Traveller-digest     Tuesday, December 31 1996     Volume 1996 : Number 802



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Tuglikki Sector Data
Re: 21st Century History
Happy Gnu Year and More!
Re: Tuglikki Sector Data
Assumptions on the Vargr invasion of Corridor
Re: Gvurrdon Sector 
Campaign ideas...
Re: O2 sources & fusion byproducts
Re: Starship Construction & Workweek
Re: Starship Construction
Re: SSDS Spreadsheet problems
Re: Starship Construction
Heat Tolerance in Starships
Re: 21st Century History
Re: Vilani loss
Why the Aztecs Lost (was: Why the Vilani lost)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 17:23:03 -0600
From: sam thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Tuglikki Sector Data

At 02:29 PM 12/31/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Sorry, I hate "me too" posts, but I have a similar question:  Where can I
>find sector data for the Gvurrdon Sector (any era)?  I have library data for
>it (I think from the MO Archive), but I'm looking for UWPs, especially for
>Uthe, Firgr and subsectors K & L.  Just started playing the Traveller
>Adventure, and was curious what that part of space "looked like".   Thanks in
>advance.
>
>Tim Peter
><TPeterAZ@aol.com>
>"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, Ignorance."--- Socrates
>
>P.S.  Oh, and a very Happy New Year, everyone.
>
Y'll might try and locate Roger Myhre he had a special interest in the
Gvurrdon sectors and the Vrgyr. But if you will try Goeran's sit at
http://enterprise.shv.hb.se./~goeran/traveller/library/ will find what you
are looking for.

Sinbad Sam
sinbad@dfw.net
- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQCNAy/neZgAAAEEALdbtUFkL1kkqT35tHGc2IRnnCtcWj1n0qzH2yA8NPTJb2DI
UGoZGO4FOo623oqiA0/k6vYSQGOGa9sq1nLdf8EgyMmB5Hbeqh9nHKj8wL46u9gT
8PPCiawmhEmnp517Bzma2t0E8uml4x5AvTUjhK2iAooHHIQJtMzEhqYItUlNAAUR
tCBzaW5iYWQgc2FtIDxzaW5iYWRAbWV0cm9uZXQuY29tPg==
=V+w2
- -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 17:16:14 -0600 (CST)
From: Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@cs.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: 21st Century History

Armand Suarez <suarez@on.rim.or.jp> wrote:

> Obviously, the trip was written into Traveller history to explain the 
> cultures/histories of the Islands Cluster/Sword Worlds, and it makes sense 
> from that angle, but not from the point of view of the ESA at the time of 
> the launch.

Well...the Alliance Francaise would be happy.  Thanks to the passengers
and crew of the _Voyageur_, French will be a living, vital language for
interstellar exchange at least into the 55th century!  :)  

James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org> wrote:

>  http://members.aol.com/kagekiha/traveller/jumpspace.htm

My mistake.  That's "jumpspac.htm".

  Steve Bonneville
  <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 15:17:11 -0800
From: Rich Ostorero <lordbasl@inreach.com>
Subject: Happy Gnu Year and More!

Happy New Year, folks.

Also: I've a new email address and a Web Page with Trav stuff upon it. The Sunday 
Follies game notes will be there as soon as I get the time to transcribe them ;)

email: lordbasl@inreach.com

Homepage: http://home.inreach.com/lordbasl/index.html

Send me Your Trav Links!

- --Rich Ostorero
lordbasl@inreach.com
http://home.inreach.com/lordbasl/index.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 17:29:48 -0600
From: sam thomas <sinbad@dfw.net>
Subject: Re: Tuglikki Sector Data

Oops hit that damn key too fst again a Four-11 email search shows the email
for Roger is MYHRE@OSLONETT.NO.

