There`s one question what has been in my mind for a while and I finally decided to ask your opinions and thoughts about it. It was year ago when I was reading through SWTOR`s Facebook page and one very interesting comment caught my eye: the person said that the Sith Empire could be winning if Darths Marr, Malgus and Jadus would be in charge and the Empire would be rid of all the infighting. I can definetely understand Marr and Malgus but what about Jadus? In Agent`s story he says that he wants to create a new Empire where hatred and fear would be universal to all, not just Sith. He accepts aliens but I still don`t understand how he would be creating a stronger Empire.

Your thoughts?

By a strong hand. This is actually what all those 3 have in common.

It is not important if they are patriots, heroes or dictators. What matters is the strong will to fulfill the task. All of them are more than fit for this. And all 3 are not standard Sithlords. In other words, the actual Sith way of rule stinks majorly. Only the Rule of One is working properly. Any given time, this rule was enforced, the one to enforce was successful.

Killing Jadus was understandable. He was a dangerous psychopath. Killing Malgus was the biggest mistake the Empire could ever do. And losing Marr was a tragedy.

The Sith Empire was a small, poorly populated fragment of the Outer Rim when it started the Great Galactic War against the Republic. The same Republic that spanned most of the galaxy, with a population that dwarfed the Empire's, and which controlled the vast industrial sectors of the Core and Colonies. And the war stretched over decades, in which the Republic's strengths would be maximized, and during which its industrial power would be the most crucial determinant of military victory.

The Empire won.

By comparison, in the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet Union held a far smaller edge over Hitlerite Germany in population, raw material, industrial production, and suchlike things. It was certainly far from the trillions available to the Republic. By some measures, German industrial production actually matched or exceeded that of the USSR in 1943 and 1944. Yet the prevailing view among historians of the war is that even this relatively small edge made military victory in the East virtually impossible for Germany.

I think that that's as clear a demonstration as you can get that the story does not really depend on the sort of rules that would allow one to compare it to something real. If that person wants to believe that all the Empire needed to win was for Marr to have the cooperation of a madman and a megalomaniac, neither of whom played well with others, then that person is certainly welcome to believe that.

The Sith Empire was a small, poorly populated fragment of the Outer Rim when it started the Great Galactic War against the Republic. The same Republic that spanned most of the galaxy, with a population that dwarfed the Empire's, and which controlled the vast industrial sectors of the Core and Colonies. And the war stretched over decades, in which the Republic's strengths would be maximized, and during which its industrial power would be the most crucial determinant of military victory.

 

The Empire won.

 

By comparison, in the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet Union held a far smaller edge over Hitlerite Germany in population, raw material, industrial production, and suchlike things. It was certainly far from the trillions available to the Republic. By some measures, German industrial production actually matched or exceeded that of the USSR in 1943 and 1944. Yet the prevailing view among historians of the war is that even this relatively small edge made military victory in the East virtually impossible for Germany.

 

I think that that's as clear a demonstration as you can get that the story does not really depend on the sort of rules that would allow one to compare it to something real. If that person wants to believe that all the Empire needed to win was for Marr to have the cooperation of a madman and a megalomaniac, neither of whom played well with others, then that person is certainly welcome to believe that.

What does this have to do with "the right guy on top". Nothing! You could put the smartest strategist in Hitlers place and he couldn't win against Soviet Russia. To many ressources, to big.

No leading head from the Empire ever wanted to conquer the Republic only by open war.

Those 3 Sith knew this quite well. Marr was the ultimate shield for the Empire. Malgus was the mastermind to cripple the Republic and Jadus was the strategist of the Empire. Simple put Shield, Sword, Mind. All 3 are fit to protect the Sith Empire and to strike against the Eternal Empire. All of them were fit to hold the Sith Empire up agaist the Republic.

Killing Malgus was the biggest mistake the Empire could ever do. .

