Talk:Elixabeth (world)

Notes (2007)

Sad to say, Elixabeth is another mistake of Behind the Claw. It does not belong to Forine. In fact, it is a client state of the Imperium, which would, presumably, be extremely annoyed if Forine tried any funny business. Rancke 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your information is evidently better than mine regarding Beyond the Claw's shortcomings. Please feel free to amend the entry as you see fit. Perhaps the easiest edit would be to assume that the 990 Imperial intervention resulted in independence for Elixabeth and Talchek. The switch to client status and the establishment of the naval base thus becomes a matter of 'cementing' the systems' new status rather than of peace enforcement.--Vendarth 14:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But wait a minute. We know for certain that a) Elixabeth lies beyond the Imperial border (and therefore does not "belong to the Imperium" and b) its UWP indicates that it is a colony/captive world. That much is clear from the early 80's Spinward Marches supplement -- which is about as "canonical" as one can get. Later canon indicating that Elixabeth is an Imperial Client does not invalidate this.

We also know that it doesn't belong to any neighboring world, because The Regency Sourcebook includes information about what neighboring worlds owns captive worlds and no one owns Elixabeth. However, this is not a canon conflict, because government type 6 can also mean a military junta. Or it could be a true captive government controlled from the outside but by a non-government institution (like a megacorporation).

I have to retract the above statement. I checked, and according to The Regency Sourcebook, Elixabeth is a colony. Just not of Forine. It is a colony of Talchek, a world with 60,000 inhabitants and a TL of 5. Whatever force Talchek uses to enforce its suzeranity of Elixabeth, its not paying for it itself... Talchek is also an Imperial client state and has a captive government, so whatever is going on it involves some legal fiction endorsed by the Imperium. Rancke 15:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The notion of a colony having a colony is not unreasonable in theory. However, the idea that a non-industrial, low-population (60,000), Tech Level-5 world that cannot even put a satellite into planetary orbit on its own can establish or even maintain an interstellar colony with a population of 20,000 is simply ridiculous!! Using simple logic, you have convincingly disputed the accuracy of Behind the Claw's description of Forine. Yet, simple logic also leads to the inevitable conclusion that The Regency Sourcebook's description of Elixabeth is even more flawed. Waving away the inconsistencies on the grounds that they "involve some legal fiction endorsed by the Imperium" is not a very strong argument.--Vendarth 13:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, I have to confess yet another mistake. When I checked RegS the other day, I got Elixabeth and Talchek mixed up. It's Elixabeth that owns Talchek, not the other way around. Not that it invalidates your point at all, but I wanted to set the record straight. Anyway, you are, of course, absolutely right. The ownership of one world by another that can't afford to buy a single Scout vessel is extremely strange and cries out for an explanation. What we're disagreeing about is what sort of explanation makes sense. I don't see why you dismiss the notion of some kind of legal fiction. True, ther exact nature of the fiction has to be established. I wasn't trying to wave aside the problem, I was indicating the way my mind was pointing. I haven't given the solution to the problem much thought yet, and I didn't want to just blurt something out. However, I think I'd like to work out something that involved McClellan Factors. Rancke 15:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My comment re: "waving away" contradictions concerned TL-5 Talchek. Elixabeth is obviously a different case, though its low-population (a third of Talchek's), non-industrial trade classification and pre-jump tech level (albeit much closer than Talchek's) still undermine the credibility of the Regency Sourcebook in this case. Resorting to an assumed "legal fiction" might be advisable -- even essential -- if there was no other way of making sense of the canonical data. However, I believe that my solution works reasonably well by assuming an Imperial-Forine codominium wherein Elixabeth and Talchek have an ambiguous status both as client states of the former and colonies of the latter. As noted in earlier post, we have contemporary, real-life examples of such divided sovereignty in Kosovo and East Timor.