Sinbad Sam
sinbad@dfw.net
- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQCNAy/neZgAAAEEALdbtUFkL1kkqT35tHGc2IRnnCtcWj1n0qzH2yA8NPTJb2DI
UGoZGO4FOo623oqiA0/k6vYSQGOGa9sq1nLdf8EgyMmB5Hbeqh9nHKj8wL46u9gT
8PPCiawmhEmnp517Bzma2t0E8uml4x5AvTUjhK2iAooHHIQJtMzEhqYItUlNAAUR
tCBzaW5iYWQgc2FtIDxzaW5iYWRAbWV0cm9uZXQuY29tPg==
=V+w2
- -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 19:28:45 -0500
From: "Chris Cox" <chriscox@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Assumptions on the Vargr invasion of Corridor

There been a bit of debate on weather the Vargr could have successfully
invaded the Corridor or not.  During this debate it become apparent to me
that our basic assumptions seem to be different.  I would like to know what
information other are using to base their arguments on.  

What is being used for the sector data for Corridor?  I have Travellers'
Digest 19 which has the sector data from 1119 and the information at the
Joe's Missouri Archive
(http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe/traveller/archive/)seems to be the same. 

Is Trillion Credit Squadron the sole basis for how space fleets are built and
maintained and is this really applicable to specific cases in the Imperium?

Is the Rebellion source book where we are getting all our information about
the Corridor sector during this time or are we also using the TNS information
from Challenge and Survival Margin?

And finally are we going to make the background fit the rules or the rules
fit the background?

Chris Cox
(chriscox@ix.netcom.com)
The Draconis Cluster Traveller pages
(http://users.aol.com/yanbeck/trav.htm)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 19:00:14 -0500
From: "Chris Cox" <chriscox@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Gvurrdon Sector 

Despite what Joe thinks, the sector data for the Gvurrdon Sector is located
on his archive
(http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe/traveller/archive/HIWG/Gvurdon/6F01.TXT) its
just not with the rest of the sector data.  This data seem to be more or less
the same as was published in Alien Module 3 Vargr.  Also you may check out
the rest of the files in
(http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe/traveller/archive/HIWG/Gvurdon/).  These were
written by Roger Myhre and all deal with Gvurrdon.  There also happen to be a
few more Gvurrdon related files located in the parent directory
(http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe/traveller/archive/HIWG/).  I hope this helps.

Chris Cox
(chriscox@ix.netcom.com)
The Draconis Cluster Traveller pages
(http://users.aol.com/yanbeck/trav.htm)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 17:47:21 -0800
From: The Orcslayer <rguy@cdsnet.net>
Subject: Campaign ideas...

Hmmm...
	I'm using MT rules and was toying with the idea of trashing the 
imperium and designing my own universe. There are two reasons for doing 
this.

1: I like creating things and like the challenge of a project of this 
scope.
2: There is such a wealth of information on the imperium but, it's 
scattered around so far and wide.

I will probably keep the concept of The Imperium in the campaign but it 
will be a new entity.
Has anyone tryed this? How successful were you?

********************************************************
		       "RUNAWAY!"
********************************************************
Joe Hamrick                              rguy@cdsnet.net
Homepage       http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/8701

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 01:12:46 +0000
From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: O2 sources & fusion byproducts

At 09:56 PM 12/30/96 +0000, you wrote:
>In mail you write:
>
><snip>
>The temps required for fusing heavier elements so up *very* fast. And
>the energy output drops pretty fast.
>
>Consider: The basic reaction we are assuming is 4 H(1) -> He(4) + energy.
>That liberates something like .1% of the mass as energy. Now if we go
>farther and generate oxygen from the helium (by whatever path), the
>reaction for *that* is:
>	4 He(4) -> O(16) + energy
>Compare the mass of 4 helium atoms and one oxygen atom and you'll find
>that the mass difference is *really* small. And if you want to squeeze
>all the energy you possibly can out, you keep fusing things until you
>hit iron. Fe(56) is *the* most stable nuclear configuration. You can't
>get energy out of it by fusion *or* by fission.
>
><snip>
>Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
>

