Before anyone points it out, we are aware of the irony of using "Empire" in the name of the video when a large segment of the video is dedicated towards how you should never use the word "Empire". If you have been affected by this indefensible act of hypocrisy, then make sure to follow us on Facebook and Twitter! twitter.com/TemplinEdu facebook.com/TemplinInstitute/
The Templin Institute I don't know if you were sarcastic at that part about the "democratic people's republic" truly showing that they're a government of the people. But I laughed. Also, feudalism in sci-fi? Like Dune? Or Klingons?
Does Confederation of sovereign colonies work? You should do more episodes on sci-fi government names and if the name matches the government. If not what would be a better name.
He follows that with Mountains which made me go right to the Mountain Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, and before that the Mountainous Republic of the Norther Caucasus. I get what they meant, but it is silly in hindsight given how many real countries break that rule so flagrantly
This video got a dislike before it had been up long enough for anyone to watch the whole thing. We're finally becoming a real TH-cam channel. Thanks everybody!
I haven't made it that far :( but I love your stuff! I'm basing a new Stargate series of you guys :) (links to your channel will be included naturally ;D )
I'm leading a Earth base empire in Stellaris its called the Terran Republic Empire we're a military dictatorship we elect are Emporer after the other dies from the military we use a lot of Xeno slave labor and only humanoid xenos are treated as Terran we control 1567 out of 2000 systems and rest of the galaxy are nothing but our vasilies states
The Templin Institute this was meet. I like what you said about empires. An empire in the traditional sense could never really work in sci-fi I actually made one before but made sure that it had context. In it the empire was built during conflict as they built by unifying or conquering all the warlords In Their region of space. They also faced external threats that required martial power to defend against. As for government they had a society that values intelligence and skill so one could gain or lose nobility due to personal ability. They also had a senate that could challenge the nobles if needed.
There's a historical precedent for naming a galactic-spanning civilization after the planet Earth, in my opinion. The Roman Empire was, after all, named after the City-State of Rome.
I also think naming a nation the "State of Earth" or whatever, would invoke a sense of Earth centralism, which could lead to interesting politics. I mean, it's not like Rome was nice to its colonies.
It makes sense. With the reality of history, nations all start somewhere and often need a name early on so, of course they name themselves what represents what they were at their foundation. As they grow, they arent going to keep swapping or voting on names and they certainly arent going to care if enemy culture gets assimilated cause they want the opposite, to assimilate the individual to the nation.
12:05 if you delve into the names of most countries you'll find their meanings tied into Geography. For example, the Scottish name for Scotland is Alba, which is derived from Albion which was derived from a Roman word describing the white cliffs of Dover. Literally named after the first bit of geography many Romans saw.
Yeah, also the region of Transilvania, it has a Latin etymology, for Trans means over and silvae is the word used for Woods, so basically Transilvania means The Land From Across the Forest or something. It's not really uncommon to name a nation based on it's geographical intricacies. After all, a nation is fundamentally bound to Earth, ain't it? Perhaps that's why it is rather difficult to name a Space Faring civilization.
I think the importance is to worldbuild this correctly in a similar way, Nothing wrong with having say, the Antorran Confederacy for a multi-species multi-planet government, if Antorra is an agreed word for space between its constituents, sort of like how some words in our world stem very similarly. Although how to standardise this would be the worldbuild challenge. That being said having the various constituents engage in contact wars and peroidically undergo occupations by one or a plethora of cross-occupations in their histories would probably solve this through some level of cultural osmosis.
This works precisely because it's not a sovereign government. It's a military hierarchy intending to turn rule over to an actual government after completing its task.
Humans are the majority species in the Trade Federation, and the galaxy at large, and so would have most of the "yee or nee" power with the name. At the same time as making up like 70% of all intelligent life, the 30% that remains is divided up between tonnes upon tonnes of other races -> division among those who aren't you makes you stronger in comparison as it weakens them. This is on top of most of that 30% remaining being very obviously related to humans, most likely mutant strains. Furthermore, species in star wars generally think like humans, even the ones that don't even look like humans, and the point he made was with regards to if they have a different psychology about them.
I think the word Sol/Solar is actually a good descriptor for anything that is specifically based on our home star system. "The Solar Union" "The Sol Federation"
That works in an early interstellar setting, or a unified interplanetary setting. However in a later interstellar setting, all those other systems might feel underrepresented. Additionally in a interplanetary setting that hasn't been unified, calling your government Sol or Solar might be construed as violating other states sovereignty. That could still work if you are a majority power there, but less so if you aren't. Like, we call the USA America, but if it didn't economically politically and militarily dominate North America would people still call it that?
You should've included "kingdom" as many countries today still use it in their official name. And that is for historical reasons. Like, I don't remember hearing it's use in a sci fi name. It would be cool.
“Confederation of Earth” is a lot like “Senatus Populusque Romanus” Almost the whole empire was not in Rome. But that’s the indisputable center of power and culture.
@@janusceasar7851 depends on what you define the as the eyes. Is it just the eyeballs or does it include all things that aid with vision? That would include the tear glands.
A democracy can also be an empire. In the early 20th century Britian was a fully fledged democracy but also held huge colonial possessions and ran an empire
Lee Jenkins Exactly! Not to mention a Constitutional Monarchy with Queen Victoria as the head of the Empire and fountain of Honor and Pride. As well as a functioning Aristocratic class which served in Parliament, Armed forces, and Colonial Officials.
Yes, but this is due to weird ceremonial dynastic laws. The king/queen of Britain was also emperor/empress of India. Britain had a democratic system. India did not. They were still part of the United Kingdom though.
There was never actually an entity called 'The British Empire' though. That was just the term used to refer to Britain and her various colonies, dominions, and territories, etc... Ergo, there was a British Empire but it never actually called itself that.
Gerishnakov It was an Empire ruled by Great Britain ergo British Empire. You are right in the sense that it was not a formal State named British Empire, but the Empire ruled by the British was called and recognized by others as the British Empire. Just as it is now known as the British Commonwealth or formal Commonwealth of Nations.
@@hexcss9153 The democratic people's republic of korea is like the holy roman empire. As the HRE was niether holy, nor roman, nor an empire; the DPRK is neither democratic, of the people, a republic, or of all korea
The Trade Federation was made up of a "coalition" of different trade corporations and worlds, which is where the "federation" part of the name comes in. Furthermore, the "viceroy" of the Trade Federation got his title from his home planet, not from the Trade Federation.
I would've just chalked up the Trade Federation's name as a "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" type of situation in the form of a megacorp trying to make their organization sound more democratic than it actually is in order to score some PR points via propaganda. But that explanation works as well.
@@k9thexv630 Agreed, "Ruthless Warmongering Corporate Weapons Cartel" has a certain appeal but it doesn't seem like it would be recognized as a legitimate national polity.
Well, a name can very well represent the history of a nation. So, if a state is born out of an Empire and established during its existence colonies on several planets, it very well can be a "Kingdom" without being a monarchy. For example take the "Herzogtum Lauenburg", an administrative district in Germany, and far from alone. It roughly translates into "Duchy of Lauenburg", yet there is no Duke of Lauenburg at the moment, and the last official one (Bismarck) was gifted the title without any associated power over this region. So, this region keeps this name and also kept the official coat of arms as symbol for the region. So the name has nothing to do with how politics work, but with the legacy of the region. Funny thing I had to argue with someone was, that he couldn't accept that a fictional nation elected an Emperor/King rather than a President for a legislative period. Just the same, this is just a title and may not say anything about what kind of power the person holding the title actually has. In some form "Emperor"/"King/Queen" as title can be interchangeable with "President". Key is, that if you create a culture in any given project, be it sci-fi or fantasy, its not the names which must fit modern definitions, but the names and their definition must fit the world they are created for. If a nation was named "Empire" at some point, why would it need a renaming, if the shift in politics and ethics came peaceful and natural through time and not through an uprising/revolution or by being overthrown? If a "United Nations of Earth" was founded during a time, when colonies were just at their smallest beginnings or even before that, without colonies, the name makes perfect sense.
@@TheLordUrban Or Costa Rica (Rich Coast), Cape Verde (Green Cape), Denmark (roughly "caves on the borderlands"), Equatorial Guinea (it's in the damn name), The Gambia (for "The Gambia River") Haiti (Land of High Mountains), or my favorite, East Timor (Timor means "East", so East Timor is "East East")
USA isn't a good example. States are not geographic features, but rather political bodies. America is just the name of the continent, which isn't "geography" per se either. Iceland, Greenland, Costa Rica, etc are better examples
@@nickritchie2154 denmark as far as im aware (as a swede) is acctually named fro who lived in the land and not so much the feutures of the land. Denmark essentially means the ground of the danes or the land of the danes much like how sverige (sweden in swedish) is simply the relm of the sweds norway however is intressting as it is the norse way or the northern way. finland is the land of the fins obviously and the swedish name for france is frankrike which means the relm of the franks. regardless since the english word for denmark is derived from the scandinavian name for denmark i would imagen that indeed even in english denmark is named for who lived in the region and not from "caves from the borderlands" as you say.