*activation sound of a lightsabre behind you* As wrath of the true emperor, i hereby sentence you to death for high treason!

I think sooner or later the republic would have crumbled. Why? Because of politics. Bribe enough senators with pearls of glas and the republic will loose it's famous unity. Cowards, all of them

What does this have to do with "the right guy on top". Nothing! You could put the smartest strategist in Hitlers place and he couldn't win against Soviet Russia. To many ressources, to big.

No leading head from the Empire ever wanted to conquer the Republic only by open war.

 

Those 3 Sith knew this quite well. Marr was the ultimate shield for the Empire. Malgus was the mastermind to cripple the Republic and Jadus was the strategist of the Empire. Simple put Shield, Sword, Mind. All 3 are fit to protect the Sith Empire and to strike against the Eternal Empire. All of them were fit to hold the Sith Empire up agaist the Republic.

So you either didn't read what I posted, or didn't understand it.

Which is, I suppose, fine, because you then go on to demonstrate my point. You invent wholesale things that are directly contradicted by the lore ("no leading head [sic] [...] wanted to conquer the Republic"). You create imaginary roles for the men in question that bear little resemblance to their depiction in the game, and which have no real meaning beyond rhetorical flourish. Your post is basically word salad.

And yet, because this is a fictional setting and you can make up whatever you want without much regard to anything else, your post is still not wrong. It isn't right, because it discusses a hypothetical situation in a fictional setting whose creators never saw fit to investigate that hypothetical situation.

None.

The Empire loses 10% of it's entire military in the battle for Corellia. For comparison, that's a higher casualty percentage than what the German military suffered at Stalingrad during the Second World War.

The last chance for the Empire to plausibly win the war was before Corellia.

The Sith Empire's biggest weakness is... welll... the Sith. The Empire started the renewed conflict after the 10 or so years of cold war after the Sack of Coruscant in a position of strength. But that strength was eroded due to the infighting brought on by Malgus, Thanaton, and Baras. To make matters worse, there was also the Dread Masters to contend with as they siphoned off badly needed Imperial reserves until they were finally defeated after a time. The Empire managed to stave off defeat in Rise of the Hutt Cartel with the discovery of Isotope 5, but all that did was restore the even balance of power. Now both factions are at the mercy of Zakuul.

The history of the old EU, before Disney scrapped it, made it abundantly clear that the Sith Empire falls or is banished again by the Republic, only to be rebuilt again as the Brotherhood of Darkness and then destroyed by Darth Bane. Despite corruption and a multitude of other issues, the Republic survives and endures whereas Sith passions undermine Imperial efficiency and lead to defeat, sadly enough.

There`s one question what has been in my mind for a while and I finally decided to ask your opinions and thoughts about it. It was year ago when I was reading through SWTOR`s Facebook page and one very interesting comment caught my eye: the person said that the Sith Empire could be winning if Darths Marr, Malgus and Jadus would be in charge and the Empire would be rid of all the infighting. I can definetely understand Marr and Malgus but what about Jadus? In Agent`s story he says that he wants to create a new Empire where hatred and fear would be universal to all, not just Sith. He accepts aliens but I still don`t understand how he would be creating a stronger Empire.

 

Your thoughts?

Darth Marr is a traditionalist and he believes in the empire, its values and what it stands for. he respects those under his command and is reasonably fair with those who are his enemies.

Darth Malgus has delusions of grandeur, an empire about alien strength being added to the sith empire. he is far from traditional, one might even say heretical. there is no doubt he believes in the empire, however the way he went about it showed that he could not be trusted. When dealing with those he calls his enemies, he is more likely to use them to his own aims.

Darth Jadus Believes that the only way to truly inspire the empire is through fear and obedience. However the way he went about also meant he could not be trusted. whenever Jadus encountered enemies, he either tried to convert them or destroy them.

if these three were in charge you can be sure that Malgus would try plan a coup, Jadus would be planning to fake his own death and take a long view in how to lead the empire and Darth Marr would be in the present making sure the empire doesnt fall apart in the process.

it wont work.