This leads to a question I have been contemplating for some months now.
Fusion powerplants have been sucking up hydrogen, fusing it and generating
energy, but I have not yet seen any rules or guidelines for what happens to
the helium produced. Or as Leonard has noted, any of the other elements, up
to iron, which has a net energy loss to fuse. Given the hydrogen intake, the
tech level at which is built, and other such considerations, should our
engineers be looking for somewhere or somemeans of flushing these fusion
resistant heavy nuclei out of the plasma? Could this be used to justify that
week in port between jumps? Could a plasma heavily contaminated with heavy
nuclei fusion by products contribute to mis jumps, or other unpleasant
accidents? What about the safety constraints? Heavy nuclei from a fusion
reactor have no electrons, so they are functionally the same material that
comes out the business end of a CPAWS. Maybe not travelling as fast, but
potentially as dangerous?

More questions than answers.

Suggestions?

Garry
  
 

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 96 15:53:50 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Starship Construction & Workweek

On 12/30/96 at 08:07 PM,  shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said:

> I would tend to presume multiple shifts. Shutting down and restarting some
> types of equipment may be more complicated that what can be justified for
> only 8 hours of work. 

Yeah, in most cases the only time you want to take equipment down is to
setup a new job and/or for maintenance.  An assembly line sitting idle
isn't making you any money, in fact it's costing you money.

> Many, many factory (and shipyard) type processes fit that description.
> That's why 3 shifts is a common setup. That way you only have to shut
> down things once a week.

If that often.

> Other processes proceed at their own pace and *can't* be stopped in the
> middle (some phases of steel making, growing large single crystals for
> semiconductor use, etc). For those you go to *four* shifts. And the
> resulting schedules get a bit weird. For one thing, you *have* to go to
> 12 hour days or things get *way* too complicated. The shift schedules for
> such will almost always be a two week cycle. But *which* days of that
> cycle are work days and which are "off days" varies all over the place.
> (I speak from experience!)

Sure, the straight 8 hour, 8 to 5, work day isn't all that common anymore.

One Traveller thought I have, is about the workday/workweek.  For a lot of
reasons, I would expect higher tech levels to have shorter workdays/weeks. 
It might be normal to work only a few hours (8, 12, 20) a week some places. 


The way work is organized will vary too.  On some worlds here might be a
lot of "job sharing", or "job teams", or "piece work" type jobs, who knows
what people might come up with.

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 96 16:32:58 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Starship Construction

On 12/30/96 at 10:45 PM,  "Peter J. Miller" <pmiller@linkeasy.net> said:

> However (the big BUT! <g>), I'm not sure I agree with your final figures.
> Not that your math is wrong or anything, but the times seem really long,

Remember, Paul stipulated only 48 hours/week of work.

> I mean, 3 months for a Ship's Boat, 4 years for a Patrol Cruiser.

Assuming no scale advantages OR disadvantages from going to full-up
production (say with, 12 hr/wk down time for maintenance) you could cut
delivery times by about 70%.  I'm pretty sure that wouldn't quite get
*that* much advantage, but it could be close.

If this is the case then:

Ship's Boat in about 29 days.  

Patrol Cruiser in about 1 year 3 months.

The first one of a ship class would take considerable more time, I'd say,
especially for testing and debugging.  The tenth ship of a class might take
a little less time.

BTW, throwing more people or money at a job won't always speed up the work,
read the "Mythical Man Month" by Fred Brooks, it'll often slow the job
down.  Of course, it's a curve, and if you are on the up side then
incrementally adding workers/hours/equipment/etc will boost production, but
if you're already at the top of the curve (or heaven forbid on the
downside) then adding resources slow the job down...and waste your
resources.

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 96 16:43:41 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: SSDS Spreadsheet problems

On 12/31/96 at 07:35 AM,  "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
said:

> > Dave Golden just listed the URL for a SSDS spreadsheet:

http://www.usa.net/~goldendj/Traveller/Admiralty/NavalArchitect/SSDSSheets.zip
 
> > I tried the URL, downloaded the spreadsheet and can't get it to unzip.  

> I had trouble too.  Dave? when you get a chance could you check the zip
> file?

