Well, first of all, the 3I, AFAIK, is NOT patterned after Imperial Rome, per se. There are some similarities but that's true for any Imperial regimes that have even existed.
The Sector Fleets were never presented as being as potentially unreliable as the Roman Legions you are using as examples so I just don't buy that either.
(I already mentioned my 'everyone goes insane' objection. The 3I just was not that way & having it suddenly, magically transformed was just no good)
(Yeah, I can see it now, "Man-oh-man, all us admirals have been waiting for centuries for a chance to wreck everything so let's have at it!")
While using Roman Legions (and Roman history generally) is not a perfect analogy, I find it difficult to find a better one. The idea of a perfectly loyal and cohesive military establishment is comparatively recent - at best in the last 150-200 years, and even then only in a few nations. (Indeed, one of the surprising things about the US Civil War is that, as best I can determine, no units of the pre-1861 American military declared for the Confederacy.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Translation; The 3I really could/should be more like the 'recent' military except that the 'GM-from-Hell' decided that anything goes. So everything did!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few points suggesting that the Imperial Navy was potentially unreliable:
* Given prolonged transit and communication times (7wk from Rome to York; 30wk+ from Capital to Regina) it is inconceivable to imagine a perfectly cohesive Imperial Navy. The 4FW was fought entirely without central input.
* The Imperial Navy has a precedent of "marching on the Core". Indeed, the present Imperial Dynasty was established by a frontier subsector Duchess (gasp!) installed by military force personally loyal to her.
* The control over the Imperial forces during the 5FW seems to have been based on the interpersonal disputes of the Frontier nobility than any central command.
* As far as I am aware, Naval personnel swear personal loyalty to the Emperor and his successors, rather than to the Imperial state and people. So if there is no clear successor ...
I agree that GDW never presented the Fleets as being potentially unreliable. Then again, they were never presented as being particularly reliable either. If there was always the possibility of the Fleets been less-than-perfectly reliable to the Imperial state (and how would that even be defined, other than with reference to the Emperor?), would the TNS and official Imperial publications be drawing attention to the issue??
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well they also didn't say that there wasn't widespread cannibalism either did they?
Once again, this was just more of the "let's turn the 3I into a 'crazy-ass' circus" narrative where everyone & everything you thought you knew is thrown out the window!
"Just when you thought that the 3I was a rational operation, everything goes to hell! GOTCHA!" "GM-from-Hell' after releasing next set of TNS dispatches
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all if wasn't *just* the Core Sector fleet.
A number of other sectors came too.
Not to mention the rest of Core Domain.
As far as Illelish's forces are concerned they were undoubtedly the least experienced as there was & had been no threat along that Domains broders for centuries. It was a 'back-water'.
(Actually, the only fleets that had any real experience were the ones that participated in the recent 5thFW & Corridor's Sector Fleet incl some of those & guess whose side the Corridor Sector Fleet was fighting on?)
The forces of Illelish, even if by some impossible miracle Dulinor, could've got most of the domain to 'drink the kool-aid', would've been 'pounded like a drum'!
The involvement Sector Fleets other than Core's in Lucan's defence was delayed by at least a year: 6-9 months to give the message of the assassination, 3 months to gather forces, and 6-9 months to send those forces. With preparation, Dulinor's Loyal Fleet could well have been at Capital before the Core fleet had even gathered (especially if the line of succession was disputed). Don't forget that members of the dissolved Moot - already upset at Lucan - are returning to their HiPop homeworlds in Core at the same time as the official Naval orders are arriving to "come defend Lucan". Fun, games, and confusion should follow.
Given that, I can understand Archduke Brzk and Duke Craig deciding, "Welp, the whole shebang has probably played out one way or another by now. No point me declaring my fleets for the side that might already have lost!" So send a request for clarification, pledging loyalty to the Imperium. With the delay in return mail, that buys you another year or so, and at least you will have an idea which way the wind is blowing by then
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
With the J6 Fleet Couriers, I suspect things could go faster. According to canon the sector admirals in Corridor & Old Expanses really jumped on it & split!
Even so, there's no rational way (except by GM fiat) that Dulinor can perform such a complex & massive buildup op w/o attracting attention & even so, the entire Illelish Domain was simply not that well armed as there was no reason to be. Even the Core Fleet by itself would've whipped their asses. Esp since the idea that all of Dulinor's Domain would've been 'all-in' with him was silly, at best.
But the GM says, "From now on everything goes good for Dulinor, bad for Lucan. And that's that!" Well, we've all had dm's like that right? So, what do you do? I'm thinking, "walk away". Apparently that's what happened in a lot of cases. And then GDW 'doubled down' with Virus....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of 'succession'.
I believe we all accept the importance of 'blood-ties' in the process. Now, as best I recall, wasn't Lucan actually the 'next-in-line' according to a 'blood-line' succession (similar to the Royal Family in the UK)? Yeah, I know the Moot was required to ratify but, heck, does that mean that Strephon's daughter might NOT have really been next-in-line?
That the Moot could just do as it pleased?