I think a name like "Federation of Earth" can work for an interstellar civilisation, if you deliberately want to depict a government that is terrancentric in its policies and outlook. A neo-colonialist faction, that rules from earth, with its interstellar holdings being mere colonies, could be an intentionally positive name for what is in essence an informal empire
french republic : "laughs in imperialism since the 1500's" usa : "laughs in manifest destiny and foreign conflicts" UN : "LAUGHS IN FUTURE COLONIZER OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM"
I think it has more to do with rather or not there are rivals. Humans don't see themselves as one because there is no one else like us. An identity can only really exist if you have something else to compare to.
You lump a lot together under "Empire" and end up missing the point of it. It is not just a society ruled by coercion. It is a society in which the willing members approve the ruling of the unwilling members by coercion. There's nothing stopping an empire having a highly meritocratic organization based on its willing members. See the Galactic Empire from Star Wars, whenever it's not portrayed as comically evil for narrative purposes. There's also no reason an empire needs to be a monarchy, much less have an aristocracy. See the Romulan Star Empire, which is apparently a Federal Republic, but only allows representation to Romulans and rules over subject species by threat of force. It's also possible for an empire with an aristocracy to not have a monarch - see the Klingon Empire, which is ruled by a council of nobles. You're right that rule by coercion tends to waste people's potential. But you're wrong that this means a more inclusive government would always perform better. Most often, the alternative to an interstellar empire is not to have the same realm with better governance due to greater participation by the population, but to have a large number of competing petty states that hate each other's guts. An empire is not formed just to oppress people for the sake of it, it's formed because the willing and unwilling members have irreconcilable differences that prevent a peaceful union. The willing members are simply the winners of that conflict. The alternative would be the winners genociding the losers. In that context, wasting some of the potential of the subjugated populations seems like the least bad thing. They'd otherwise either be dead or wouldn't be contributing to that society at all since they'd be part of a competing nation.
Having only one way of a race to achieve unification is boring. What if the Habsburgs dynasty(which had at one time a relative most of the thrones of Europe) had united together. If all of the European empires had not been fighting each other and were united into a early form of the European Union most of the world would have been under European rule. And to answer your question about how an intelligent citizenry could allow a tyrannical regime to rise (Star Citizen) ask the Germans before the Second World War. Or any of the other societies that started as democracies only to become dictatorships. Fear and desperation can cause even the most intelligent to turn to someone offering to solve the problems. And let's not forget that Empires can have merit based aspects like the Star Kingdom of Manticore from the David Weber Honor Harrington book series. Honor though born a yeoman (basically a commoner) rose the ranks of both the Navy and the Nobility. And the Kingdom itself evolved into a Empire out of necessity as it gain territory and states join it for protection. Lastly I would like to say the power of the monarch could vary depending on the state of the Empire is it takes weeks to travel across the empire then most worlds would be fairly independent and the empire run more like a confederacy or federation. If not then most likely the better choice would be a constitutional monarchy with some kind of parliament or system of checks and balances. Also the monarch could be viewed as central connecting force. The one stable constant in the various parties in parliament or society at large the one person above the politics and champion for the people.
@@romelllowery9549 The Star Kingdom of Manticore is a democratic monarchy whose sovereign is stylized as an Empress due to the government having holdings in more than one system.
Also misses the point that it is certainly possible for an empire to have once began as some other form of government before branching out into space. The most famous empire in the western world, the Roman Empire, began as a primitive form of republic.
"The Free Aligned United Democratic Theocratic Congressional Confederated Federal Commonwealth of Hegemonic and Imperial Republics of Terra as a Protectorate of the League of Arcadian States and the Concordian United People's Front" is me trying to use all the adjectives used to describe a country
In this case, they're named after the name of the region they're in. Something like calling a star nation the 'Orion Arm Republic' or 'Messier Cluster Empire'
Australia literally means bottom of the world. Long Island Japan/Nihon(Sun rise kingdom) because the sun rose on them first before America was discovered. Haiti means mountainous land Norway means northern way(if that counts, more of a direction then a land feature) Republic of Congo is named after their River Brazil is named after a tree And Antártica is “opposite of the arctic” So when you say countries/places aren’t named after their geographic features well...
Next Incoming Idea: The World Backstory The Earth-is-devastated future: (StarCraft, Alien, Firefly, Warframe, Avatar) The middle road Future: (Halo, Battlestar: Galactica) The near-utopian future: (Star Trek, Mass Effect) And the fantasy world: (Star Wars, Middle-Earth, Dragon Age, Witcher, Game of Thrones) Share exactly how to create a back story for factions and how they factor into the themes of the Universe.
Michael J. Caboose The Extended Cut of Avatar showed Earth being Blade Runner Earth and The Encyclopedia guide explained nearly all national parks were torn down and the Earth is over populated. Alien is a future where Whelen Untani basically monopolized space travel and their obsession with controlling the Xenomorph shows it’s a future that’s doomed with or without a Xenomorph invasion.
I believe that a space Empire can work through various manners, either genetic modifications to heirs to ensure competency, an immortal AI advisor, loyal chips in the brains of the subjects, a social credit system, a Imperial Cult or having the emperor be the protector of the faith, etc. So I wouldn't rule off interstellar empires, I think technology will be able to support it's dominance
I mean you can just make the emperor or royal family to have some kind of special powers that their subjects cannot resist in interstellar settings, not uncommon tbh. That way, the monarchy can protect its authority better.
My empire in my book is literally based on Immortal rulers who lead the nation in war, technology, and meritocracy. The race literally is ordained by an ambivalent god who owns the planet and dictates rule through that royal family. Maybe they have a bias against it
@@srash8854 my Empire is sort of a Republic with a senate. The Emperor (me) is a figurehead with half the power of the Empire, and whenever the Emperor leaves or something happens to the Emperor, an election would take place to select who would be temporary Emperor or empress.
For me the the whole trade federation in Star Wars was as far as I knew, the companies within the Star Wars Galaxy were more massive and influential than most individual planets so companies creating a united federation of them kinda makes sense, as for the whole Viceroy part, I always assumed Viceroy was an honorary title or maybe the primitive or pre Trade Federation, were originally a monarchy
I don't think every government in fiction should be some form of democracy or total authoritarianism. I think the idea of a corporate is unique and fun, as well as a bit more imaginative.
Something to point out is, that it was called the trade federation because they were a group of systems that traded with each other for profit and necessity due to lack of senate support. There is also the matter of when they finally went to war they changed to the C.I.S. or the confederation of independent systems.
Power struggles don't spell disaster necessarily either. Oftentimes the greatest leaders are the ones that emerge from such struggles, harder and stronger than ever before.
Yeah, that statement is as wrong as saying "democracies are doomed to a power struggle every time someone's term ends". Yeah, sometimes. There've been civil wars because the losing candidate didn't want to step down. Even now there's people in the US insisting that Hillary Clinton is the real winner of last elections. But as long as due process is being observed, the country should be safe.
And in Science Fiction there are plenty of workarounds when it comes to monarchy. In the Sten series by Cole and Bunch, for instance, the empire is ruled by the Eternal Emperor. He started off as an engineer who figured out a way to fuel starships, then applied that knowledge to other things, such as power plants and weapons. He kept control over the material’s manufacture, becoming incredibly wealthy as a result. Anyone who duplicated his method was sued out of existence, and it is implied that when organized crime tried to get a piece of the action, he financed ruthless extermination of such groups. He then turned his vast wealth to cloning technology, memory recording and uploading, and life extension. Once those technologies were perfected, he kept them secret. So he has long life, then if he gets sick, old, or is assassinated, another clone is activated with new memories installed and he carries on ruling. He’s also smart/practical enough to allow both gray and black markets to exist, which work as safety valves. People will rebel, so he contains and directs their rebellion. That’s just one example. There are also hive minds or android bodies or other forms of life extension one could employ to plausibly have an empire.
Laws aren't always absolute especially when someone has enough power behind them. Many medieval nation has solid succession laws, but all it took was a person with a big enough army to get their way. It happen in Russia with Empress Catherine, even though her husband was the rightful ruler, she forced him to advocate when almost everyone in Russia wanted him out even though I'm all intents and purposes she forced him out of his position.
Isn't one of the major characteristics of the Imperium of Man that it's a bloated mess that is constantly on the brink of collapsing into itself, were it not for the outside threats that allow this behemoth to direct the internal pressure at them.
mosteel88 But, they had to have had an emperor in order to lose one, which is kind of the point. The biggest flaw with most traditional, monarchical/dynastic forms of government is that they concentrate most, if not all, power into a singular point. That type of government can be useful, particularly when a state is faced with some sort of existential crisis and can't afford to get bogged down with political red-tape, legislation, and constantly having to receive approval from the legislature. The Imperium of Man was born out of necessity, after all. But, it still fell to the pitfalls of most empires.
"Unlike most federations, membership within a confederacy is voluntary, and states within it can relinquish their membership." Swiss Confederation: *Sweats profusely*
the only thing holding Switzerland together is that Romands hate French more than they hate Swiss Germans, and Swiss Germans hate Germans more than they hate Romands And there is Swiss Italians who are constantly complaining but they're still there because everything runs fine
I’ve heard Empire defined more as “A government that rules over diverse peoples and/or lands, usually by force” By this argument, Rome was an Empire even before it had an emperor and the United States is an Empire today. So an Empire doesn’t need an Emperor or hereditary monarch at all.