Darth Marr is a traditionalist and he believes in the empire, its values and what it stands for. he respects those under his command and is reasonably fair with those who are his enemies.

 

Darth Malgus has delusions of grandeur, an empire about alien strength being added to the sith empire. he is far from traditional, one might even say heretical. there is no doubt he believes in the empire, however the way he went about it showed that he could not be trusted. When dealing with those he calls his enemies, he is more likely to use them to his own aims.

 

Darth Jadus Believes that the only way to truly inspire the empire is through fear and obedience. However the way he went about also meant he could not be trusted. whenever Jadus encountered enemies, he either tried to convert them or destroy them.

 

if these three were in charge you can be sure that Malgus would try plan a coup, Jadus would be planning to fake his own death and take a long view in how to lead the empire and Darth Marr would be in the present making sure the empire doesnt fall apart in the process.

 

it wont work.

For them working together you are absolutely right. It won't work at all. For each of them each and everyone in particular as a dictator (not the title but the status), I for one belive it would have been worked. Each of them could have taken the Sith Empire focusing on one direction. This is what it takes for the Empire to win. Only one clear path.

The Sith Empire was lost the moment Vititate realised this insignificant feuds between the Sith are what is killing the Empire from inside. No wonder he sees the Sith Empire as a defective experiment.

The reason why I think the Sith Empire is superior to the Republic is because of its entire design. Militaristic, obeying, and cunning to the core against huge bureaucracy, pluralism and corruption. But its major flaw are the Sith themselfes. Only a strong hand that would put the Sith in order could unleash the Sith Empires full potential. But this can not happen because of the nature of the Sith order.

The reason why I think the Sith Empire is superior to the Republic is because of its entire design. Militaristic, obeying, and cunning to the core against huge bureaucracy, pluralism and corruption. But its major flaw are the Sith themselfes. Only a strong hand that would put the Sith in order could unleash the Sith Empires full potential. But this can not happen because of the nature of the Sith order.

I bolded the first sentence of your last paragraph, because it's very interesting to me. Historically, Militaristic, Obedient, Cunning-to-the-Core societies are not very successful. For starters, being cunning to the core requires some ability to deviate from the prescribed plan or to subvert expectations. This is not a trait that can comfortably exist in a monolithic militant culture. It can exist in Militaristic individuals, for sure, but Obedience and cunning-to-the-core are at odds with each other. To the extent that such traits are visible in the Empire (Malgus, Quinn, Imperial Intelligence), they are present because the cunning individuals/organizations are specifically disobeying orders or bucking the system. The Sith tend to be more cunning than your average Imperial, but that's because they specifically consider themselves outside the "system" and above the law. Same goes for comparing them to a less-than-cunning Jedi or Republic senator.

At the same time, pluralism is a trait that leads to strength. You could use genetics as an example: taking the best parts of several individuals and having them work together to improve. Pluralism tends towards creativity and innovation. A diversity of ideas leads to a diversity of approaches to problem solving. Bureaucracy surely has some benefits as well (though having dealt with the USPS recently, I am at a loss as to what they might be ) And Corruption is certainly not a good trait, but I am not sure that it is a defining trait of the Republic.

BONUS! I think I made my main point above, but let's play devil's advocate and imagine that both widely accepted interpretations of the Empire and the Republic are wrong:

Now we could get very generous here and say that our characters encounter extremes of the societies they pass through because they are dealing, by and large, with extraordinary circumstances. Even minor side quests like Burba's scanner test on Coruscant, to use one example. Burba is testing his seismic scanner from the Justicar System. He asks you to go into the Works to scan some stuff, and you do. The results aren't what he wants so he asks you to fudge them. Bingo! Corruption! Well, Burba is not some random Republic Citizen. He is a scientist testing a new technology in between a private fiefdom and an urban wasteland.