Same problem here, wouldn't unzip after I downloaded it.  Please, let us
know if you make a fix so we can try dl'ing it again.

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 96 18:12:50 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Starship Construction

On 12/31/96 at 11:30 AM,  jpb@miamisci.org (Joe Block) said:

> Hmm.  Wasn't the record for a Liberty Ship in WWII under a week?  I can't
> recall the exact tonnage, but since it was a freighter I'd assume its
> towards 5000 tons.

The Liberty Ship was 10,000 tons, register, and steamed at 11 knots. There
were 80 shipyards churning them out by the middle of '42 at the rate of 1
every 6 hours.  I think the record was about 1 week for an individual ship,
start to finish.

Now let's talk about tonnage in the real world, and in Traveller.  In
Traveller 1 displacement ton (DT) = 14 cubic meters (stere).  In the real
world (the USA anyway <g>) the volume of a ship is also measured in
tons...but a different KIND of ton.  Internal volume is measured in
register tons; 1 ton, register = 100 cubic feet.

When you do the conversions, 1 Traveller DT = 4.94 register tons..or 1 to 5
for rough work.

A 10,000 ton Liberty ship would be classified in Traveller terms as a
2,000DT ship.

The Missouri, a 40,000 ton WWII Battleship contains the internal volume in
Traveller terms of an 8,000DT ship.

An 80,000 register ton Aircraft carrier is only 16,000DT in
Traveller terms.

A 200DT Free/Far Trader is 1,000 register tons, the size of a small tramp
freighter.

An 800DT Broadsword Mercenary Cruiser would be about 4,000 tons. That's the
size of a large destroyer or frigate.

Here's an example of a submarine from the 1960's:  The Ethan Allen is
6,900rt (1400)DT; it has a length of 410.5ft (125m), a beam of 33ft (10m),
and a complement of 112 men.

I don't know if Paul is taking the different scales of measurement between
the ship's his yard builds and Traveller or not...but he should.

Eris

ps.  In the US a shipping ton (rail/truck *freight* is measured this way)
is 40 cubic feet.  I don't know if it's a rounding, but this just slightly
more than 1 stere (cubic meter), and slightly less than 1.5 cubic yard.

- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 1 Jan 97 13:01:57 
From: jamesd@spirit.com.au (James Dempsey)
Subject: Heat Tolerance in Starships

Hello,

  In designing an adventure based close to a star, I came up with a question:

  At what temperature will a 'normal' starship's environmental controls
break down? At what temperature will the hull start to react to the heat?

  I haven't been able to find any hints in SOM, which I thought was the best
bet. Any suggestions?


James Dempsey
- ---------------------------------------------
 email: jamesd@spirit.com.au
 homepage: http://www.spirit.com.au/~jamesd

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 18:28:42 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: 21st Century History

In mail, hazard@potomac.net writes:

> Leonard Erickson wrote:
>>
>> > An Expanded Timeline of Terran History, 21st century (25th
>> > century pre-Imperial).
>> >
>> > -2471  2050   ESA Longrange expedition leaves Solar system;
>> >               begins to accelerate to twenty percent of
>> >               lightspeed.  Considered the most ambitious of
>> >               several large STL colony missions launched
>> >               before the development of jump drive.  (Three
>> >               ships, three hundred thousand colonists, and
>> >               a projected 2000 year flight.)
>>
>> Just where the heck were they *going*? 20% of c * 2000 years
>> = 400 light years!
>
> Well, your calculation incorrectly assumes the expedition is a constant
> 20% of c.  Their destination is definitely much closer than 400 light
> years away, as it probably would take them a long time to accel and
> decel to and from that speed.

Assuming they were accelerating *continuously* at a constant rate, that
gives 1000 years of accel at less than 1/5000th of a g. with an equal
period of decel at the same rate. During which time they will have
moved 100 light years, for a total trip length of 200 light years.

At any *higher* accel, they spend less time (and distance)
accelereating to 20% of c, and more time coasting at 20% of c. Assuming
that they have *infinite* acceleration gives 0 time spent accelerating
& decelerating and 100% coasting. And that gives the 400 light year
figure.