You made no reference to the most likely thing to be used in naming a nation: geography. For example, did you know the spiral arms of our galaxy have names? We live in what is generally know as the orion arm. So if you don't want to rely on references to earth or humanity then why name your nation something like the Orion Federation.
@@EthanThomson Are you denying humanity's birthright to rule the Galaxy?! If anything, Orion Federation is far to constrictive! May the Emperor smite you!
Ok... So about the empire thing. Empire does not mean that the head of state makes all the decisions. The Roman, British and German empires all had highly advanced bureaucracies and Germany was THE most advanced state in the world during it's existence. Empires usually have highly advanced administrations where the sovereign let's the day to day affairs be administrated by smaller organs some even with some form of democratic representation. More often than not Empires are autocracies and the Emperor/Empress can be a mere symbolic figure. If the the sovereign does have highly centralized power there are numerous way to ensure a strong succession: 1: Inheritance is through designated adoptive heirs, as Augustus did. 2: Ensure the emperor have an enormous amount of children through harems, and then let them assassinate each other to decide the heir. As the Ottomans did. Then there's the sci-fi options: The Emperor is immortal/cyborg/machine. The heirs are biologically engineered or enhanced. The heirs are clones. And many many more options. Nothing prevents empires from having elements of meritocracy, especially considering that Democracies often have issues themselves with meritocratic inheritance of power, be it corruption or simply the voters being unable to vote for an efficient leader.
Theres one Problem with the "German". The "Heilig Römische Reich deutscher Nationen" thers no "empire" word in it. Its jsut poor ..... Translation that got Stuck. So the "Holy Roman Empire of German Nations" wasnt really an Empire in the Name. The Word "Reich" means more Like Teritory. First it was the "Regnum Teutonicum" later on it got the "Sacrum Imperium". Gotta Love my History Teacher for those intense detail on german History (as a German ofc).
A better example for your case would be the Chinese Empire during certain dynasties. Western bureaucracy was influence (whether highly or loosely, it's both to be exact for different aspects) by the Chinese system during the 1700s to 1800s when Sinophilia was at an all time high in Europe but also due to it's relative efficiency in ruling a nation where a single province can be as large as the largest European country (excluding colonies). Chinese imperial bureaucracy was also highly based on meritocracy, although there is no denying it could get corrupted later on, but there are more than enough examples of peasants becoming high ranking officials, generals and even emperors to prove that meritocracy is highly valued in Imperial China. There are also records of some form of democracy during certain periods where people get to vote for their village chief and in some cases town/city "mayors". But all in all, you are right, empire does not automatically means a dictatorship but mostly represents highly centralised bureaucracies.
Thats the negativ point for the Detailed German history. We had to let out other stuff. As Example WW1 was one school year and WW2 the same. sSo we let out lot of Historic Events to learn more than jsut "there was the Holy roman empire and 1871 it was gone" But mostly i choose the "Holy Roman Empire" because f the Translation problem that "Reich" doesnt mean Empire. "Imperium" is the German for Empire. And Im Sure other Languages got the same Problem with poor Translation leading to misunderstanding. But yeah your Example is a better one and nice too cause i learned something new for me. Thanks
Hello Kaitan. I'm NOT speaking about the HRE, I'm talking about Der Deutsche Kaiserreich. Empire is an anglican word that was created to reflect the roman empire. The title of the sovereign of the roman empire was Caesar. Kaiser is a direct germanification of that word. Whether the nation itself was called an empire in german, is quite frankly inconsequential, because administratively they absolutely were.
But the Kaiser in the "Kaiserreich" didnt had that much Power. There was the "Reichstag" with politicians elected by the ppl. The "Bundesrat" where the 20+ (dont remember exactly how much sorry) States did send Representatives. and those two made Reichs Laws. Otto Von Bismark made the "Reichsverfassung", the Constition. And it stated that the "Reich" (which reminds me Realm is the Word for Reich XD) cant overrule the Constituion of the States. The States didnt even had an "Standard" form of Government. Some still had "Fürsten" (Nobleman?) some were Republics. And Every State had its own Set of Laws (Constituion "Verfassung") to ground new Laws on. The only Power The Kaiser really had was Military. He was Head of Military and even could Decide the Etate for it (How much money per year for Army Navy) and even There it wasnt "fully". Cause Bavaria and Würtenberg had the "reservatrecht" (i believe thats what its called) which stated the Kaiser only could get theyre Armies in War Times. But the Army was allowed to Act inside of the Country. So If you say the Kaiser had Full control you basically say it was a Military Dictatorship. So alot of States with own Lawsystems and different Types of Government came Together. Seems more like a Federation. And they came together while at War with France. So it was more like a necessity to have an Coordinated Military agaisnt an common enemy. Dont forget France was back then stil lthe "Erb und Erzfeind" (Heritage- and Archenemy roughly Translated). Little Fact the Reason the Eagle looks to the left is for That. Always Watchfull to the Archenemy. In the HRE the Kaiser had more Power. If let say Brandenburg attacked Saxonia and took Land. The Kaiser could take the Land and give it back to Saxonia. If Brandenburg in this "Story" trys to hold the Land, the Kaiser could call to Arms so all "German" states had to follow to attack Brandenbrug. So HRE the Kaiser could make Laws, Control Army and Control the Borders of the States. Thats seems more like an Empire. Thats why i thought you meant that. But ofc The Kaiser there was more like a Puppet. Elected by "Kurfürsten" and had always try to hold the Balance and dont make all States his Enemy cuase there where his Power. Sorry for that long Post.
I think that the Imperium gets an additional pass because, well, their head of state is basically a god. Same with the Galactic Empire or something like it. If your faction has a leader who's power level dwarfs the basic citizenry, you definitely have an edge.
If I'm not mistaken, the Trade Federation was called so because it was built up of many worlds with huge amounts of of business and trade who worked together for mutual gain. Nemoidia was one such world and it's individual form of government included the title of viceroy, who most likely brought the most to the table and was therefore elected to represent the Trade Federation.
I always assumed it was a federation of planet-owning corporations which came together as a cartel/alliance. But that's partly because I forgot one of their leaders was called a Viceroy.
Yep, just wanted to add that the "Viceroy" thing also makes sense when you consider that the Queen of Naboo was a popularly elected official with strict term limits. In SW, monarchial titles do seem to be used differently.
Kinda like Viceroy of Spain or closer to British East India Company who is a corporation with their own army and government in exchange for goods from their territories?
However, in Latin "dominion" means something along the lines of "possession", "ownership". With such a reasoning, "Human/Earth/Terran Dominion" may indicate a state/international organization representing Humanity.
Actually the name of the Martian state does have a precedent in Earth's history. The USSR is a short for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with "Soviet" standing for the name of the parliament "The Supream Soviet". It directly translates to "Congress" or "Council" in English. Knowing that, you can see where the name "Martin Congressional Republics" comes from. I reckon if they put "Union" in front of it, it would be a bit too obvious what Mars actually represents :)
Eltaccos Neczy I think they are. Mars is not directly the USSR, but it is close. Consider, they are portrayed as semi-authoritarian and communalist. We never heard anything about Marian corporations or private businesses. Casually militaristic - check. What is added, I think, is the American frontier spirit, however, if they ware a 1:1 copy it would be boring. To me, it seems, that MCR is a mix between the early USA and the USSR, while the UN is a mix between the present day US and the old colonial empires of Europe
The Articles of Confederation (1777) went to some lengths to assure the populace that the government of the proposed Confederation would be limited in the extreme, for example every time "the United States" was mentioned in the text, "in Congress assembled" was suffixed to it without fail, as if to claim that the government existed when and only when Congress was assembled--a part-time government (hence "sessions of Congress") with extremely limited powers. Under such a model, Trump would be "not my President" for all citizens, having rulership only over the Congress. It is possible that the Founders of the original Mars Republic felt that a return to the roots of American political principles was necessary, and explicitly written, to ensure that the new Republic would not decay in the same manner as the old, with nominally opposing Congressmen and Senators instead combining to consolidate power, but would maintain the sovereignty of the individual. And then history did repeat itself, and Congress did gain power to match its o'erweening pride and arrogance. So that what had started out as a Tea Party experiment became an imperialist, expansionist, militarist government, much like the United States between the War Between the States and the rise of the Corporations. As to whether Martian corporations will be mentioned, that depends largely on further developments of the Transport Union, though I would suspect that the Martians have a large, if veiled, interest in the Tycho Manufacturing and Engineering Concern.
I don't think it has to do with the USSR. I think they went with "Martian Constitutional Republic" because the initials "MCR" rolls off the tongue easier than "MR" (say "MCR Forces" and "MR Forces" a few times and I think you'll see). And that doesn't address the traditional abbreviation for "mister."
