From: Barclay, Tom <tomb@b...>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:01:19 -0500
Subject: [HIST] classical matchups
> Nathan wrote: My replies offset with ==> ----------------------------------- > OUDF Deduction: The ESU was the main sponsor of the IC and the LLAR because the other minor powers launched starfaring craft before the ESU did (in 2072). The OU has common cause with JP (Japan) re the containment of the IC on Earth. ==> I can agree with this. Speculation: Pre-OU units may have helped JP defend the Gilderstein Foundation in 2050. The OU took advantage of the Mercenary War (2128 - 2132) to reduce IC mercenary units in small-scale actions whenever the opportunity presented itself. The OU may have friendly relations with the LLAR as a result. ==> I'd picture OU relations with IC as neutral. Observation: The Swiss mercenaries employed by the LLAR to raid the IC's Manilla depot in 2129 ended up killing a lot of Japanese. (This is one of the early 22nd-century incidents I've bookmarked as driving the formation of the UNSC.) The status of the Japanese seems to be very much up in the air. They appear to have started out as NAC clients, but that's reading a lot into the name of the NAC Nagisa system lost to the ESU in 2177. Will we possibly see Turtle Boat-style ship models one day in the future...? ==> I'd suggest the Japanese, having territorial issues with the ESU and potentially the IC probably have an interest in being friendly with the NAC and powers like the NI since using Swiss Mercs is probably mostly verboten after the incident in 2129. Question: Is there any canonical evidence beyond enemy-of-my-enemy to involve the FCT or the NSL? ==> I pictured the relationship of the FCT being based off certain commonalities of character between FCT and OUDF. Similarly, because the ESU is an enemy of the OUDF on a not infrequent basis, that the NSL would make a logical friend. These aren't strongly supported, I will concede. > NAC I find the FCT secession very hard to understand. We know very little about the circumstances other than that the NAC opposed the 2159 declaration then launched some token strikes before accepting it. ==> Other things going on, I'd guess. Plus obviously the NAC recieved reassurances that FCT wouldn't be rushing off to join the LLAR. Observation: Steve ventures the theory that the FCT is more latino than redneck, but if this is the case there must be some powerful motive dividing them from the LLAR. ==> Perhaps many of the latinos in FCT once fled (or their parents or grandparents did) corruption in various LLAR countries and have no desire to see their wonderful democracy dominated by LLAR leadership. And there will still be Rednecks in Texas. The NAC chose not to crush the uprising (unlike the FSE's reaction to the proto-NFR revolt in 2133) ==> The FSE haven't been to competent at managing their colonies in any particular historical period... and could easily conquer New Pasadena if it were necessary. Allowing the LLAR back to Earth to incite the entire Americas to revolt would create just such a necessity. ==> Quite. Ergo the agreement to live and let live must have come with strong warnings about what would happen if the FCT leaned too far towards the LLAR or tried to join with them. The FCT fought alongside the NAC at Reinhold in 2187, but this was against the Kra'vak. By then even the ESU and the NAC had joined forces to battle the alien menace. ==> Yes, but it probably suggests that the FCT is on at least tolerably good relations with the NAC and her allies. Perhaps friends would be too strong to claim, but neutral might be reasonable. > I list the RH amongst the allies due to a monarchic leaning. I have the RH down as firm NSL clients after the EC created the RH by objecting to further westward expansion by the Chinese in 2047. The RH were attacked by the ESU in both the Second (2145-2157) and Third (2165-2185) Solar Wars, whereupon the NSL and the NAC joined in to contain the ESU. ==> It seems quite likely the RH is on very good terms with the NSL (for practical reasons), the NAC for monarchic and practical reasons, and probably the Dutch or Swiss if they retain their monarchies. > I list the PAU as opposed principally on the strength of the fact they The PAU lost Grand Lahou to the NAC's Operation Dryland in 2148. They attempted to retake it in 2150 and again in 2154. Against that, we have a picture of an Avalon getting trashed by the Kra'vak at New Lusaka in 2183 on MT pg 24. I take this to be the PAU Kinshasa, but it could be one of the two UNSC survey cruisers lost off Lagos IV earlier in the same year. ==> It may be that old enemies had to become friends as the KV advanced (quite likely) or at least