At any *lower* acceleration, they don't have enough time to *reach* 20%
of c.

So given the peak velocity of 20% of c, and the trip duration of 2000
years, the trip *must* be between 200 and 400 light years (60 to 125
parsecs). That's the way the universe works.

So if the trip length is shorter, then either the trip time or the peak
velocity is incorrect. Another goof for GDW?

Let me know what the actual distance covered was and I'll work out the
limits for trip time versus peak speed. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 13:53:25 +1100
From: "Phillip McGregor" <aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au>
Subject: Re: Vilani loss

> From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
> Subject: Re: Vilani loss
> Date: Wednesday, January 01, 1997 4:48 AM
> 
> Hi.
> 
> Over a week ago, I compared the Terran conquest of the Ziru Sirka to the
> Spanish conquest of the Aztecs. Over a week ago, Phil responded:
> 
> > From: Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au>
> 
> > Spanish and Aztecs are probably not as good an example because of the
huge
> > difference in tech levels. One culture simply destroyed the other
because
> > it was so much better.
> 
> I'm not so sure that tech-level made such a huge difference. Sure, the
> Spanish had some pretty great armor, but they were outnumbered by
> thousands to one; their armor wouldn't have amounted to squat if the
> Aztec empire wasn't "ready" to fall. Their firearms were noisy and
> scary, but not much more effective than bows for fighting unarmed men.
> In fact, one could argue they were /less/ effective than bows because of
> their much lower ROF. If the Aztecs had been less intimidated by
> weirdos, these firearms would not have been so important.

The armour made a huge difference -- against stone weapons! The obsidian
chips in the Aztec maqaquitl (? their equivalent of the sword, anyway!)
simply shattered against metal armour. And, given the fact that these
weapons could only be used in thrusting mode, the main target of an attack
was the upper torso, just the area protected by the breastplate, or the
head - protected by the morion. The padded cotton armour that the Aztecs
and their enemies used could sort of protect agaist this - but european
tech steel armour was completely invulnerable. The reverse was, alas, not
even close to true - steel edged and pointed weapons more or less ignored
the presence of padded cotton.

The Spanish had other advantages that their opponents did not - due to
their higher tech level, but only indirectly. They had horses which, given
the primitive level of agriculture (even allowing for the maize plant and
several crops a season) the Aztecs possessed, the Aztecs could not have
supported enough of anyway -- after all, as you may well know, the reason
the Aztecs went to war so frequently with their neighbours was, quite
literally, to get meat for the stewpot ... this was one of their major
sources of animal protein in their diet, they just couldn't support much
else *and* their large population with their primitive level of agriculture
and lack of both the wheel and ships (log canoes don't really count).

The Spanish technology in the area of firearms is not as obvious an
advantage - a good English Longbow was better for range and rate of fire.
The problem with a good English Longbow was that it took ten to twenty
years to train someone to a reasonable level of proficiency, while with a
musket it took a couple of days at most Worse, the Aztecs didn't *have*
"good english longbows" ... they were lower on the tech scale (not really
represented well in Traveller TLs) even than that. Even if they did,
obsidian tipped arrows would have been much less effective than steel
tipped ones -- if certainly better than obsidian tipped swords.

Their lack of a really useful missile weapon compared to that of the
Spanish doesn't seem like much -- but fire shock is always preferable to
melee shock in combat, as it exposes the firers men to lesser danger (well,
I spose not if they both have the same tech weapons -- but even then,
tactics can minimise the effects -- tactics that, unfortunately, would have
been useless to the Aztecs as they had no equivalent missile weapon of
their own. The fire shock would have been enhanced by the noise and lack of
obvious connection (to such primitives) between cause and effect -- no
bows, no arrows or spears, and our guys are getting struck down by these
huge thunderbolts! Lack of tech such as *real* writing and something
approaching widespread literacy (which the Spanish were *closer* to than
the Aztecs) meant that superstition was more of a problem for the Aztecs.