Once again, I think there is an unfair comparison with modern nation states like the USA here. The USA has an explicit written constitution, and a generally-independent and respected body charged with interpreting and protecting that constitution.
Feudal states (and even the modern UK) say, "We have a constitution, it is just not written down anywhere ... or at least not in a single document." Precedent is highly important - not just common law, but established traditions, and even privately written documents that describe "what we have generally done so far" (google "Works of Authority").
So by one school of thought, yes, Lucan is the next-in-line - that is one point in his constitutional favour. On the other hand, what if the Moot unanimously declares AGAINST an heir-apparent? Well, that is a point in favour of the Moot's alternative candidate. Don't forget, the Moot is not a body who derive their power from the Emperor (as Congress derives power from the Constitution); it is made up of individuals who have real power of their own. De facto, the Emperor can only reign as long his vassals continue to recognise his right to do so (and until the Moot is able to find a candidate to unite behind as an alternative to the Emperor).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The members of The Moot didn't really have that much power anymore. They didn't control fleets, & except for their 'fiefs', just about everything else was governed by 'Imperial Charters' & they were also subject to the subsector & sector Imperial Govs, not to mention the new Domain-level recently established.
If the members of the Moot really had any power Dulinor would've been nowhere cuz' he couldn't possible have gotten enough of them to drink his kool-aid! And surely not even able to try w/o attracting way too much attention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this ties back in to the discussion above. In all cases, the "winner" in any dispute is going to be who controls the institutions of state generally, and the military in particular.
* In the case of a modern constitutional state, the military explicitly declares allegiance to "the people and the Constitution" or something similar. Thus in the event of a constitutional crisis the military is generally cohesive and will remain in barracks while lawyers hash things over about who has right of way. Of course, this relies on rapid communications across the entire national apparatus, so that everyone remains on the same page.
* In a feudal/medieval state, the military declares allegiance to an individual or office (whether to the Emperor / to Strephon, or to Norris / to the Duke). Indeed, the boundaries of the state are _defined_ by the Emperor and those who owe loyalty to him/her. If the individual dies, or the office becomes vacant, then there is the possibility of allegiances being divided ... especially with communications lag leading to multiple "truths".
The first few years of a new monarch are always the most uneasy. The new monarch is, in a sense, coasting on the legitimacy of their predecessor until they have a chance to build a sense of authority in their own right. During that period, another individual (or institution) might be able to coalesce more power around themselves.
So, no, the Moot could not do as it pleased. The Imperium seems to be a fairly classical feudal state, where "power" is shared between a number of individuals and institutions. When things are running well, that power is aligned to be working towards a single goal, either because of a single influential Emperor/King, or else a tightly cooperating council of "leading barons and clergy" (usually trying to keep a weakened Emperor/King on a short leash, or with a tradition of a elective "first among equals" King). When the various power centres are at odds, well then Kings are in trouble (see Kings Henry II, John, Richard II, Henry VI, Richard III, Charles I, James II ... just to give some examples from a single "stable" feudal nation!)
The Imperial family had (it appears) a lot of good will among the high nobility over a number of generations (but note that Styryx appears to have been forced from office), so Iphegenia as an adult of (apparently) good disposition and connections would probably have had an easy passage onto the Throne. But woe-betide her if she tried a major Imperial re-organisation in the first few years of her reign, especially before she had produced an heir.
The "Moot" as a constitutional institution probably has little power. But if a group of High Nobles can get an overwhelming majority in the Moot then, as individuals, those Nobles can probably frustrate the Emperor's policies and, in extreme circumstances, rise up and force a massive policy change (King John) or even a regime change (King Richard II).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
First off those two examples you mention involved the use of military power.
The moot controls no fleets so has no real power.
At most the Moot can be a nuisance but 'individuals'? Only the Dukes would have a chance as they nominally control fleets.
However,IMO, the 3I, while still supporting the trappings of feudalism, has evolved, much as the UK has, into a more advanced state.
I think the later Austrian (or Austro/Hungarian) Empire is a better example for the 3I. Or maybe the later German Empire.
(In fact, as I recall, in the later German Empire the King of Prussia was the president of the upper assembly (can't remember the name but it was an assembly of the Imperial Lander (States).
with the title of 'Emperor of Germany' but the Chancellor actually ran the show. The Upper House really had most of the power altho the lower house 'Reichstag' had to approve the budget. Each 'Lander' had a fixed number of delegates/votes & Prussia, while only holding a minority, had enough votes (the Chancellor cast all of Prussia's votes) to veto. For some reason the 'heads of state' (mostly hereditary rulers but not all) did not attend but sent delegates who were usually government officials)
The Imperial Charters are another one of the big differences, but so are the subsector & sector governments.
(remember in 'High Guard' there are three different navies to enlist in, local, subsector, & Imperial)
There are also far, far too many systems with far, far, too many people that are governed by more 'modern' forms of government.
The 3I would've disintegrated long ago if it really depended upon classical feudalism.
SAY, Maybe that's what GDW really thought, way back when?
"Heck this crazy conglomeration could've never happened anyway, so why not nave everyone go nuts & see what happens."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------