bury the hatchet (more likely yet) for long enough to fight the aliens. But I'd still say PAU and NAC have some unfinished business. > From 2163, the IF is recorded as being increasingly hostile to both the ==> Yes. > NSL Add IC to the list of enemies after their mercenaries took Salzburg for the ESU in 2183. ==> Reasonable. Question: Again, do we have any canonical evidence to involve the OU or the Swiss here? I tend to view a lot of the minor blocs and independent nations as regional powers, but we don't really have enough information to move away from this admittedly geocentric view. ==> And I think the Earth will still be important enough to make geocentrism a fair way to consider these conflicts. NSL - OUDF ties are mostly based on enemy-of-my-enemy and very little area of direct spacial competition. I say the NSL and Swiss are friendly in that the NSL will employ Swiss Mercenaries. This is more of a business relationship than true friendship I guess. > ESU The IC provided many mercenary contingents for the Third Solar War. So did the SK (Saeed Khalifate), finally kicking the RH out of Tsitsihar in 2183. ==> Agreed, but the IC just might clash with the ESU in several areas on Earth. It might be an on-again off-again relationship. The PAU joined in the Second Solar War, apparently as FSE allies. ==> True, but I assumed that they'd have little in common or against the ESU directly, which is why I did not list them. The ESU clashed with the IF in 2123 over an anti-Islamic pogrom in India. ==> Yes, but both are enemies of the NAC. I suppose the IF probably don't like the ESU much better now that I think about it. Deduction: If the truth about Sumani IV (2173) ever came out, you can bet that the IF are NOT considered friendly. This could explain how the SK got on the ESU payroll, since they and the IF are the original proponents of "enemy of my enemy". ==> That fits. Speculation: In the IC's war with the OU (2110-2112), many ESU "advisors" were killed and their equipment and tactics shown to be inferior. (Hey, I'm just a vacuum-head guessing without even a copy of SG here.) The ESU bears a grudge as a result. ==> I suspect this is a good justification of putting the OU up on the enemy list. > FSE Question: why put the IF on the hostile list? As far as I can see, the FSE is the only major power they haven't fallen out with. ==> This was based on the history of France and Spain in most of their relations with colonies over the years. I also figured that the primarily Christian FSE would not necessarily see eye to eye with the IF from a religious or ideological perspective. > NI Depending on how closely you link the NI on Epsilon Indi to the Gilderstein Foundation, there may be grounds for bad blood between NI and the IC. Then again, Israeli mercenaries were working for the IC in 2131 (until they managed to get their contracts revoked). ==> I assume the IC hasn't done anything bad enough to warrant enemy status. Heck, sometimes they even sign good paychecks. Deduction: presumably NI doesn't like the SK either. ==> Oh, I'd have to say they don't! Question: how does the FCT fit in here? ==> This was done under the thought that both the NI and FCT are small client states that require the sufferance of the big boys to exist. They also gain strength by allying with other small states they aren't opposing and the NI and FCT seemed to have few direct conflicts. > LLAR Whilst the IC have fought for the same employers, I wouldn't think that the LLAR would have forgiven them for the Mercenary War. ==> Perhaps. That seems a reasonable addition. Also add the NSL to the list of enemies for Kayleigh in 2181. Both the NAC and the NSL suffered considerable embarrassment at the result. ==> Good point. I'd forgotten about that one. Speculation: If the FCT have rejected diplomatic approaches by the LLAR then there probably is considerable resentment since the recovery of their terrestrial holdings is probably one of the founding principles of the LLAR state. The area of the Americas occupied by the FCT is also the original bone of contention between the NAC and the LLAR. ==> Yes quite. And the fact FCT wants to go its own way probably sits badly... > PAU The PAU also clashed with the IF in 2128 over off-planet resources. View the following in non-proportional text: (e.g. Windows users copy and paste to Notepad) RH PAU OU NSL NI NAC KNG LLAR JP IF IC FSE FCT ESU UNSC F F C C F C F N F C F C F C ==> Pre KV invasion, any nation with strong nationalistic tendencies that dislikes Globalism (FSE, NAC, etc) may well have Neutral or Dispute style relations with the UN. The rules change once ET drops in... Implacable: always at war ==> I notice you have placed only one of these