Our characters basically spend all their time bouncing back and forth between the halls of power and active or simmering warzones. It's a little tricky to paint a picture of these societies writ large based on the experiences of this game.

I bolded the first sentence of your last paragraph, because it's very interesting to me. Historically, Militaristic, Obedient, Cunning-to-the-Core societies are not very successful.

Sparta, Napoleon's French Empire, England with Cromwell as Lord Protector, Russia, China et al would all like a word with you.

If you mean SW societies, well there are plenty of examples there too.

Sparta, Napoleon's French Empire, England with Cromwell as Lord Protector, Russia, China et al would all like a word with you.

 

If you mean SW societies, well there are plenty of examples there too.

I'm not saying they haven't existed, I'm saying they don't make very successful societies. The examples you quoted thrived in wartime, but what else did they have to offer? Even so, they also all got defeated in war, despite militant societies' alleged superiority.

Russia and China of today are tough to call as we don't know "what's next", historically speaking. They could be harbingers of a new wave of anti-liberalism and centralized authority, they could be "last gasps" of dictatorships as a form of government, they could be the beginning of a hybrid regime.

(Also "Russia" and "China" are at odds with the rest of your list's specificity, such as "Cromwell's England" or "Napoleon's France". It's unclear whether Imperial, Soviet, or Putin's Russia is meant and whether you're talking to one of the Chinese Dynasties, Mao's China, or the pseudo-Communist China of today)

Biggest problem, the SITH RULE. Even the Admirals, Moffs and Grand Moffs who would run the show much better than the Dark Council have to bend to their will and sith are always plotting to stab eachother in the back.

Granted the Moffs are a pack of hyenas. But they'd do a better job and would try to one up eachother, but not at the expense of victory.

Something the sith are CONSTANTLY doing.

Many people are pointing out exactly what I originally said as to why the Empire's chances for victory were zero pre- KOTFE. Its a hard pill to swallow for me and fellow Imperial fans to be sure. The only thing holding the Sith Empire properly together was the Emperor himself. He was the one indomitable force for the last 1000+ years that no Sith could truly contend with. Revan and Meetra were never going to win against him, not even if Scourge hadn't done what he did, much less the dark councils of old. It was when the Emperor grew silent (for reasons we now know why in KOTFE) that the Empire started to unravel. Tremendous credit goes to Darth Marr for holding things together as well as he did. If more Sith were like Marr then things might have gone differently.

Bioware went out of their way to show that the Empire, while smaller population and resource-wise, was more than up to the task of taking on the Republic. It was the very nature of the Sith that is the Empire's greatest threat. As I said previously, as far as the old cannon goes, the Sith Empire loses absolutely, but who knows. Maybe this game could have that destiny change!

Tremendous credit goes to Darth Marr for holding things together as well as he did. If more Sith were like Marr then things might have gone differently.

Same task wanted also Jadus and Malgus. "Make the Empire great again" ...'but definetely not building a wall to Spacemexico'

All 3 were outstanding personas. All 3 would work at best if they enforce the Rule of One, because any other reign would determine their downfall. ...what we actually saw durng the storyplot.

Now we could get very generous here and say that our characters encounter extremes of the societies they pass through because they are dealing, by and large, with extraordinary circumstances. Even minor side quests like Burba's scanner test on Coruscant, to use one example. Burba is testing his seismic scanner from the Justicar System. He asks you to go into the Works to scan some stuff, and you do. The results aren't what he wants so he asks you to fudge them. Bingo! Corruption! Well, Burba is not some random Republic Citizen. He is a scientist testing a new technology in between a private fiefdom and an urban wasteland.

Unless they changed it, Burba doesn't ask you to fudge the results. He only tells you that if he's wrong, you'll get a smaller payout. Fudging the results for a bigger payout is entirely the player's choice.

I think the Empire's chances of Victory were problematic. Some spoilers ahead.

