[TML] Speaking Of Pocket Empires, was Re: Imperial CR vs Local CRs

[Richard Aiken]

On Feb 7, 2008 1:34 AM, Ken & Juliane Murphy <booksfleamarket at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ob Trav?:Well, it makes me wonder if this sort of setup works applied to the breathing-room-loving Imperium as they annex yet another pocket empire.

I was thinking the other night, while pondering what color scheme to
use in identifying the various political entities on my campaign jump
map . . .

What if Imperial counties (and their Counts) represented
previously-absorbed Pocket Empires (PEs)?

Historical empires didn't try to break up existing states.  They
simply added their imperial machinery on top of the existing political
structure.  In canon, the Imperium actively *encourages* the formation
of PEs in non-incorporated regions (the Forine Assembly in my campaign
area, for instance).  Why would it do this if - when it came time for
annexation - it was only going to break the PEs up again into
individual worlds?  That seems to me like a lot of wasted and even
counterproductive effort.  Worlds which spend any amount of time
united - particularly if most of their citizens believe said unity was
their own idea - are going to be reluctant to separate again.

But if the PE worlds are allowed to "hang together" as counties after
annexation, the whole business makes a lot more sense.  As I see it
now, each world in a new county gets a Baron (with his moot vote), but
the PE government as an entity gets a Count (with a separate,
additional moot vote).  The former PE can then take this ready-made
voting block into the sub-sector moot and - usually - get its Count
acclaimed sub-sector Duke.  Not only this, but if at least one world
of the PE lies in a different sub-sector, the PE gets to use its
"overgovernment" vote in *that* moot, too.

In other words, PEs are bribed into joining up with the promise of
being "more equal than equal."

-- 
Richard Aiken

"Never insult anyone by accident."  Robert A. Heinlein