That is wrong. "The United States in Congress Assembled" is the rarely used official name given to unicameral legislative body created by the Articles of Confederation. It was more commonly still referred to as the Continental Congress. It appears so frequently in the Articles of Confederation, because the Articles where the official document that created the United States government, and since the Continental Congress is the only organ of government created in the Articles of Confederation, the document is almost entirely about the powers and function of "The United States in Congress Assembled". There are multiple points in the Articles of Confederation where the United States is mentioned without "in congress assembled", most obviously in Article I: The Stile of this confederacy shall be, “The United States of America.”
12:25 You could use the Greek alternative (or original, rather) for Terra, Gaia. Confederation of Gaia, Gaian Union, a Gaian diplomat. It sounds much more... Unique than Terran, considering how overused it is.
My method: 1. Figure out the way the country is governed first. A democracy, an aristocracy, autocracy, oligarchy, technocracy and so on? 2. Have words for the culture, the ethnicity, the land itself. 3. Add some form of adjective for flavour, preferably something that fits with the cultural identity or the local viewpoint. For example, The Greater Arctic Federation. Set in a post climate change Earth where a majority of the surface has become a wasteland of dust and firestorms and most nations have long collapsed. Various local city states and nation fragments band together regardless of their past, eventually the infrastructure is rebuilt and they begin claiming everything around the Arctic Sea through diplomacy (both regular and gunboat). Slowly terraforming the planet and taking to space.
About the Galactic Federation of Free Alliances: while it *is* a terrible name, it's meant to be a fourth-wall breaking joke. Galactic Federation of Free Alliances = GFFA = Galaxy Far, Far Away
Also the shortened name was Galactic Alliance, which is a combination of the two warring factions of the Civil War, the Galactic Empire and the Rebel Alliance.
It's a shame that both Galactic Federation (as a successor to the New Republic) and Galactic Alliance (as an alliance of what was the Republic, the Empire, Hapans, Chiss etc) make sense as names.
''empires go into a state wide crisis if their emperor dies without succesion'' imperium of man: what if your emperor is imortal and also godlike *loophole aquired*
@@pendragon0905 In fact, the God Emperor is de Jure (legaly) both head of state and governement, but is unable to lead du to his injuries. The Primarch Robute Guilliman, who is both Imperial Regent (civil leader) and Lord Commander of the Imperium (military leader), merely runs the Imperium in the name of the God Emperor, being de Facto leader of the Imperium, until his father either dies for his injuries or his healed.
Yeah, hell, even many kingdoms can be meritocratic. Where the difference lies between empires and monarchies (the two can and usually are intertwined but its not required) is Rome, I'd sure as hell call the Roman Republic around the time of Julius Caesar an empire, and for much of its time the empire was only partially dynastic. Not to mention he really overstates the problems a bad monarch can cause, because one or two bad monarchs isn't going to change much unless they're back to back, in my eyes the bad monarch isn't the cause of the downfall of nations, but rather it is merely what finally does these nations in. I mean Karl I of Austria-Hungary was a great monarch, and had he stayed in power Austria Hungary could have possibly even stuck around into the 21st century (albeit in a different form), but by the time he came to power, things were already starting to shift in favor of the Entente, and the strain of the war made it an impossibility for a comeback.
@@CallanElliott That is very true, but that is also true of really any government, eventually they will become bloated or corrupt, and no amount of checks or balances will protect it forever.
"Union" can also be used in the context of like a territory controlled by a labor union, along with "guild". for example the Transport Union in The Expanse works like a state in many ways
An empire wouldn't need to be authoritarian or archaic in any way, Japan is technically still an empire, albeit parliamentary. "Imperium" doesn't actually mean empire (in Latin), it means, or meant "Authority", someone who held an imperium could be in command of an army or govern a province, "Imperium Rōmānum" meant "Authority of Rome", Usually held by an "Augustus" or "emperor". an "Empire" is an aggregate of nations or people ruled over by an emperor, other powerful sovereign or government, many empires in history weren't ruled over by an emperor, (Athenian empire, Dutch empire, British empire, etc.). It is in fact, perfectly suited for a collection of human planets, moons and stations to be called an empire, just as suited as federation or confederation, just look at history.
(I'm sorry for any grammatical errors) "Imperium" was the power of the Imperator (or Pontefix or Caesar or Augustus) to lead the armies and the possibility to give orders to which the recipients can not avoid. But also when Rome was a republic the "imperium" and "Imperator" existed, for example: "Magisterium cum imperio" or "sine imperio" (Magistrate with or without the Imperium) or the Dictator (Gaius Iulius Caesar was a dictator)
+Jaron Ehlers & Elektron117 True, but the form of government is a constitutional monarchy with an emperor as head of state, they could've called themselves the Empire of Japan and it would still be appropriate, although it might have upset the countries around them.
This makes me want to create a fictional alien species that just gives simple person names to their countries. Stuff like "Fred", and "Susan". "Hey, did you hear that Bob started a new trade agreement with Jack? Everyone is wondering how Clara is going to react; it seems likely to end in war, from what I've been told."
Probably confusion, since that would be outside of what they consider the norm. "You name your countries after their geographical location? How does one tell if you're talking about the country or the place?"
Marley Most human countries are either named after the place or after the people who live there. Then to that we add the political stance and other thing (aka Democratic People Republic of something). So not that wierd.
I feel like Empire still works, but depending on the faction. Because development can happen, the Empire could be ruled by a single family, which may be split into several branches. The aristocracy may also be specialized in certain areas and trained from young. The laws of the empire and how they develop could have changed, that aristocratic families began specializing in, say, pumping out officers. Current times stuff may be loosened up, that in the future, civilians could still get higher positions, and earn a nobility, or be accepted into a nobility, bringing in fresh blood to their gene pool.
>Empire will lose out to meritocracy >Because those are mutually exclusive It isn't like the first 'meritocratic' state was imperial China. Or the fact the German Empire became one the most advanced states in the world leading in science and statecraft (it was imperial Germany that gave us state pensions).
Germany never called itself empire though, which is his point. At the time you refer to it, the name was Deutsches Reich, first part meanign german, and reich being closest resembled by realm.
TheGahta Reich was often used to denote empires, to say it only means realm is highly misleading. Its leader was Kaiser which means emperor. It was clearly an empire.
Two things, The Holy Roman Empire wasn't a empire, it was an Electorial Monarchy. It is okay to have a nation to misname itself out of cultural heritage. Corporates are very unstable and manipulative, so it isn't insane for them to have mislabeled names in an attempt to save face in international politics.
@Kory Chouinard The word 'empire' is just a strange label to begin with. And the translations of this 'empire' into different languages makes it even weirder. The 'Holy Roman Empire' was called either 'Sacrum Imperium Romanum' or 'Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation' - the translation is a little different, as you can easily see. 'Reich' is more akin to 'realm' though, it just labels a possession that belongs to someone (or something). And that it was. 'Holy' simply referred to it being a Christian state and 'Roman' was added to make it clear that it was to be seen as the heir to the Roman Empire (as in: kind of a big thing in Europe). The Japanese have an Emperor, the Chinese had one ... but neither of those actually held that title, of course. They had their own words that got translated with Emperor by the people that thought that 'king' wouldn't cut it because of the power or reverence that these figures commanded. All I'm saying is that 'empire' is a very muddy term, I guess ...
7:40 "empire" is also often used when you have a confederation with one nation being completely dominant over the others. The collenial empires were that. The French empire was ruled by a republic, the British by a constitutional monarchy, the Russian empire by an absolute monarchy. The Austro-Hungarian empire was even a diarchy.
Austria-Hungary wasn’t a diarchy. A diarchy means having two leaders/monarchs. Austria-Hungary only had one Emperor-King. It was a dual state in that it had two governments: the Cisleithenian government (Austria) and the Transleithenian government (Hungary), but it wasn’t a diarchy, because it only had one monarch (who was simultaneously Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary)
@@Bob-lr2xp the seat was originally offered to India(multiple times). But our dumbass of a prime minister at that time, Nehru refused it and instead supported china for the seat.
Using the term republic for the Centauri isn't so wrong. Republic comes from res publica meaning the public matter. While Emperor comes from Imperator a title describing the holder of a potestas - simply described as an official power - in this case the Imperium, the power to raise troops and command them. Following this and the use of the term in roman law, res publica and the later principate, the Imperium is the military sphere of power of an Imperator or common emperor. A republic can have an Imperator, the roman republic had always a minimum of 2. Emperor and King is not the same thing, the title can be hereditable but doesn't have to be. Further even during the principate (the roman imperial age starting with Augustus) the roman state was still called res publica (republic) even though there was an Imperator (which became a quasi-hereditable title - even though technically the title wasn't hereditable but only the underlying social system of the clients and patron relationship with the soldiers were). Given that the Centauri were modelled after the romans the naming shows a very detailed understanding of roman history and not a lack of understanding of how to name a state
Yeah, that should have been explained by the humans in-universe. I mean, a simple "how come we translate their name as 'Republic' but their leader's title as 'emperor'?" from one of the characters could have cleared that up. Also, not even sure if I'd agree with you entirely, since "Emperor" isn't "Imperator", but rather the later title created from the Latin root, and the "emperors" weren't usually "Imperators", in fact, they all had different titles to suit their styles. Augustus was "First Senator", some later "emperors" held seemingly "powerless" positions like department/office heads. So, maybe it was a good understanding of the Roman system, but conveyed in a bad way.