In any event, the ultimate problem is not whether Talchek belongs to Elixabeth or vice versa -- but who the "owning" system belongs to. Both are listed as having colony/captive world governments and therefore "belong" to still some other entity. Proximity, capability -- and the absence of any other candidates -- inevitably point one to Forine (quite besides the fact that Behind the Claw supports the assumption). One could, I suppose, posit some remote "owning" entity such as Mclellan Factors, but the objections you raise below concerning the relative unimportance of Elixabeth and Talchek as economic assets for Forine apply in even greater force for a remote owner.

McClellan Factors is not remote. It is the Imperial company that dominates the trade in District 268. And an asset that's insignificant to a world with 5.9 billion inhabitants can be very significant to a medium-sized Imperial company. Rancke 11:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me a much stronger argument to say that Elixabeth is a colony of Forine because, A) all canonical sources list Elixabeth and Talchek as colonies, B) Forine is the largest population planet nearby, C) at Tech Level 10, Forine has interstellar capability, D) there are no other likely candidates in the vicinity, E) Behind the Claw clearly indicates that both worlds are colonies of Forine, and F) The Regency Sourcebook's data showing Elixabeth as a colony of Talchek does not rule out Talchek's being a colony of Forine.--Vendarth 13:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

But there are serious flaws in that picture: A) Elixabeth and Talchek have been under Imperial protection since 610. Any colony status has to have the approval of the Imperium. BtC claims the Imperium is inflicting crippling economic sanctions on on Forine. If the Imperium is that hostile to Forine, why accept the status quo with respect to these colonies? B) If Forine colonized Elixabeth and Talchek in 990, it hasn't really done anything with them in the more than a century. C) The "...old Forine Assembly, which was in response to Imperial pressure in 990" implies that the Imperium was leaning on Forine in 990. And Forine's response was to colonize two empty neighboring worlds in direct defiance of long-standing Imperial policy? It doesn't make sense that Forine would do that, and it doesn't make sense that the Imperium would allow them to do it. Rancke 15:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If the Regency Sourcebook says the two systems were under Imperial protection since 610, then we have to conclude that they were colonized at or before that date because there's no reason why the Imperium would proclaim that empty and economically unimportant planets were Imperial clients. However, if we do so, the population growth problem we've already alluded to becomes even more problematic. It's hard enough to assume that the two systems were colonized in 975 and only have populations of 20,000 and 60,000 nearly a century and half later. If they were actually settled another 365 years earlier, the bounds of credibility are being stretched unless we assume some truly catastrophic developments in both systems.

Not specifically the two systems. Every system in District 268. That's what an Imperial district is. A subsector where the Imperium won't allow other interests to meddle. This means that empty systems in a district are also under Imperial protection. Rancke 11:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I think I finally get what you're saying. In 610 subsector District 268 is created and placed "under Imperial protection." None of the source materials I've ever seen define what the terms of this protection are (i.e., what actions the Imperium will take in what circumstances).

Agreed. Probably because that would be largely up to the Imperial duke whose responsibility the district became. Rancke 11:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

However, I'm sure that it would be wrong to assume that this made every system in the subsector an Imperial Client at that time. My reasoning is that, as of 1107, most of the systems in District 268 still are not Imperial Clients.

Absolutely. Imperial clienthood implies a much closer relationship. For instance, citizens of Imperial clients are allowed to serve in Imperial forces (and will earn Imperial citizenship for it). Rancke 11:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, I'm inclined to assume that the "protection" involves the Imperium guaranteeing that the systems in District 268 will not be taken over by an EXTERNAL power -- such as the Sword Worlds.

I assume that it means what the Duke of Glisten thinks it means. So he could allow Forine to colonize its neighbors. I simply don't see why he would, given the hostility towards Forine that BtC claims exists. Rancke 11:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense that the Imperium would establish this protection in 610 because the Sword Worlders had joined the Zhodani in the re-established Outworld Coalition just a year before in 609. Moreover, Imperial tensions with the Sword Worlds had been escalating for over a decade as, between 593 and 604, the Sword Worlds had occupied four Darrian worlds. These tensions would help lead to the outbreak of the 2nd Frontier War in 615.

