire was. The assumption that a state is unitary is anachronistic. Historically the political structure was generally in a pyramid- like system.
And by the way while the HRE was not "Holy" it certainly was an "Empire"(albiet a rather unstable one) and all of the most notable monarchs were "Roman"(or at least they were Roman Catholic).
--------------------------
And it has disintergrated several times during the life of the Third Imperium. The current government only dates from 852 and it only included most of the Sword Worlds after the end of the Third Frontier War.

But I am refering only to the SWC.
----------------------------------

My point was not that the SWC would have it's own military as an integral part of it's organization. My point is that units would be loaned by the member states to the SWC, the way they loan them to one another. The canon nowhere says whether or not that takes place.

---------------------------------------
Oh and on Traveller Sword Worlds: p.22

"The Confederation is the most successful and long-lived STATE the Sword Worlds subsector has seen in a millenium"

meaning either that the author made a typo or wasn't sure himself.

this sounds like the sort of argument Swordies would have.

the defense rests

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by jatay3:
"The Confederation is the most successful and long-lived STATE the Sword Worlds subsector has seen in a millenium"

meaning either that the author made a typo or wasn't sure himself.

Hm. I'm not sure what the question is.


Hans

 

[jatay3]

Hm. I'm not sure what the question is
--------------------------
The question is whether the SWC is a "state" or an "alliance" or whether the two are mutually exclusive.
That's what I mean when I say that it sounds like an argument swordies would have-can't you imagine them arguing that while they drink their Lambic Reds?
Actually if the SWC is smart(which it must be to last so long)it will leave the question unanswered and let everyone interpret as they chose.
But the subject that brought that up was the question of whether the SWC regularly rents units from it's component states in peacetime, to fulfill peacetime duties. I maintain that it has to do this at least sometime-though the force can't be large; presumably the member states are paronoid about another Dominate. They are also probably paronoid about another civil war, and paronoid about the Imperium-they are paronoid about a lot of things as the loser of the last war often is. This fits the complex Swordie mindset rather well.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by jatay3:
Hm. I'm not sure what the question is
--------------------------
The question is whether the SWC is a "state" or an "alliance" or whether the two are mutually exclusive.

Well, according to definition 5a of Merriam-Webster Online it is a state, but maybe not in the most commonly use sense of the word.

state: 5 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign

It's certainly a politically organized body of people occupying a definite teritory. But is it sovereign? I suppose it depends on the wording of its constitution. But it calls itself a confederation, and if it is a confederation, then its not sovereign:

confederacy: 1 : a league or compact for mutual support or common action : ALLIANCE

jaytay3:
But the subject that brought that up was the question of whether the SWC regularly rents units from it's component states in peacetime, to fulfill peacetime duties. I maintain that it has to do this at least sometime-though the force can't be large; presumably the member states are paronoid about another Dominate.

Why does it have to? Why can't the member states agree on what services need to be provided on the interstellar level and lend Confederation the units it needs to provide it? That's how I see it working. The alternative is to have the member worlds tithe to the Confederation who can then use the money to hire people who might be more loyal to the Conferation than to his homeworld... a state of affairs I don't see any Sword World welcome.


Hans

 

[jatay3]

Why does it have to? Why can't the member states agree on what services need to be provided on the interstellar level and lend Confederation the units it needs to provide it? That's how I see it working. The alternative is to have the member worlds tit
------------------------------------
Actually that was more or less the kind of thing I was thinking of. It would be loaned from the member states in whatever fashion it was arranged. However now that I think about it, it wouldn't be a regular sized force but would vary depending on how pariochial the states are feeling at a given time.

As for the difference between a state and a confederation it is not strictly dictionary. I can easily see a point where there would be a blury line between the two and that is how I see the SWC working. Or maybe it is a state that doesn't dare cal itself a state. Which is why I think Swordie intellectuals(yes there is such a thing) would argue over it while quaffing their Lambic Reds.