Actually all roman "emperors" (what also counts as simple english translation also used in textbooks) were Imperator in the sense that all had an imperium proconsulare (Augustus even consulare). And these emperor hadn't official titles, per se. Being roman emperor meant to have a compination of different potestas, not a strictly leagally speaking inheritable title - even though in praxis these combinations of potestas became "inheritable " And Augustus was even acclaimed Imperator (16.4.43BC, before 15.3.40BC, and 19 times after that)
Meritocracy - Ruled by Merit Technocracy - Ruled by technical experts Autocracy - Rule by supreme power i.e. tyrant Oligarchy - Ruled by a council or small group of people Aristocracy - Ruled by the cultural elite Plutocracy - Ruled by the rich Stratocracy - Ruled by military service Theocracy - Ruled by religious leaders Ergatocracy - ruled by the working class Bureaucracy - ruled by many systems of governments and officials and administrators. Good luck getting anything done. Uniocracy - ruled by the singularity of *race here* minds Dominion Commune Territories Mandate en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government
@@wasserruebenvergilbungsvirus Actually it is different. In a meritocracy, you can do something like bolstering the economy tenfold but in a technocracy economic decision would be given to a scientist or who obviously know their way around the economies of nations...
I remember a history teacher of mine once said that United and Federation are basically a pleonasm (an over-statement of things meaning the same, i.e black darkness, or tall giant). Her reasoning was that a Federation already unified some smaller nations within itself, so there would be no need to call it United.
I feel like you went a bit to all in on the negative aspects of empire. A lot of British Sci-fi uses it in a positive tone for scenarios where the current ceremonial monarchy state becomes space faring and sets up its own colonies. The naming approach there is more monarchy + colonies = empire, how the collective is maintained doesn't really come into it.
It would still make sense at a certain point in the history of a space faring civilization. An earth empire would entail early colonies on Mars, the moon; perhaps even other star systems. They would be much like when earth was a mix of "civilized" areas colonizing the "untamed wilderness". This is a perfect description of humans, backed by a central earth government, tame the wilds of space. Empire works here until those colonists become sufficiently advanced or independent that the empire model falls apart.Then you get your federations or republics or what not.
Nicolaus Gilbert Wilson Except why would anyone Earth willingly be part of an empire? If you hadn't noticed people kinda really don't like empires and really like democracy a lot. Styling yourself as an empire makes no sense if you see yourself as a democratic society that's just spreading into space. To be an empire you have to be conquering other people, not just expanding.
Hedgehog3180 Empire actually has multiple meaning and isn't exactly an equivalent to monarchy... It's more of a cool word to describe the dominance of the central part of the empire over the rest (except for german empires or eastern roman). During the middle ages it was mainly used to say that your kingdom was an offspring of the roman empire. Then it was used to mean first a collection of kingdoms (like spain) or a kingdom with lots of colonies (Portugal, Netherlands, Britain,...). with the 19th century it became more of a state with lots of colonies and national pride (19th century = birth of nationalism). And for the Nazis, Japan and Italy it was nationalism, imperialism and militarism. So the definition changes with time and it works if you have a monarchy, fast growing and expanding country ( usually a constitutional monarchy but can be a republic) growing through colonisation or a fascist regime. And for the fact that you think everyone love democracy... well, fascists consider it is inefficient and to slow to react so they prefer a dictatorship, reactionaries think it was better with kings and queens, technocratists thinks peoples are inherently inefficient and think the state should calculate what to do,... and even if many ideologies like democracy, they cannot agree on what it means ( like freedom)... and the way out of democracy is a slippery slope. Democracies hate autocracies and like democracies, that is true and so they tend to not declaring war to democracies but they also tend to push autocracies to conflict with them.
Like others have said, I disagree with your conclusion of the word "Empire". It doesn't necessarily mean there has to be a monarchy, or a singular despotic ruler. In my mind, an "Empire" just denotes a government with many sprawling claims, where the claimed regions may have some autonomy, but are ultimately subservient to the primary government. Again, as others have mentioned, the Roman and British Empires, fit this bill, as both had relatively democratic governments while still being called an Empire. In that context, something like Star Citizen's United Empire of Earth makes a lot more sense.
@@donttrytokillme1231 I agree. Although I'de have to add that there was a(n unfortunate) distinction between France and France's Empire (I know that there was the same distinction between Britain and Britain's Empire, but both were subject to the same individual, the king or queen of the UK and England, whereas France's Empire whilst technically under the authority of the chiefs of the 3rd Republic, and latter on the 4th and 5th, was more subject to France as a nation than subject to a particular individual). But I also agree with the Institute here, Empire would be a ridiculous name for politically literate free people that recently fought against a tyrannical self appointed emperor, even if you think of «empire» as meaning «a collection of territories, nations or states bounded by a supreme (potentially democratically elected) authority». Especially since the Colonial Empires and their eventual demise. Except if it's for our wise and beloved Holy God Emperor, he can make an Empire of Man whenever he wants ^^
That would come across as insulting to everyone not inside your federation, as it implies everyone else is non sentient (even if that is not the intent behind it).
Thing is... there isn't really a definitive requirement for a future interstellar power to be based on a unified humanity, or even Earth. Why not an interetellar European, American, Chinese or Indian polities in a cold war while spreading accross the Milky Way?
I've actually been working on an idea along those lines, those as my father often says, war usually forces us to look at ourselves. Put the entirety of man in war for their survival for 40 years, and they might just come together at last.... mostly.... no one said it has to be perfect. Mostly I think people like to unify Earth because 1) in many ways, it makes things easier from a writing standpoint. 2) Maintaining control over/support for colonies, while still being based on Earth, is problematic at best should conflict arise. 3) (and probably the primary reason) we all like to think it would happen by the time that future rolls around. Just a warmer feeling than thinking we'd still be at each other's throats in 200 or more years.
Actually, I'm using the divided nations thing in a novel I'm working on: the EUN (Earth United Nations) doesn't govern anything, they simply coordinate the military and colonization efforts from the nations on Earth.
If you're interested in such ideas, check out Aurora 4X. Its developer put out basically campaign reports on some of his games, including one that starts out with the premise of NATO and the Warsaw Pact going into space, and continuing their standoff as they expand to new worlds and build star-fleets etc. it's sobering to think about us taking our national and racial prejudices up into space with us, and a future I don't want compared with a united world, but I can't say it's not both realistic, and an interesting possibility space for new types of stories.
"It's not really an empire" *And WHO are you to question the will of the Helghast!?* Our collective willpower has imagined it and the strength of our arms will see it manifest! Helgan and Vekta, together as nature intended.
The MCR is basically a two part government, with the Martian people choosing a congress, and the martian military promoting a military president. The reason it works, is because the means through which the military promotes it's leaders is through merit, which is dictated by rule set by the congress. Kind of like the Zulu empire, where the council of elders dictated certain traditions and norms, and through these norms, the most "normal" person became overall leader. The difference here being that MCR has term limits, and the next leader is almost always promoted upon approval of both the Congress and admiralty. It's basically a very dangerous nation to fuck with, because everyone is a soldier, and their potentate is not someone you can easily negotiate with. The bonus is that their military is diversified, thus A scientist can lead, or a pilot, of an architect...etc. All of which is entirely dependent on the climate of the times.
Also, look at what who they were opposing the 'United Nations'. By naming themselves the Maritain Congressional Republics, not only were they saying they were from Mars (not earth) but that they were truly unified towards their desired future, not like earth which still has divisions by individual nations (or at least remnants of this by the time of the books/show)
So basically, the Martian Congressional Republic is the Terran Federation of Starship Troopers. Except is actually intended to have checks and balances, and not just be a lecture about how brainwashing and torture results in morally superior citizens? Huh neat. The MCR has always been a fascinating part of The Expanse. And it is worth noting how easy Martians are to convince that fascism is in their interests. The Laconians are Martians at their worst.
I think it's a lot simpler. "Congressional" is basically "Independence of the United States"-like, since no other political ideology is associated with a congress specifically as the legislative body In fact, most states have either a "parliament" or "some native name" as its legislative body, and then most political ideologies aren't strongly associated with making or having that specific legislative body. The closest things to "congressional" might be Cromwell's Parliamentarians (civil war side associated with parliament), the various communist Parties (associated with the executive branch), and the Ayatollahs in Iran (which I think is associated with the Judicial branch).
the name of my empire would be "I came to chew gum and kick ass, and I am all out of gum" Kind of long but very indicative of what I wish to accomplish
re: the Centauri Republic - medieval english writers referred to the king's actions as being damaging to the health of the republic, without irony. republic simply means that the government of the realm is a res publica - a public affair, rather than the ruler's private interest. is it so impossible that the Centauri (whose emperors can come from different families) could think of their society as a republic? Or that the Minbari, Earthers, and Narn might have higher considerations? (respectively, federation between castes, alliance of constituent nations, and military revenge on their oppressors) the brakiri syndicracy is stupid tho. fight me.