Therefore, my conclusion is that, until a system in District 268 becomes an Imperial Client (which in the case of Elixabeth and Talchek was in 990), it is open to peaceful colonization by anyone without Imperial interference.

Not without Imperial interference. IMO the Imperium decides what constitutes peaceful and it decides what constitutes outsiders. Invading a world that already has a population with the intention of taking it over is not peaceful. Rancke 11:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So, if Elixabeth is not a colony of Forine, it must be a colony of some other system in the immediate vicinity. In that case the problem of rationalizing conflicting classifications as Imperial Client and colony (almost certainly of some non-Imperial entity) remains. It seems to me that to assume, as I have, that some sort of co-dominium exists whereby Elixabeth (and Talchek) are BOTH Imperial Clients and Forinean colonies is the easiest solution. We can cite some 20th Century Terran examples (Kosovo, East Timor, etc.) of such divided sovereignty. Finally, this means that the writeup would not contradict Behind the Claw.--Vendarth 19:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing that makes me most reluctant to accept any neighboring world's ownership of Elixabeth is that District 268 is an Imperial District. That means that the Imperium would protect individual worlds against their neighbors as well as against Aslans and other from outside the subsector. Obviously this protection isn't absolute, witness Dallia taking over Tarkine. But it is something that needs an explanation (in Tarkine's case the fact that Imperial officials wanted to get rid of a hot potato). And what explanation can one come up with for the Imperium allowing a world that they're pretty annoyed with to take over a client state? Dallia, at least, is a client state. Forine is a nuisance and a rival of Collace, which is a favorite of the Imperium. [Hans]

Why can't an an Imperial client world be a colony ?? After all, there are many examples of captive worlds even inside the Imperium. Why didn't the Imperial authorities intervene to prevent one of its own member worlds (or Imperial megacorporation, etc) from taking over another? You seem to suggest that such a situation is impossible, but the data says otherwise. And, if this can happen inside the Imperium itself, then certainly it can happen beyond the Imperial border -- as you yourself note in the case of Tarkine. As for Elixabeth, the idea is that Imperial Client status came after the planet's colonization by Forine, not before. How could Elixabeth have been an Imperial Client before it had any population?--Vendarth 13:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not that it is a colony that's the problem. Though the Imperium seems to frown on multi-world members, it is, as you point out, evident that it allows them sometimes. The problem is that it is a colony of a world that the Imperium is unfriendly towards. It's also a bit of a problem that those two colonies does very little to bolster Forine's strength. I don't care what they're extracting from Talchek, a production that involves a mere 60,000 people isn't going to affect an economy based on 5.9 billion people. Rancke 15:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Very few colonies in real-world history were ever money-making propositions for the nations that conquered them. Rather, most colonies were established for reasons of imperial competition, national prestige, political gain, as penal colonies, or because those in power stood to profit personally whether or not the colonies were economically viable in their own right. The taxpayers of the 'mother country' almost invariably found themselves paying out more to administer and defend a colony than the treasury got back from it. However, the colonial elites and their allies in the home government often got very rich at the taxpayers' expense.

Over the centuries, Forine’s various regimes oscillated back and forth between pro- and anti-Imperial stances in their foreign policies. The regime of charismatic dictator Chorni Norep, who ruled from 973 to 1081, had very poor relations with the Imperium arising from its colonial policies. In the late 900s, Forine established colonies on Elixabeth (Spinward Marches 1532) and Talchek (Spinward Marches 1631) both in order to secure sources of raw materials for the homeworld’s industries and to rid itself of some bothersome political dissidents. see Forine (world) -- I know that the Forine entry is non-canon, but at least it would coincide with this entry. and things have changed since 1083 - depending on where you are along in the timeline.Sstefan 02:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC) just something to ponder those late nights....