The Republic was, for the most part, united against the Empire. There was little to no infighting and the Republic's forces were working hard to defend themselves against Imperial aggression. So in effect the Republic had one opponent to fight.

The Sith Empire by contrast, had the Republic to fight. They also had each other to fight. The Empire was fighting a war on two fronts, the Republic was not, at least not until the Hutts made their move. My point being, is that though the Empire was a little smaller, I think the old addage of "its not he size of the dog in the fight, its the size of the fight in the dog" that applies best here. The Republic fights because they have to, the Empire fights because its what the Emperor made them want to do.

If the Empire was as united as the Republic and there was no infighting and Sith were willing to cooperate with each other instead of futile power plays like what Marr was trying to achieve. They'd probably have wiped the floor with the Republic. Especially as for the Empire, there is no holds barred when they fight, they do whatever it takes to win.

But Sith infighting and disunity from the outset, Malgus' coup and Imperial defeat on Ilum, the dread masters going rogue, and finally star cabal manipulations of their war effort behind the scenes, Particularly at Corellia. all of this meant the Empire really had little hope of doing anything except just delaying the inevitable; defeat.

Of course, Makeb was a significant turning point. Here, the Empire is given a brief reprieve as the Hutts draw the Republic's attention, and they manage to sneak onto Makeb and secure Isotope 5 for themselves. Not only that, Marr at this point has managed to bring the Dark Council under control, at the very least reducing infighting and power plays. Malgus is "dead" the star cabal is destroyed, and so are the dread masters.

My gut feeling is that Makeb is what saved the Empire from ruination. I think Marr knew that Makeb was their only hope, and if they screwed up here they'd be defeated. So at the conclusion of Makeb I'd say the Empire was back in the game.

The Sith Empire was a small, poorly populated fragment of the Outer Rim when it started the Great Galactic War against the Republic. The same Republic that spanned most of the galaxy, with a population that dwarfed the Empire's, and which controlled the vast industrial sectors of the Core and Colonies. And the war stretched over decades, in which the Republic's strengths would be maximized, and during which its industrial power would be the most crucial determinant of military victory.

 

The Empire won.

 

By comparison, in the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet Union held a far smaller edge over Hitlerite Germany in population, raw material, industrial production, and suchlike things. It was certainly far from the trillions available to the Republic. By some measures, German industrial production actually matched or exceeded that of the USSR in 1943 and 1944. Yet the prevailing view among historians of the war is that even this relatively small edge made military victory in the East virtually impossible for Germany.

 

I think that that's as clear a demonstration as you can get that the story does not really depend on the sort of rules that would allow one to compare it to something real. If that person wants to believe that all the Empire needed to win was for Marr to have the cooperation of a madman and a megalomaniac, neither of whom played well with others, then that person is certainly welcome to believe that.

It should be noted that the Republic was extremely disunited and, IIRC, barely had any kind of standing army. It was a fundamentally soft target that the Empire still couldn't truly break, but the territorial gains the Empire made in that war gave it a much stronger foothold from which to wage war when it started again (of course, the Republic had rebuilt, had an actual army, and lacked the vicious infighting common in the Empire, so it could win this time).

It's also worth noting that even after being taken by surprise, the Republic had successfully fought the Sith Empire to a standstill in the last war, which is partly why the Empire was able to pull off the ruse of negotiating an armistice. The war was at a stalemate.

The Empire only won in the end because it pulled off a surprise attack on Coruscant by using a peace treaty as a ruse, and then used the planet as a bargaining chip. I.E, make peace on our terms, or we'll level the place.

Sparta, Napoleon's French Empire, England with Cromwell as Lord Protector, Russia, China et al would all like a word with you.

 

If you mean SW societies, well there are plenty of examples there too.

