[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 Rupert Boleyn 17 Jun 2022 05:27 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>