Then there's the least obvious, but hugest, technological advantage that
the Spanish had -- *disease*. Because of their large cities -- their *many*
large cities -- and their advanced agricultural tech that allowed them to
keep *large* herds of domesticated animals they had a *huge* "disease
gradient". In other words, they were resistant to the diseases they brought
with them which, in turn, required the presence of many large cities (not
just one such as Tenochtitlan and allies) *and* large animal herds to allow
the crossover (after Macneill's "Plagues and Peoples"). Disease probably
did more than any other technological effect to defeat the Indians -- and
their level of tech meant that they didn't even recognise ways of dealing
with it (like isolation etc.) that the Spanish had, even if neither side
really had any medicines that worked against them

> At the risk of sounding very politically incorrect, I will agree with
> you that one culture conquered (not "destroyed") another because it was
> so much better, but I don't think it was the technology that made it
> better. I think that the Aztecs simply prefered Spanish culture to their
> own, in some cases at least. In those cases where the Spanish were
> deemed inferior by the Aztecs (cooking, textiles, agriculture), the
> Aztec culture has endured to this day. But in the case of politics, I
> suspect most Aztecs prefered to be Spanish peasants than Aztec slaves.
> In the case of religion, most Aztecs prefered to offer sacrifice than be
> offered up as sacrifice. And in the case of language, most Aztecs
> prefered the Spanish printing press to their own ideograms. (Those
> Aztecs who were illiterate kept their old language to this day.) And of
> course, the technology was nice too, but it didn't affect most people in
> those days.

The Aztecs "preferred" the Spanish culture to their own!!! I'm
flabbergasted!!! You don't *REALLY* expect anyone to accept that as a
serious statement? Surely not! The Spanish - and their imported diseases -
*DESTROYED* the Aztec culture; they replaced it almost entirely because the
culture was gutted and destroyed beyond hope of recovery. I have never seen
any suggestion, serious or otherwise, in any historical or anthropological
work on the conquest that would even vaguely support such a notion. You
simply cannot expect such a statement to be taken seriously.

As for "Aztecs" preferring to be "Spanish Peasants" rather than "Aztec
Slaves" -- well, your lack of knowledge is showing again. Apart from POWs,
who were destined for the stewpot *very* quickly, the Aztecs didn't *have*
a slave class -- they were starting to develop a sort of indentured
labourer class around the time the Spanish arived, but something like 99%
or more of *Aztec* society consisted of free men. There wasn't even,
strictly speaking, a "noble" class in a European sense -- it was the
Spanish and their monarchical/aristocratic mindset that saw Montezuma as
the "Emperor" of the Aztecs when he was nothing of the sort!

If we're going to argue about the Aztecs, please do some basic reading
first so you can argue on a basis of facts rather than fancy!

> > Of course, the Aztecs didn't have a clue what sort of "war" the Spanish
> > were fighting - they were more used to their own more or less ritual
> > "flower wars" for sacrifices and didn't really cotton on till too late
that
> > the Spanish had a different aim completely.
> 
> That may be true of the Aztec nobility, but I suspect the huge army of
> Aztec slaves who marched with the Spaniards had some idea of what was
> going on.

Again, you obviously don't have a clue what Aztec society was like, and so
your arguments are ludicrously wrong and not worthy of commenting on
further!

> I suspect the same of the Vilani. Their leaders where clearly clueless
> and confused, as you have pointed out. Their lower castes where at best
> indifferent as to who ruled over them; that indifference being a trait
> bred into them by an overbearing nobility. Those that were not
> indifferent were probably chasing their own interests, working for their
> relative "freedom" with the Terrans, or collaborating with the corrupt
> upper castes against their own neighbors. The Vilani lost, and I think
> the loss was a case of one culture conquering another because it was
> so much better.