When you get to the point where you can call yourself the “Infinite Empire”, it’s safe to say that you’ve won galactic history. The only ones I know of are the Rakata and the Necrons, both of whom are extraordinarily cool.
I think the most intimidating name in Sci Fi has to be the Combine from Half life 2. The Combine's name has multiple meanings that being like a harvester sucking resources out of planets and due to the fact that they Combine species together. you will never be able to name a Sci Fi nation more existentially terrifying than the Combine.
"United Federation of Nations", you call most titles and names bland, yet this is probably by large the MOST blandest of bland names for a nation I've ever heard: it's redundant and incredibly generic. Also, nearly all nations on earth are named around geographic locations. United States of America, East Timor, both Koreas, Oriental Republic of the Uruguay (which is a double geographic meaning, since it refers to the country being east of the Uruguay river), both Congos, Nigeria and Niger, India and many others.
Great episode. I think your definition of empire is a bit narrow. You only really need multiple population entities (defined by things such as ethnic groups, nationalities, culture, etc) ruled by an elite or institution composed of a different/specific population entity. Say Apennine Romans ruling Gauls, Iberians, Egyptians, etc. or Brits ruling Indians, and so on. It really doesn’t have to have an emperor/Sovereign, even it that is one example of it. Also, plenty of empires were highly successful and stable for comparatively long stretches of time. The Persian empire lasted something like 500 years; Rome lasted in the ballpark of 2000 years if you count East Rome (as you should); Basically, all the colonial empires lasted for 300-500 years as empires; The Ottoman Empire was something like 600 years, and that is just on top of my head. I am sure there are some great Asian examples too. And obvious empires worked rather well even somewhat recently: The British Empire did okay for itself for a few hundred years didn’t it? A number of them didn’t have power follow hereditary lines either and some were highly meritocratic, at least for its time. Rome was de facto an empire even during most of its republican days with all those conquered provinces, and later many of the emperors were appointed outside of blood lines (i.e. for their merits); The British Empire had a rather strong democratic parliament for basically all its imperial time. You do have a point in that most empires don’t name themselves empires though. I just don't see why empires would be especially improbable in the future?
The British Empire? The first or the second? The most representative Empire from Europe was the Spanish Empire, the first global empire in history for more than 300 years! Regards
@@DarthMalgusSith_Lord No it didn't. The Ming dynasty was among the longest lasting but even it didn't last 3000 years. There was several different dynasties vying for control of china over the 3000 years and times where China was split into multiple warring kingdoms.
@@KyleAPemberton to be fair while i do agree with you i think we do have to take into account they were technically fighting over the same thing the throne and government so while china broke apart the goal was the same empire as before just a change in dynasty what made them different to the shorter less bloody transfer of power in the west is because of exactly that they were shorter and more controlled.
Cool video, though I disagree with the description of empire. If we look at empires of history, ignoring those claiming legitimacy from the roman empire, it seems that "Empire" is either more of a prestige title that doesn't mean much, or a multi-ethnic state. Indeed many nations today that do not style themselves as empires (such as the USA and PRC) are described as such. No one could call these states mono-ethnic and neither of them has (so far) fallen apart due to unrest. It is a very overused title in fiction but let us remember that some of the largest self-styled empires of history (France, UK, etc) were quite democratic and/or had good freedoms for their time.
Speaking as a Classist, I have to disagree. The Rome was an Empire long before they had what we could call an Emperor. An Empire is where 1 sovereign state gains control over different nations and ethnic groups, then allows them to remain with their own laws and customs while still subject to authority of ruling state. The term Emperor comes from the term Imperator, which merely means "one with authority/command". Any general, governor or local magistrate had Imperium (authority) which was granted to them by the Senate. Indeed this is where I have to disagree with @Templin Institute. The likelihood of a large scale galactic/interstellar nation becoming an empire ruled by a single ruling monarch is actually quite high. At a certain threshold a nation controlling other territories or states becomes so large that it requires an ultimate decision maker. This is what we saw in Rome, with the civil wars and the rise of first the Triumvirate and then Augustus. They grew beyond what the Senate could control without individual interests of the Senators causing a failure of operations. Of course any large scale empire would require a large amount of bureaucracy, but there would need to be a central figure who can make immediate determinations about any crisis. This is why even with dynastic changes the Chinese Emperors were so successful. Their bureaucracy was based on a merit, while they maintained an ultimate decision maker.
Praxagora Thesmophora Isn't modern democracies much the same thing with the president as the central desicion maker rather than a emperor. The only difference been how their elected.
@@genetix7173 no, because an emperor would have near to full absolute power. Presidents usually share power. They are the head of the executive branch. Meaning their role is to approve laws not to make them. They also have the role of setting policy but not the power to ensure its followed. A legislature of a different political party further reduce their power as they are less likely to follow the policy the president has set. For a president to do well they will need to build Bridges and seek compromises to get their agenda through. An emperor won't have these types of issues. They are more likely to have to worry about usurpers or revolts
This is an old idea for a Sci-Fi setting I worked on a couple years ago and want to revamp. But I want someone more versed in naming to give it their seal of approval If you don’t want to read the entire thing, here’s the important nation names: -UHF (United, Human, Federation) -MGC (Modified Genetics Confederacy) Here’s the full thing About 145 years ago, humans discovered the presence of not only other life outside of their world, but several advanced civilizations. They began to develop technology to stand a chance to the other civilizations across the galaxy. This lead to the discovery of a rare mineral known as Lawrencium (that’s what humans called it, after its discoverer Thomas Lawrence) This element was used in many unique and advanced technologies, such as rudimentary warp engines (used for long distance space travel fast, several other variations of warp engines were invented and used by other civilizations, but most refused to share their secrets), weaponry, and even more advanced levels of genetic engineering. The existence of this material drew the eyes of several other civilizations, one of which, decided to act on their desire for this material, and colonize earth. However they were not met with warm welcomes. They attempted to enslave the humans, but they lashed out and fought back, calling in allies from other nations, the invaders did the same, and this soon lead to the “Terran War”. A war fought for the colonization of earth. The war was waged primarily on planets within “our” solar system This war sparked even more innovation, in an attempt to win, the human settlements of the solar system gathered together, forming the United. Human, Federation, or the UHF. Together they not only fought stronger, but also were able to begin work on creating a brand new genetically modified species, designed to be the ultimate soldier. Once they were complete, they called their “perfect soldiers”, “Brutes”. With the assistance of the brutes as well as other allies, the UFH successfully took back control of the solar system, agreeing to form trade routes with willing nations. Afterwards, several factions of “Brutes” rebelled against their creators, fighting back. At the end of this smaller conflict, the Brutes left the UHF, and colonized a smaller planet far away. The creation of the technology to create the Brutes, lead to several other core species, and more humans creating more genetically modified races. As many of them rebelled and left, or joined their creators civilly, these new races were becoming more common and more seen as sentient. This meant that injustice against them was being recognized, and protests and civil disarray lead to the decree that “Genetic Races” would have the same rights as “Core Races”. As this happened, the Genetic Peoples began to integrate into society, joining nations, forming independent nations, and allying with the Nations dominated by Core Peoples. This resulted in the foundation of the first multi-species, Genetic Race dominated nation. They designated themselves as the MGC (Modified, Genetics, Confederacy)
The united Islamic hegemony commonwealth's unified imperial democratic congressional people's republic of fascist interstellar federationaly allied confederatsions protectorate states Also known as UIHCUIDCPRFIFACPS
Its probably worth adding that the Imperium of man, doesn't really function as a unified nation state and for ten thousand years has basically been teetering on the edge of total collapse. Incidently, my favourite race that I created for Stellaris, is the Principality of Highstar, a Constitutional Theocratic Monarchy, where the ruler (Called The High prince), is also the head of the state religion.
Especially as, like the later Holy Roman Empire, its an absolute mess. The Imperium of Man, is deliberately presented as this nightmare of beaurocracy and insainity, that really is only held together by constant war.
Yeah the Imperium is really closer to a militaristic federation/theocracy/representative dictatorship/police state/...you name it it's in the Imperium somehow.
“Imperium” means “order” or “the order of” in Latin. It can be used to refer to the state, the states authority, or even an entire culture. “Imperium Germanica,” for example, is what the Romans labeled their maps of Germany with, disputed the region having no single government.