Yeah, that's another problem with information from BtC. BtC details how things are in 1120 (in the GTU). What we're writing here should apply to early 1117 (in the haven't-yet-diverged OTU and GTU) Rancke 09:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But the real period at isssue is around 990, not 1117-1120.--Vendarth 13:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, so it is. I hadn't picked up on that. Rancke 15:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following paragraph from the Elixabeth entry because there appears to be a conflict in the canon. The Regency Sourcebook states that Elixabeth is a colony of Talchek, which contradicts (all?) other canonical sources, which indicate that Talchek itself is a colony or captive world. Therefore, it seems that both options should be prsented/discussed on a separate a "Meta" page for Elixabeth. Unfortunately, I do not know how to create one. (Vendarth)

AFAIK The Regency Sourcebook is the only book that lists ownership of worlds (by putting an 'O:xxxx' tag in the remarks column where 'xxxx' is the hex number of the owning world. Note that it only lists the owner if it is a single world. Ownership by megacorporations or multi-world polities is not noted). I misspoke (miswrote?) when I said that Elixabeth wasn't owned by anyone. My memory played me false. I was right about Forine not owning Elixabeth, but not about it not being owned at all. So the fact that Talcheck owns Elixabeth does not conflict with previously published information, since PPI simply doesn't address the matter one way or the other. Accordingly I'm putting the paragraph back.

The purpose of MetaData is to highlight cases where different canonical sources contradict each other, which is undisputably the case here. I know that you take issue with some of the data found Behind the Claw, but it is still canonical. Furthermore, couldn't one argue that, because it has a later publication date, Behind the Claw should be treated as authoritative in cases where data conflicts? I'm not making this argument myself, but it's no less valid than arguing that earlier canonical sources always take precedence. I myself am inclined to use whichever source(s) make the most sense -- which in this instance is Behind the Claw. You clearly prefer the Regency Sourcebook. Given that we can both cite canonical sources, our differing interpretations should be presented on a separate metadata page.--Vendarth 13:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If the situation dexcribed in BtC had been internally self-consistent, your point would certainly be valid. Unlike some people, who disregard BtC completely, I like to include as much of its information I can. However, I make one proviso: viz. that the information makes sense, and in this case I disagree with you that Behind the Claw makes more sense than Regency Sourcebook. I don't think it makes sense at all. Rancke 15:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We're just going to have to disagree on this point. To my way of thinking, it's far more reasonable to suppose that Elixabeth and Talchek are colonies of Forine than it is to assume that one of them colonized the other -- and is itself a colony of some unnamed and remote entity. The only practical objection you've raised thus far is the fact that both worlds are also Imperial Clients. All I'm suggesting is that they are both colonies of Forine AND Imperial Clients. Why must the two be mutually exclusive?

I'm not assuming that Elixabeth colonized Talchek on its own. I'm assuming they were "helped" by an interstellar merchant company with access to interstellar ships. Tell you what, I've already put up my suggestion for Forine and I'll put up something about Elixabeth and Talchek shortly. Take a look at it and decide then. Rancke 11:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Leviathan (set in the Classic Era, circa 1007) states that McClellan Factor's ascendancy in District 268 had only been achieved very recently after a prolonged struggle against Barracai Technum. This does not match up with the statement in your Forine writeup which has the Forineans invading Elixabeth in 990. If McClellan Factors only took over District 268 in the early 1110s, it seems extremely unlikely that they would have been in a position to use Talchek to establish a patently phony 'colony' on Elixabeth over 100 years before. According to your own formulation, wouldn't the Imperial authorities have intervened to prevent the unauthorized takeover of a world under "Imperial protection" by a predatory corporation that specializes in shady activities beyond the Imperial border?!