Well, here you may have a point. However, the problem is, of course, how
many of the "lower classes" were, in fact *Vilani* -- evidently in the
Vilani Sourcebook there is a comment to the effect that, by the 1100's,
there were only a couple of hundred million ethnic Vilani left. Even
allowing for the Plague of Duskir, which I think is *vastly* mega-overrated
in its effects, this would seem to mean that the Vilani were always a tiny
minority in their own Empire. However, because the Vilani had a superior
tech, their culture -- or huge hunks of it -- would effectively replace
that of their subjects, and the whole Ziru Sirka would have been
*vilanified* -- just like the Roman Empire was *romanised* ... of course,
in some places the veneer was thinner than others.

But this still supports the idea that the Vilani didn't really have a clue
as to what sort of war the Terrans were fighting. Since the only successful
military tradition (such as it was) in the Ziru Sirka was that of the
Vilani, it was the one everyone looked to for clues as to what was going on
- -- and it would not have been until much later, which is what my contention
is, that anyone started to realise that this tradition was *useless* in
explaining the actions of the Terrans. Then it would have taken a *long*
time to convince all and sundry in a position of power that this was the
case, they would then take equally long, if not longer, to determine what
might be a suitable response, and they would always be *reactive* to the
Terrans as they would never really understand the Terran military mindset.

> The irony is, after a few centuries, the new culture stops looking so
> much better to some people 8^).
> 
> And, of course, Cortez, the emperor of Mexico, ultimately submitted to
> his own government. Estigaribia, the emperor of Vland, did not.

Cortez was never Emperor of Mexico. He was Viceroy for Charles V (or
whoever was the Spanish King at the time).

Phil McGregor
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@.curie.dialix.oz.au
Have Game Designer, Will Travel

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 19:31:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Why the Aztecs Lost (was: Why the Vilani lost)

> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 13:48:59 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
> 
> > From: Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au>
> 
> > Spanish and Aztecs are probably not as good an example because of the huge
> > difference in tech levels. One culture simply destroyed the other because
> > it was so much better.

I'm not at all ready to equate "higher tech level" with "better".  The
Aztecs of the Valley of Mexico had universal education, public health
care, city planning, an efficient civil service, an emerging mercantile
economy, a thriving, innovative artistic community, efficient public works
(including piped-in running water and good sanitation), and a host of
other amenities we associate with modern civilization.  The Spaniards
were, by comparison, near-barbarians who happened to have precocious
skills in certain high-tech areas, like metallurgy and shipbuilding. 

> I'm not so sure that tech-level made such a huge difference. Sure, the
> Spanish had some pretty great armor, but they were outnumbered by
> thousands to one; their armor wouldn't have amounted to squat if the
> Aztec empire wasn't "ready" to fall.

The Aztec empire was not "ready" to fall in any realistic sense.  It had
just undergone, by unhappy coincidence, a period of aggressive and highly
successful expansion during the 15th century; these new regions had not
yet been fully integrated into the empire, and resentment among the
conquered peoples was still strong.  Experience with earlier conquests
indicates that, given just a couple of generations, the Huaxtec and
Tlaxcalan regions would have become happy partners in the empire, rather
than being eager to ally themselves with Cortez to gain revenge against
the Aztecs (technically, the Mexica -- "Aztec" covers a much wider group,
most of whom weren't involved on either side of the initial Conquest).

> Their firearms were noisy and
> scary, but not much more effective than bows for fighting unarmed men.
> In fact, one could argue they were /less/ effective than bows because of
> their much lower ROF. If the Aztecs had been less intimidated by
> weirdos, these firearms would not have been so important.

The Aztecs were not "intimated by weirdos," at least not to the extent one
finds described in popular literature on the topic.  Rather, they were
used to a different style of warfare, one which emphasized one-on-one
melee combat, and taking of live prisoners -- rather reminiscent of the
heroic combats before the walls of Troy described in the Illiad. Their
repeated attempts to fight the Spaniards on these (rather civilized) terms
predictably led to massacres of the Aztec warriors.  By the time the
Aztecs adapted to the new realities of warfare, it was arguably too late. 

