[HIST] classical matchups

Nathan wrote:

My replies offset with ==>

-----------------------------------
> OUDF
> Allies/Friendly: NAC, FCT, NSL, Swiss, NI
> Enemies: ESU, IC

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
> Allies/Friendly: FCT, NSL, OUDF, NI, Swiss, RH
> Enemies: ESU, FSE, PAU, LLAR

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
> sometimes work with the FSE.

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
NAC and the ESU. Also, see my comments on the ESU below.

==> Yes. 

> NSL
> Allies/Friendly: NAC, OUDF, Swiss, RH
> Enemies: FSE, ESU

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
> Allies/Friendly: LLAR, IF, IC, FSE
> Enemies: RH, NAC, NSL, OUDF, Japan, NI
>
> I'm not even sure the IC shouldn't be an enemy too.

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
> Allies/Friendly: PAU, ESU, LLAR
> Enemies: NAC, NSL, IF, NFR

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
> Allies/Friendly: NAC, OUDF, FCT, Japan
> Enemies: IF

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
> Allies/Friendly: ESU, FSE
> Enemies: NAC, FCT

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
> Allies/Friendly: FSE
> Enemies: NAC, RH, IF

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

------------------------------------------
Thomas R. S. Barclay
Voice: (613) 722-3232 ext 349
e-mail: tomb@bitheads.com

Do not go where the path may lead, 
go instead where there is no path 
and leave a trail.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)  
------------------------------------------