I will be writing a metadata entry, but not today; I'm pressed for time. (BTW, You set up a link for a metadata page by writing the world metadata surrounded by two sets of curly brackets). Rancke 16:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Something else: I'm sorry to be so negative, but I just can't reconcile the claim that Forine planned to export millions of people to Elixabeth in 989 with the fact that 128 years later Elixabeth's population is the grand total of 20,000, this figure including the plucky native Elixabethans who for four generations have resisted the might of Forine's 5.9 billion people. The discrepancy of the two sides involved is just too great. If Forine really did want to export millions of people (which is a strange thing to do in itself), 20,000 people (or however many there were in 989) would simply drown in the masses. Plus, Elixabeth's population would be tens of millions today, not tens of thousands. Rancke 16:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Per your own arguments, once a planet becomes an Imperial Client, the Imperial authorities will intervene to prevent aggression against it. So the "plucky Elixabethans" have not had to resist Forine on their own. You are correct in noting that Elixabeth's population growth curve should have been steeper, but we can posit any number of plausible explanations for this (plague, war, internal strife, large-scale accident, deliberate population control, etc.).--Vendarth 13:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As Forine is to Elixabeth, so is the Imperium to Forine. If the Imperium didn't allow Forine to invade Elixabeth, Forine wouldn't have invaded Elixabeth. Either Forine had a free hand with Elixabeth for over a century or it didn't have any hand at all. None of the explanations you propose would explain a population of only 20,000. Plagues don't usually kill off 99.9% of a population. Nor do wars, internal strife, large-scale accidents, or deliberate population control. Rancke 15:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As I am not a math-savvy kind of guy and know nothing of population growth curves, I did a little research on http://members.optusnet.com.au/exponentialist/Logistic_Vs_Exponential.htm and learned that a projected 20,000 population on Elixabeth after 130 years is actually pretty accurate. The RULE OF 70 stipulates at at growth rates between -7% and +7%, population growing an annual rate of 1% will double in 70 years. If one assumes 2% growth, then population doubles in 35 years, and so on. Applying a 2% growth rate to Elixabeth (doubling every 35 years), and assuming a starting population of 2,000 yields 16,000 inhabitants in 1080 and 32,000 in 1115. Thus, a projection of 20,000 in 1107 isn't bad at all, especially if we assume some loss of population during the 'unpleasantness' of 989-990.

It's not bad if you assume nothing but natural growth. In fact, assuming natural growth, my figure of tens of millions would be ridiculous. But you're not assuming natural growth. You're assuming that a world with severe overcrowding problems and the shipping assets of billions of people wants to relieve overcrowding by dumping people on Elixabeth. What sort of overcrowding is relieved by exporting no people? What sort of numbers constitute overcrowding among a population of billions? (Assuming for purposes of argument that a world with a TL of 10 can't solve overcrowding in other ways than exporting the excess population). Rancke 11:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the latest entry for Elixabeth closely? It explains that the planetary population remains low because the Imperium coerced Forine into granting Elixabeth a degree of autonomy that included control over 'internal' policy issues such as immigration. The Elixabethans, having opposed Forine's plans to relocate excess population to their system from the start, naturally used this power (and the backing of the Imperium) to halt immigration from 990 to the "present". Since this is not stated outright in the existing entry, I will add a sentence that does so.

The Imperium has declared its intention to extend its protection to the worlds in District 268. The Duke of Glisten, who presumably decides just what that means (subject only to not making any transgressions blatant enough to attract the Emperor's notice), could certainly twist that to include letting Forine invade Elixabeth. But he is in an adversarial realitonship with Forine. So why would he do it? Was he bribed by Forine? No, because if he had been bribed, he would have let them do what they wanted to do. You're positing a relationship between Forine and the Imperium that is just exactly cordial enough to let Forine invade Elixabeth but not cordial enough to let Forine do anything with it, and that is very, very implausible. Moreover, you're also positing that this relationship remains unchanged, poised at this delicate balance, for 130 years, and that adds another order of magnitude to the implausibility. Rancke 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I just don't see how a small planet with a trace / near vacuum atmosphere is going to have "...wave-tossed seas, and extensive native flora and fauna." I can see a cold, near-vacuum planet having quantities of frozen water, but liquid water is pretty much going to gas out and evaporate into space; especially considering its .3g. I think its UWP is flawed (or the interpretation that inclused liquid oceans) is flawed from the start.