> At the risk of sounding very politically incorrect, I will agree with
> you that one culture conquered (not "destroyed") another because it was
> so much better, but I don't think it was the technology that made it
> better. I think that the Aztecs simply prefered Spanish culture to their
> own, in some cases at least.

It's quite true that the Aztecs probably found some aspects of Spanish
culture and technology more attractive than their own versions; they were
an innovative, inquisitive culture, which was in the midst of a cultural
Renaissance when Cortez arrived.  I simply don't think a full-scale
conquest and annexation was necessary to bring this about.

> In those cases where the Spanish were
> deemed inferior by the Aztecs (cooking, textiles, agriculture), the
> Aztec culture has endured to this day. But in the case of politics, I
> suspect most Aztecs prefered to be Spanish peasants than Aztec slaves.

The status of Aztec "slaves" is a tricky issue.  While through crime or
gross personal mismanagement one could become a "slave" in the European
sense of the term, most so-called "slaves" were really much closer to what
we would call indentured servants, or serfs, or some combination of the
two -- making the choice between that status (in a culture with good
social welfare programs and a rather humanistic outlook) and Spanish
peasantry (in a culture in which peasants had virtually no rights or
security) rather less clear-cut than you suggest.

> In the case of religion, most Aztecs prefered to offer sacrifice than be
> offered up as sacrifice.

Again, we run into a cultural barrier here.  For the Aztec warrior caste
(and this includes both the Mexica and most of their enemies), sacrifice
was the outcome of being captured live on the battlefield -- *and this was
considered a VERY desirable fate!*  Late in the 15th century, there's some
evidence that the Mexica began conducting unprecedented mass sacrifices
for political terror purposes, but in the main, sacrifical victims went
willingly.  This strains credulity for most people -- but remember, our
own European cultural history venerates Christian martyrs, many of whom
were complicit in their own sacrifices.

> And in the case of language, most Aztecs
> prefered the Spanish printing press to their own ideograms. (Those
> Aztecs who were illiterate kept their old language to this day.)

There's strong historical evidence that the Aztec were on their way toward
an alphabetic (or at least syllabic) form of writing by the late 15th
century.  In any case, the Aztec scholars pounced on Latin writing with
wild glee almost immediately following the Conquest; they very clearly
recognized its superior utility.  There are Latin-character documents by
native writers in Nahuatl (the Aztec language) dating from 1528 -- just
seven years after the fall of Tenochtitlan.  Pretty impressive. 

> And of
> course, the technology was nice too, but it didn't affect most people in
> those days.

One of the big problems facing the Aztecs was that their region of
operations -- central Mexico -- is very iron- and copper-poor.  They
developed rather good gold- and silver-working technology, but never had
the means to develop practical bronze or iron implements.  For hard-edged
cutting tools, they used obsidian, which they worked with exquisite skill.
So, yes, they welcomed advanced technology -- when they had the materials
which underlie it.

> > Of course, the Aztecs didn't have a clue what sort of "war" the Spanish
> > were fighting - they were more used to their own more or less ritual
> > "flower wars" for sacrifices and didn't really cotton on till too late that
> > the Spanish had a different aim completely.
> 
> That may be true of the Aztec nobility, but I suspect the huge army of
> Aztec slaves who marched with the Spaniards had some idea of what was
> going on.

The native armies which allied with Cortez were not slaves; they were the
free populations of Huaxtlan, Tlaxcala, and other regions loosely
incorporated into or outside of the Aztec Empire.

> And, of course, Cortez, the emperor of Mexico, ultimately submitted to
> his own government. Estigaribia, the emperor of Vland, did not.

Cortez was never "emperor of Mexico;" were he given such a title, it would
have been "Viceroy" (to the King of Spain), but due to his relatively
inept political skills, he got rather seriously bypassed for the job.  In
fact, he managed his affairs so badly that, in the midst of the most
delicate state of negotiations with Motecuhzoma (before fighting broke
out), he had to run back to repel an attack on his base at Veracruz -- *by
the Spanish governor of Cuba*.  Now *that* is what I call office politics! 

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #802
**********************************