But the dictionaries definition is limited to a western-style state from 1650-Terran confederation. Arguably a Medieval feudal lord is a state though not sovereign, and a bedouin prince before wwi might qualify even though he is not territory specific(bedouin princes thought in terms of influence rather than fixed territory). The member states of the Imperium-or the SWC-or the Soli-cons-are regarded as states but they are semi-sovereign, not completly sovereign. And some are more sovereign than others.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by jatay3:
As for the difference between a state and a confederation it is not strictly dictionary. I can easily see a point where there would be a blurry line between the two and that is how I see the SWC working.

Yes, but you brought up as an argument that somewhere in Sword Worlds the word 'state' was applied to the Confederation. Without access to a copy I can't say if it was me or Paul who used it, but it might well be me. I can tell you that if it was me, then I did not mean to imply that the Confederation government stood in any particularly strong realtionship to the member states, despite the fact that the most common dictionary definition of 'state' may imply it. If we're not going strictly by dictionary definitions, then I don't have to defend the use of the word, and if we do, the dictionary does provide an alternate (though less common) definition.

Or maybe it is a state that doesn't dare call itself a state. Which is why I think Swordie intellectuals (yes there is such a thing) would argue over it while quaffing their Lambic Reds.

I think it's an alliance that dares call itself a confederation. I think one reason it has lasted for as long as it has is that it hasn't provoked the member states to cut up rough.

But the dictionaries definition is limited to a western-style state from 1650-Terran confederation. Arguably a Medieval feudal lord is a state though not sovereign, and a bedouin prince before wwi might qualify even though he is not territory specific(bedouin princes thought in terms of influence rather than fixed territory).

Well, if you want any sort of meaningful discussion, then you and your opponent have to use the same terms. Sticking to dictionary definitions seems to me to be an excellent way of doing that. Otherwise Bill could simply argue that the word 'really' meant something that supported his interpretation and you could argue that it 'really' meant something that supported your interpretation, and who could say either of you nay? In which case, why bother to argue at all?

The member states of the Imperium-or the SWC - or the Soli-cons - are regarded as states but they are semi-sovereign, not completly sovereign. And some are more sovereign than others.

I can't recall the Imperial member worlds being described as sovereign states anywhere in canon. The general consensus when we discuss the Imperium seems to be that they are the equivalent of states in an empire or a federation (the fact that they're allowed to maintain their own navies is one powerful indication), but it's not explicitly stated anywhere AFAICR.

The Imperium itself can also be seen as an empire of 300 (or 270) member empires (the duchies) with the member worlds being members of their respective duchies.


Hans

 

[jatay3]

I can't recall the Imperial member worlds being described as sovereign states
------------------------
They are not described as sovereign because they are not. That is they cannot claim to be bound by no human authority outside themselves. But they often have every other characteristic we associate with a state. They conduct governmental functions in their own name-and can even make war in their own name. They are sub-states rather than sovereign states.

Yes, but you brought up as an argument that somewhere in Sword Worlds the word 'state' was applied to the Confederation.

And I also pointed out that the description might have been given because of the unclear status of the SWC-one momment it is thought an alliance, the next it is thought a state. Assuming one takes the dictionary literally it is easy to see how there could be a blurry line. A political entity that starts as an alliance can evolve into a state-or vice-versa. Or it could be deliberatly created to be permanatly at the in-between stage. Of course one could argue that hanging on that "blurry line" is the definition of "confederation". I get the impression that the member states gave the SWC some "stately" powers, but the minumum they thought they could get away with. Also their is the wrinkle that smaller states would want to give the SWC enough power to balence Gram and Sacnoth-the family needs a strong father to keep the big brothers in line.
In any case I think you will be willing to agree that it is likly enough that no one would be sure is exactly sure of the status of the SWC any more than we are.

 

[jatay3]

Part of the problem may indeed be definition. I am used thinking of alliance as being for a specific and usually temporary purpose rather than for conducting the general purposes of state, and of a confederation being classed as a type of state with a more or less nebulous central government(sometimes less sometimes more-Hanseatic league vs Confederate States of America).
Also an alliance doesn't usually have a beaureacracy organic to itself which the SWC does at least to a minimal extent.
Quite possibly we are both right according to the criteria we have established. I hate saying that because it is a rather dreadful cliche-and it is also sometimes used as a way to wimp out of an argument(maybe that's what I am doing?). But sometimes it is true.