Now to clear the misunderstanding of the trade federation let me explain like this(it’s normal to not know it since it is Star Wars EU/legends or just happened before the films so it isn’t know): The trade federation at its golden point or before the neumodians took over was actually most had humans and Muuns in the council and in the Viceroy position( Viceroy is actually elected by the council and can be replaced by them) but by the time the films start things have changed. First of all the reason it’s called trade federation is that normally in the past any trader or a merchant could join the organization and work with them to get certain benefits, deals, loans or even given a ship by them and continue to get promotions to use bigger ships like lucrehulks and then be a senior member to join the council/elders. This is also to have a collective trade, monetary and economic influence on systems such as blockades, trade embargoes and cheap materials. Secondly before clone wars neumodians were not a large part of the TF(Trade federation) high command and were mostly low on numbers and in the council which is until Darth plagues’s master(Darth plaguis is the master of palpatine/Sidious) which infiltrated the TF and the banking clans. He evens gets to meet plaguis and take it as an apprentice because he knew The demask family head (The Muun family that plagues comes from) and made the Family head the leader of the banking clans with his influence which inturn the family head gave his son to the sith for training and be its apprentice for a closer relation. This in fact proceed for Hego Demask (Darth plaguis original name) becoming the defacto and then the next leader of the banking clans. Then Darth plaguis and his them at the time young apprentice Palpatine started to influence and assassinate Higher ups of the TF which then they were replaced by the remaining member under their control the neumodians. You should also know that the leader of the neumodians are called Viceroys but when they became the sole ruler of the TF they changed the title of the Elected chairman to Viceroy since the TF ruler was also their elected ruler of the planet. It is also noted that actually the Families of the Kuat (the ten families that lead Kuat and its driveyards which include the Kuat family) were founding or atleast really early members of the TF since these families were merchant families that combined their influence to rule a planet (planet of Kuat) which the most powerful and the most contributing family at the time the Kuat family was named after the planet and had the heridetary ruler position ( it’s like the Kuat family is the royal family chosen at ten founding of a kngdom but the other families are archduke families which are autonomous and are also heridetary/cannot be revoked by the royal family.) It’s also know that each family controls a section of the Kuat driveyards ( The shipyard around the planet). As I was saying when there was an accidents which most of the higher ups of the TF was assassinated which included their representatives, the Kuat driveyards broke their relation as a subsidiary for the TF which is also one the reasons the Kuat system chose to side with the republic and the sith (The planet of Kuat was originally mostly under the Old Sith Empire and that’s where their arrow head designs come from not just the influence of palpatine. So with also the Kuat families and other important organizations of the TF getting of the ship all that remained were the neumodians and the independent people who were mostly suppressed killed or subordinated by the neumodians which is why later on it doesn’t have teh characteristics of a Federation and has the offfice of Viceroy. I hope this has been helpful to understanding SW universe and the TF.
Japan is no longer an empire in theory or in practice, the British Empire now consists of one large island, a number of tiny islands, and a chunk of Ireland, and Rome, both halves of it, fell for a reason. And then the empire that finished it off also fell. Those aren't exactly good counterexamples.
@@cooperross9495 My God. Cathy Newman much? I'm saying that the fact that Rome fell and Britain is no longer a globe spanning empire in no way detracts from the point, because no government entity has lasted forever. They ALL fall apart at some point and are replaced by something else. That's not a political belief, that's just a fact.
Is it not possible that they included “congressional” in MCR since the congress holds a great responsability in keeping the executive in check and is therefore imperative to the stablity of the state and the democratic power of its people?
British Empire wasnt dumb just because Britian is puny compared to the rest of the Empire. If that works, the Empire of Earth, or Empire of Humanity are great.
"Settlement defense front" sounds like a branch of the military. It's like calling a nation "Homeland Security", or naming a military branch "The United States of America".
not if its say a conglomeration of member states that are in reality entirely both part of the same nation and not, think the galactic republic in star wars.
@@seamusfinnegan1164 a) SWs republic was one nation. yes each planet held some autonomy but it was still a nation (similarly to the USA or Germany today) b) even if that wasnt the case it was still united untill the CIS tryed to break free. c) hell even the most disunited federatin like entety in our history (holy roman empire) was united enough to make that descriptor useless... if you join/create a federation you are by definition united.
@@drizzt7dourden7 for A I never said it was not still a nation and that was kind of my point as a nation within a nation, or a state within a state. B. SW's republic could be called united in that its a singular nation but in other aspects its also disunited in its capability to have inner nations fighting within itself. C. Not neccesarily as with the Holy Roman Empire you can be united in some aspects and disunited in others be it the capability for nations within the nation to fight each other, for parts of the nation to still be part of the nation but be part of another nation entirely, among countless other things.
You know what I love......Narcissism. I love how we now think that empires inherently do not work, and that monarchies are inherently ineffective. I am NOT arguing for the morality of it, obviously they are not moral. The narcissism I refer to is due to the fact that for most of human history the world was ruled over by a bunch of empires that achieved great things. Only recently, and I mean really recently did we shift to a less imperial system, the results of which (when viewed in the grand scheme of things) are yet unknown. in a 1000 years, our time could be called "the couple of centuries where we doubted empires and were then proven to be idiots". LOVE YOUR CHANNEL BTW
I agree. Not only that but all the countries today can barely remain stable or are inefficient in many ways. These forms of government won't stand a fucking chance running a bunch of planets if they can't even retain order and efficiency within continents. Empires aren't much better but if we really going to make an argument for which government would work better in space, the answer is none of them. Distance will always cause a nation to fragment.
Sharif Qaddomi so the problems with monarchies just don't fit modern day which is why we don't use them anymore. They can be incredibly effective and they were when the right people were in charge but then some shitty son takes over and ruins it all. They're not stable because while one or a few people having power works on certain situations it doesn't work long term because people are flawed and eventually you're gonna get shitty leaders with a ton of power and things go bad. Republic and constitutional monarchies are much more stable but not as effective when it comes to getting things done. And people like stability not crazy drastic changes every couple of decades. One minute the country is fine, the next it's in a dozen wars. People don't like that which is why they changed the system and nowadays that's good. I'd hate to have somebody like king John from robin hood, the real guy though who lead to the manga carta becoming a thing, having nukes. Seriously that'd suck. Or just imagine Trump with a ton more power.
Vys Erion True, but they create new flaws, the wisdom of the masses is extremely over rated, look at the current leaders of a bunch of democratic countries, they're not exactly shining examples of the benefits of democracy. But really, all I'm saying is that we have no idea how history will judge our time, or whether democracy is here to stay.
I can't say I agree with your points about empires and protectorates. First, empires don't _have_ to be hyper-centralised. They don't even have to be autocratic - just look at the British Empire. An empire could be a parliamentary democracy with colonies, or a very decentralised autocracy based on cooperation and gradual integration with local leadership. And as for the Helghan Empire needing a more fascist name - what? What about the Greater German Reich (meaning Empire)? You do the same thing with protectorates - you ignore historical examples, like the Cromwell regime in Britain which, while not (by your standards) a protectorate, was officially referred to as "The Protectorate". Overall, while I liked the video, a lot of it smacked of dictionary definitions to me.
Nerdsoft The British Empire was still centralized and only let people in some parts of Britain vote, it's not very democratic when the vast majority can't vote.
Nerdsoft You are completely right about Empires. An Empire tecnically doesn't even need an Emperor, they only need to be a powerful nation that has an Imperialist politics towards its neighbours.
Technically the British Empire was never called the British Empire - only India was ever a formally named Empire. There are examples of decentralised and not crazily autocratic (if still undemocratic) empires though, like the Holy Roman Empire, which was formally named an Empire but was so far from the normal implication of a heavily centralised state that it was sometimes referred to as "neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire". I should also note that "Reich" doesn't translate to "Empire" - I think the closest translation would be "realm". A country that is specifically ruled by an emperor would be a "Kaiserreich" or "Kaisertum". I do agree that the video smacked of strict dictionary definitions though - the meaning of words can evolve, as can political organisations, which may start out as an alliance of sovereign nations but evolve into something else, but keep the name "Alliance" or "Coalition" for continuity.
For the record, the Cromwell regime _was_ officially referred to as The Protectorate (1653-59), part of the Commonwealth period (1649-60). That it was the official name is _why_ it "is widely considered as such." It could also be considered a military dictatorship, like a _junta_ or _caudillismo._
It was considered democratic for the same reason Athens was--no matter how limited the franchise, those who cast their votes did so on an equal basis--one man, one vote.
The Terran Hegemony is perfectly named in Battletech. It is founded when a military coup wipes out the collapsing Terran Alliance, and the name symbolizes Earth's importance on the galactic scene. It also proclaims their early ambitions to resubjugate all of their colonies.
United Federation of Nations is pretty terrible... Apart from being just a bit bland, it has no reference to humanity, so in an interstellar setting with aliens, it becomes completely nondistinctive. Most real countries have some reference to either nationality or geography in their name.
Yeah, it doesn't convince me either. However it would make sense if the way the different aliens are structured is so different from ours that we couldn't call it a "nation"
Since when are aliens mandatory in a sci-fi setting? If said problem occurs (random alien nation appears, people dont know whom they have to pay taxes), just put terra in the name... with its maxim: "Terra Invicta"!
Marconius Well, one reason to not reference humanity specifically in a setting with other sentient beings is migration/cooperation: if your nation might end up with a significant percentage of the population being non-human it could come across as a bit off. In the setting I'm writing I'm going to great lengths to find meaningful and unique names without mentioning species, since most nations have several species among their population.
I'm inclined to agree. Also the unintentional rhyming between 'federation' and 'nation' is off-putting, there's a general lack of character, etc. There needs to be something to grab hold of, to investigate and find an interesting story, etc. Sure, the US is referred to as 'the united states' all the time, which is pretty bland, but 'United States of America' being the official name has something to grapple with. What is America? Why is it significant to the history of this nation? etc. Something like United Federation of Earth might make more sense, Earth subbing in for America, and even if it ends up having a diverse population from numerous other nations/species/etc, Earth is still important because it's a callback to the origin and history of this nation. That said, 'United' and Federation' kind of accomplish the same thing in describing the nation as made up of member states or planets or whatever, and without some kind of proper place-name it sounds pretty generic.