Sparte was on the brink of collapse more than once in its great war with Athens and only survived due to rebellions in Athens' empire and to the support of its allies in Korinthos, Thebai, and Iran. The empire it established after Athens' defeat fragmented almost immediately. Lakedaimon became a military nonentity following the battles of Leuktra and Mantineia, with a single brief exception during the war of Kleomenes III, who attempted to reform Spartan society. For most of classical history, Sparte was a provincial town with no real military importance, whose leaders talked a big game but whose armies were too small and outdated to pose a serious threat.

The Empire of Napoléon conquered itself to death. It was doomed from the start, because the Emperor was incapable of making peace with anybody on any sustainable basis, but lacked the resources to fight the rest of the world indefinitely. Much of why it survived can be traced to the Emperor himself, who possessed excellent military skills and superb gambler's instincts. Much of why it was ultimately doomed can also be traced to the Emperor.

I'm not sure I would make any claim that the society of the English Commonwealth was "militaristic", let alone "obedient" or "cunning-to-the-core", whatever those things mean. "Russia" and "China" are even more dubious.

It should be noted that the Republic was extremely disunited and, IIRC, barely had any kind of standing army. It was a fundamentally soft target that the Empire still couldn't truly break, but the territorial gains the Empire made in that war gave it a much stronger foothold from which to wage war when it started again (of course, the Republic had rebuilt, had an actual army, and lacked the vicious infighting common in the Empire, so it could win this time).

The war lasted for twenty-eight years. Even if the Republic had no standing army, which is untrue, a three-decade war means that the existence or nonexistence of a standing army would be totally irrelevant. By the end of the war, the standing forces on both sides would be utterly exhausted: manpower and industrial power, or the ability to create new armies and new fleets, would be the primary determinants of victory.

And the Republic certainly did not lack a standing military. It possessed many standing militaries in the form of the sector fleets and armies, most of which had ample resources and a long military tradition, and without which the Republic would have been completely unable to function. Even if the centrally-organized military was small in comparison to the sector militaries, which it was, the Republic's existing forces were far excess to requirements.

Republic disunity is briefly mentioned but is hardly a salient factor in most explanations of the war. Even Republic disunity, however, is virtually irrelevant. The Sith Empire's starting point was the equivalent of a couple of sectors. The Core on its own dwarfed Sith resources. What would have potentially submarined the Pubs would have been outright civil wars, but there are few descriptions of these and most instances of separatism are supposed to have come after the Treaty of Coruscant.

Besides, the Empire had to deal with its own civil wars, both before and after the Treaty of Coruscant, and surely these would be far more devastating. But, apparently, they weren't.

It's difficult to convey exactly how badly the Sith were outnumbered in the war. This is partially because exact numbers do not exist. But even inexact, but plausible, numbers would point up the fact that the entire Sith Empire could fit inside the Republic dozens of times over, even if we only consider the volume of space controlled rather than what was inside it; that the Republic controlled virtually every industrially developed planet in the galaxy, and those it controlled were capable of vastly higher production than the Empire's; and that the Republic's worlds' population was at least several thousand percent higher than that of the Empire.

[quote=Euphrosyne;8913028The war lasted for twenty-eight years. Even if the Republic had no standing army, which is untrue, a three-decade war means that the existence or nonexistence of a standing army would be totally irrelevant. By the end of the war, the standing forces on both sides would be utterly exhausted: manpower and industrial power, or the ability to create new armies and new fleets, would be the primary determinants of victory.

And the Republic certainly did not lack a standing military. It possessed many standing militaries in the form of the sector fleets and armies, most of which had ample resources and a long military tradition, and without which the Republic would have been completely unable to function. Even if the centrally-organized military was small in comparison to the sector militaries, which it was, the Republic's existing forces were far excess to requirements.

Republic disunity is briefly mentioned but is hardly a salient factor in most explanations of the war. Even Republic disunity, however, is virtually irrelevant. The Sith Empire's starting point was the equivalent of a couple of sectors. The Core on its own dwarfed Sith resources. What would have potentially submarined the Pubs would have been outright civil wars, but there are few descriptions of these and most instances of separatism are supposed to have come after the Treaty of Coruscant.

