[TML] Esalin
Jim Vassilakos
(16 Jun 2022 16:09 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Phil Pugliese
(16 Jun 2022 16:56 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Jim Vassilakos
(16 Jun 2022 19:50 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Phil Pugliese
(16 Jun 2022 20:26 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Cian Witherspoon
(16 Jun 2022 20:32 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Jeff Zeitlin
(16 Jun 2022 21:55 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Jim Vassilakos
(16 Jun 2022 22:44 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Thomas RUX
(16 Jun 2022 23:04 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Phil Pugliese
(16 Jun 2022 23:44 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Jim Vassilakos
(17 Jun 2022 00:14 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Phil Pugliese
(17 Jun 2022 00:40 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin Rupert Boleyn (17 Jun 2022 05:27 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Phil Pugliese
(17 Jun 2022 09:01 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Rupert Boleyn
(17 Jun 2022 09:26 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Phil Pugliese
(17 Jun 2022 14:56 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Rupert Boleyn
(17 Jun 2022 17:24 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Phil Pugliese
(17 Jun 2022 20:02 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Phil Pugliese
(17 Jun 2022 20:10 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Kurt Feltenberger
(17 Jun 2022 20:59 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Phil Pugliese
(17 Jun 2022 22:34 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Kurt Feltenberger
(18 Jun 2022 00:13 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Phil Pugliese
(18 Jun 2022 01:11 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Rupert Boleyn
(19 Jun 2022 21:53 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Phil Pugliese
(19 Jun 2022 22:32 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Kurt Feltenberger
(17 Jun 2022 14:06 UTC)
|
Outworld Coalition (was: Esalin)
David Johnson
(17 Jun 2022 14:17 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Outworld Coalition (was: Esalin)
Rupert Boleyn
(17 Jun 2022 17:19 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Outworld Coalition (was: Esalin)
David Johnson
(17 Jun 2022 23:46 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Phil Pugliese
(17 Jun 2022 14:25 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Kurt Feltenberger
(17 Jun 2022 14:58 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Phil Pugliese
(17 Jun 2022 15:23 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Rupert Boleyn
(17 Jun 2022 17:17 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Phil Pugliese
(16 Jun 2022 23:29 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Esalin
Phil Pugliese
(16 Jun 2022 23:23 UTC)
|
On 17Jun2022 1240, Phil Pugliese - philpugliese at yahoo.com (via tml list) wrote: > Now, to me, the 'client state' status just doesn't make much sense. > After all, it was actually part of the 3I previously, wasn't it?In the 5thFW boardgame, the units stationed there were Zho & Imp 'colonial' units. > Oh well, typical for the TU, I suppose. Esalin doesn't have a huge population (~2 million), and its position isn't particularly strategic in the 1100s, with J4 fleets being the norm. Thus leaving it a client state as part of the post-FFW peace treaty costs the Imperium nothing. Taking a few chunks out of the Sword Worlds to show them the error of their ways seems to have been the Imperial priority. The Zho's knew they lost and, Imperial propaganda notwithstanding, have always been very pragmatic, so there was little reason to go and demand a bunch of previously unaligned worlds be granted to the Imperium. That'd just be signing up for decades of 'peacekeeping' and the annexed ex-Sword Worlds would be providing as much of that sort of training as the Marines would need. -- Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>