[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)

Re: [TML] Esalin Kurt Feltenberger 17 Jun 2022 14:58 UTC

On 6/17/2022 10:27 AM, Phil Pugliese - philpugliese at yahoo.com (via
tml list) wrote:
> Did they really?  I don't recall the Zhos ever starting a war for
> conquest, they were supposedly only to keep the 3I from intruding and
> interfering in there space.  The Sword Worlds might have been different,
> but other than as a useful tool, I don't think the Zhos really cared
> what they did.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I've had the feeling that the 3rd & 5th FW's were different.
>
> After all, the Zho's made deep penetrations in both, w/ the goal of
> capturing Rhylanor in both &, in #3, they actually captured Porozlo &
> besieged Rhylanor, unsuccessfully, for quite a while.
>
>  Also, as I recall, they lost the most important battles pretty badly.
> Still, I wouldn't exactly say that they sued for peace.
> IMO, Capital has never really cared much about the S'marches going all
> the way back to the 1stFW.
> Which gave Adm Plankwell his reason to bring his grievance (lack of
> support) to the Empress herself.

Yes, they did do deep raids, but again, they must be viewed in the
overall goal of stopping Imperial expansion and sending a very clear
warning.  Given that there are relatively few, if any, near peer
adversaries bordering the Consulate other than the Imperium, if the Zhos
really wanted to conquer the Marches they have plenty of resources they
could concentrate to the point where they not only have numerical
superiority but also class superiority to the point where they'd
probably be able to match the Imperium's number of CAs with DNs, and DDs
with CAs.

The Imperium has too many near peer adversaries to strip much more than
one or maybe two sectors worth of heavy assets.

While the Zhos did "loose", in the greater context they won because
their goals were met.

--
Kurt Feltenberger
xxxxxx@thepaw.org/xxxxxx@yahoo.com
“Before today, I was scared to live, after today, I'm scared I'm not living enough." - Me

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com