I never really had a big issue with the "Rebellion" ... but then again, I was squarely in the "opportunistic 12yo gamer" group at the time.  :)

Now, with a few more grey hairs, the "everyone immediately, instantaneously going literally insane" does tend to stand out.

So ... in an attempt to bring it back to a more in-universe topic (and hopefully a more charitable one!), IS the Rebellion realistic?  Keep in mind that history is full of events that were considered "low-probability" until they actually happened.

Are there any historical precedents for apparently stable empires falling apart with a single knock?  Well, yes, actually.

Consider ...

After ascending to the throne at an usually young age, the Emperor had reigned for quite a long time (compared to prior Emperors).  His reign was considered to be domestically quite successful and stable, with steady and deliberate internal reforms.  

At this point, the Empire was attacked by traditional enemy that was (nominally) weaker than the Empire.  Unexpectedly, Imperial forces suffered a number of humiliating setbacks and defeats for in the first year or two of the war.  After some significant reforms, Imperial forces were able to fight back, and by the 3rd/4th year the situation had been restored to the status quo antebellum.  Despite a negotiated end to the war, both sides claimed victory.

However, the failings of the Imperial military and other institutions during the war led to tensions between the Emperor and other powerful Imperial institutions and individuals.  As a result, the Emperor was assassinated by a grouping of Imperial troops with local affiliations, who then nominated their own commander as Emperor. 

The new "Emperor", was unable to gain recognition beyond his local power base.  With no unequivocal heir to support, forces in the Capital instead nominated an alternative candidate for Emperor.  But the alternative candidate himself was unpopular, and sparked the formation of further factions aimed at turning out the alternative candidate without necessarily supporting the "Emperor".

Within a few years, multiple so-called Emperors had been slain in battle, assassinated (at times by their own troops), or committed suicide.  Eventually the Empire fractured into a handful of successor states.  Some of the successor state leaders made a claim to be recognised as the rightful Emperor without attempting to take over the central Imperial apparatus; some merely claimed to be Emperors of autonomous states.  

The central rump state was in a state of perpetual low-level warfare with some successor states.  With others, there was a de facto recognition of the status quo, and an official policy of "we'll deal with them later".  But ultimately the central rump state had difficulty maintaining authority over the reduced area it supposedly controlled.

Overall, the Empire suffered from:

*  increased local self-sufficiency, and decreased influence of the usual power centres in the Capital;

*  replacement of a sophisticated currency-based trading economy with a barter-based subsistence economy;

*  foreign invasions and plagues depopulating "HiPop" centres.

...

OK, so a bit long-winded, but the parallels between the Rebellion and the Roman Crisis of the 3rd Century are apropos.  (As for the Virus ... well, let's leave that to another day ...)

To me, the general course of the "Rebellion" and the end result (up until the release of the Virus in 1130) are entirely believable.  The individual actions, the shrill TNS reporting, and the self-indulgent journal entries as given in "Survival Margin" used to justify those outcomes are ... a little juvenile; or at least they read that way to me now that I am in my 40's.

So, sans Virus, what could have happened?

To my reading of Survival Margin, Dulinor's Coronation Fleet was almost certainly going to reach and take (and perhaps sack) Capital.  Even if Lucan did not fall in battle, Berlin-1945-style, I really can't see a bastard like that NOT getting a bullet in the back of his head from an "ally" after he loses access to the wealth and prestige that keeps all his sycophants in line.

So during the latter half of 1130, news spreads through the Imperium that Dulinor is (again) claiming, from the Imperial Palace, to be Emperor.  The general response would be lukewarm - "Didn't we see this holovid 14 years ago??"

Overall, even if we ease back on the whole bleak Black War/Hard Times thing, the Imperial economy is going to be be badly shaken.  Western Europe never really recovered economically from the Crisis of the 3rd Century, and I believe that 3rd Century Europe would be much more economically and demographically robust than the highly interdependent worlds of the Third Imperium.  At BEST the economic damage would take decades to repair ... and if if a handful of HiPop worlds in each sector dropped back a single Pop number (90% depopulation), it might take centuries!

So let's give Dulinor a best-case scenario.  He controls the rump Imperium, in a broad band from Verge to Core, maybe 4 sectors.  His realm has drastically reduced capital (fleet-in-existence, undamaged HiPop worlds, even intact naked-skin ecosystems), and his authority even over those 4 sectors is questionable: consider the Verge Combine de-facto independence, and I question whether the rump Lucanic realm would be all-in for Dulinor given the sector-wide Black War zone between Ilelish and Core.  Maybe, maybe, he could keep his realm intact without further contraction.  He certainly would not have the strength to expand outwards into the Ziru Sirkaa or Margaret's Realm (or the League of Antares, assuming Brzk survives) against resistance.

Would the nascent successor states be willing to be diplomatically brought back into the fold?  I can't see it in this generation; what's in it for them?  Sure, there might be some nominal recognition of Dulinor as Emperor, but even that is a stretch (esp. if Margaret has claimed the throne for herself or her children).  But Dulinor would have no ability to impose policy on, or reign in, the leaders of those successor states.

Even Dulinor's idealistic "democratisation" program is likely to be utterly ignored in favour of the more pragmatic requirement to hold on to power.  In reduced financial circumstances, as Septimius Severus said, "Enrich the soldiers, scorn everybody else".  If Dulinor doesn't make sure his fleets are getting paid (which will need extortionate taxes on the remaining economically-viable HiPop worlds), he is going to cop a bullet himself.

TL; DR:

*  The general course and outcomes of the Rebellion are believable.

*  Without the Virus, the likely outcome over the next generation or so is the formation of a number of quasi-stable Successor States up to a sector (3mth travel across) in size.

*  Unlike the Roman Crisis of the 3rd Century and the 3I's Civil War, the massive loss of wealth/capital (likely >50%) and population (?25%) within the Safes/Frontiers means that the Successor States will have little ability (or incentive) to re-integrate the Outlands/Wilds (likely 95%+ loss of wealth, and 50-75% loss of population) within the next 100 years ... and NO ability or incentive to re-integrate with other Successor States.

*  Net result: a new Long Night ... and probably a pretty nice adventuring milieu!

************************

Cheers,

Ken