Besides, the Empire had to deal with its own civil wars, both before and after the Treaty of Coruscant, and surely these would be far more devastating. But, apparently, they weren't.

It's difficult to convey exactly how badly the Sith were outnumbered in the war. This is partially because exact numbers do not exist. But even inexact, but plausible, numbers would point up the fact that the entire Sith Empire could fit inside the Republic dozens of times over, even if we only consider the volume of space controlled rather than what was inside it; that the Republic controlled virtually every industrially developed planet in the galaxy, and those it controlled were capable of vastly higher production than the Empire's; and that the Republic's worlds' population was at least several thousand percent higher than that of the Empire.

Well, I admit, I just made some of that up in the hopes that it was true, because I hate having things go unexplained. At least KotFE actually said that the Eternal Empire's victory is mostly down to the space magic of the Eternal Fleet, and had it be a plot point.

Well, I admit, I just made some of that up in the hopes that it was true, because I hate having things go unexplained. At least KotFE actually said that the Eternal Empire's victory is mostly down to the space magic of the Eternal Fleet, and had it be a plot point.

*shrug* I don't mark the 1-50 story down for having the Sith Empire basically come out of nowhere. It's not a plausible story, but this is a setting of space magic and laser swords and FTL and ecumenopoleis. Plausible is not really that interesting or important.

The only reason I bring it up at all is because it means that there's no reason to privilege any one idea about the setting than any other. It should be preposterous that the Empire would be able to run better with Marr, Malgus, and Jadus working together. The very idea of them working together is faintly ridiculous. But the setting has such ridiculous things in it already that my belief that these things would be silly has no more weight than the OP's "friend's" belief that they would be entirely possible.

Sparte was on the brink of collapse more than once in its great war with Athens and only survived due to rebellions in Athens' empire and to the support of its allies in Korinthos, Thebai, and Iran. The empire it established after Athens' defeat fragmented almost immediately. Lakedaimon became a military nonentity following the battles of Leuktra and Mantineia, with a single brief exception during the war of Kleomenes III, who attempted to reform Spartan society. For most of classical history, Sparte was a provincial town with no real military importance, whose leaders talked a big game but whose armies were too small and outdated to pose a serious threat.

 

The Empire of Napoléon conquered itself to death. It was doomed from the start, because the Emperor was incapable of making peace with anybody on any sustainable basis, but lacked the resources to fight the rest of the world indefinitely. Much of why it survived can be traced to the Emperor himself, who possessed excellent military skills and superb gambler's instincts. Much of why it was ultimately doomed can also be traced to the Emperor.

 

I'm not sure I would make any claim that the society of the English Commonwealth was "militaristic", let alone "obedient" or "cunning-to-the-core", whatever those things mean. "Russia" and "China" are even more dubious.

Each altered the course of history and left their mark either globally or within their known world/sphere of influence. All civilizations fall, even the great ones. Focusing on the negatives of each blinds you to what they accomplished.

My view on England with Cromwell as Lord Protector may be biased as I am Irish. For as much as I despise the man and his policies and tactics, England was thriving under his guidance until they restored the monarchy.

Each altered the course of history and left their mark either globally or within their known world/sphere of influence. All civilizations fall, even the great ones. Focusing on the negatives of each blinds you to what they accomplished.

Don't move the goal posts. It's entirely accurate to point out that Lakedaimon and Imperial France were not particularly 'successful' at what they tried to do. It's also accurate to point out that most of Lakedaimon's problems, specifically, stemmed from its self-consciously "militaristic" society, and that Imperial France's society, to the extent that it was "militaristic", probably acquired that trait from the same root causes that gave France such severe problems. No one denies that Imperial France was a glorious, but doomed, flame-out.