Marconius My greatest problem with the UFN is the fact the lacking of character, like some back story could fix that because the United States is pretty bland but it makes sense and addes to he counties identity once you know the History. I think thats the biggest problem wih country/nation names is the history of that nation is lacking. Like think about it with the history of US, USSR, or UK these names are pretty boring and lackingof character. United States, Union of Sovereign Soviet Republic, and United Kingdoms.(this isnt even including nations like the United Providences, United Arab Emirates, and other nations that with back story lose the importance of the name.
@@louisduarte8763 The Chiss Ascendency was located in the unknown regions, so they had little to no interaction with the rest of the galaxy. In Timothy Zahn's book Thrawn, nobody knows what he is, and if you can't see his eyes, you could assume him to be a Pantoran. In canon, Thrawn is all that the Empire knows about the Chiss, and believe he was exiled. However, I won't even get into Legends, as there is much more interaction. Go look it up on Wookiepedia.
I think you're missing how important tradition is to nationalism. It's hard to rename a country without a complete revolution, and plenty of real world nation's have kept silly names. The United Kingdom of (insert list of countries here) sounds like a compromise a committee made with the intention that it be temporary, whereas the name The United States of America probably was all that AND it stopped being accurate after the US civil war. In well over 200 years, neither country has decided, "Hey, let's pick a new name that sounds better." Likewise, a government that formed with a silly name, united the Earth under a silly name and spread into space under that same silly name would likely keep that same silly name there after.
Sadly there was a Name Change for Reasons like "Sounds better." The "Third Reich". It was still the Weimar Republic System. After the "Reichsprogromnacht" (dont know the english name) ppl were so scared that they basically gave him the "do what you want" power. Some say it was planned by the NSDAP that the Parlament got burned down so they had to move to Nürnberg. Hitler got some laws through that steadily gave him more Power till he could bann everyone who was agaisnt him. Then came the "Nacht derlangen Messer" (again sorry no english name XD) where he killed of ppl from his Party and the SA to ensure Power. The "Reich" was just a Psychological thing. Germans where down and hoped to be a Major European Power agian. The German Reich was one. So yes a Name cause it soudns better.
Kaitan I don't know the first one, but in English we call the time he killed his supporters "The Night of the Long Knives." Not sure if that's a direct translation or not.
Thanks. But fearing we lose the Initial Point i wanna state again. I thin kwith Greater Changes in Politic, Economy, Borders and stuff i think Renaming happens Naturally. So Colonizing other Planets as a United Species i believe a Name Change would happen.
I made Sci-fi factions before and one of them makes sense such as the A'túrii Celestial Dynasty Considering the A'túrii is composed of advanced energy beings that able to forge stars and make them as homeworlds sounds like they get the nickname "Star people"
A few things about your problems with Empires. Firstly, you said an empire is highly unlikely to develop into an interstellar nation in a science fiction setting. This is not necessarily true, as it is highly dependent on how the monarchy in power treats its citizens, whether it develops a large anti-monarchist enlightenment movement. An empire could also develop after space travel is developed, via a monarchist government dominating lesser worlds and races. Second, you said that a meritocratic system is better than a hereditary system because leaders are picked based on their merits rather than being "rewarded" through birthright. You forget that power is not a reward, but a burden; it should not be given based on who wants it but who would best wield it. Third, you said that there is nothing in an empire to prevent incompetence. This ignores that heirs to monarchies are groomed to rule, literally learning their whole lives how to be emperor. Other forms of governance are also not free from incompetence; it is possible in a democracy to elect incompetent leadership as we have done historically, for example. Fourth, not all empires are despotic and authoritarian absolute monarchies. Case in point: The British Empire.
Monarchies have little to no quality control for their leadership. While it is true incompetent leadership does happen in democracies and it is damaging to them, it is down right devastating in Monarchies and other Authoritarian systems. The first born male heir is going to be king whether they are fit to rule or not, the only thing that's going to stop them is a coup by a relative. And any system where governmental overthrow is your only form of quality control is a poor system of governance, and there have been thousands of leaders who in spite of grooming and constant training to be monarch none the less proved to be incompetent leaders. And when you take into account the propensity for inbreeding in royal families incompetent leadership becomes more and more likely as the gene pool drys up. What's worse inbreeding can lead to difficulties in procreating or worse yet sterilization which can only lead to power struggles and civil war. And while by no means ALL absolute monarchs are oppressive and cruel, any system where the governing bodies and their families are above the law is going to breed psychopaths who will exploit this to be oppressive despots. Also the Irish, the Indians, the Americans, First Nations Peoples, Native Americans, Egyptians, and the other former denizens of the former British Empire would strenuously object to the characterization of Great Britain as not being despotic or authoritarian.
As I just explained, quality control in Monarchism is the heir being guaranteed that the heir is trained in statescraft. Incompetent leadership does not plague monarchies harder than democracies either; there are many examples of it taking generations for a monarchy to go down due to bad decisions, and many monarchies have lasted centuries even without being mere figureheads like in the UK. It's not always the firstborn male heir who becomes king; besides dynasties that only just begun, there are elective monarchies throughout history. In democracy, we elect bad leaders of our own volition, with no guarantee of competence or morality. Case in point: Donald Trump, who appointed an energy company lobbyist as head of the EPA, an ISP lobbyist as the head of the FCC, and a public school opponent as Secretary of Education. Or anytime a candidate you don't like is elected to any office, it can be an excuse to rail on democracy. Inbreeding is hardly the rule in Monarchism, and was only really an issue in the modern era after all the families have been marrying for centuries. As for those who would contest whether the UK was despotic or authoritarian, I raise you American chattel slavery and the Indian Wars. On top of that, the UK secured relative prosperity for its own people, and was hardly comparable to Republican regimes that were truly terrible. At the end of the day, Monarchism is just another form of government like democracy, and neither of them are perfect. Claiming there wouldn't be an empire in the future is like claiming there won't be a democracy because people vote against their own self-interests.
Another point I'd like to bring up is how in conversations I had with monarchists they bring up tradition a lot. This may not be important to us, but in a culture that places importance upon religion, tradition, and the like, a monarch is essentially the defender of these principles.
Ryan Frizzell's Libertarian-Level Interstellar Hot Take: a federation is just an empire that pretends to be democratic. Evidence: War of Northern Aggression, French Third Republic AKA French Colonial Empire AKA Third French Empire, Soviet Union, Russian Federation
Actually an empire isnt a style of government, but a sort of description of a governance. It may seems a bit confusing, but this is the definition. Empire- A collection of states OR people ruled by an emprah OR sovereign gov... This means empires can be republican or despotism. The USA is an empire because it has both a collection of states and people under one banner. And all I have to say is Puerto Rico to annihilate any counter argument to that. The romans when they incorporated other cities became an empire, if u noticed they were always referred to empire even when they didnt have an emprah.
chaos16boy Likewise the British Empire was ruled primarily by parliament, not by the monarchs/emperors at the time, since parliament has had final authority since before the empire was formed, although the monarchs had much more power then than they do now, it was by no means absolute or primary power and still largely symbolic/ceremonial.
The German Reich was also basically called the German Empire (reich means realm but in Germanic languages it generally refers to a large and powerful kingdom so very similar to an empire, in fact the HRE is known as the German-Roman Reich in most Germanic languages) but was ruled by a dictator in the form of Hitler.
13:42 - yep Turians are no joke. The lore is that they are militaristic and don't go for skirmishes: either peace or all out war to totally decimate the enemy with no mercy. Nothing in between
Before anyone points it out, we are aware of the irony of using "Empire" in the name of the video when a large segment of the video is dedicated towards how you should never use the word "Empire". If you have been affected by this indefensible act of hypocrisy, then make sure to follow us on Facebook and Twitter!
twitter.com/TemplinEdu
facebook.com/TemplinInstitute/
hey can you guys do more video on fantasy stories?
The Templin Institute I don't know if you were sarcastic at that part about the "democratic people's republic" truly showing that they're a government of the people. But I laughed.
Also, feudalism in sci-fi? Like Dune? Or Klingons?
I feel like I should point out that the name 'United Federation of Nations' is actually a UN equivalent from the anime Code Geass
Would "United Human Council" work as a good name ?
Does Confederation of sovereign colonies work?
You should do more episodes on sci-fi government names and if the name matches the government. If not what would be a better name.
"A nation isn't called the federation of lakes"
Chad: "Let us be henceforth called chad, named after this lake, also known as chad, which means lake"
“Look at this chad it means lake”-bill wurtz
Montenegro:
Vatican City, capital of the catholic church and one of the last city states to actually exist in the modern world today:
And Montenegro also
He follows that with Mountains which made me go right to the Mountain Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, and before that the Mountainous Republic of the Norther Caucasus. I get what they meant, but it is silly in hindsight given how many real countries break that rule so flagrantly
Imperium actually means "absolute power". So the Imperium of Man would be "The Absolute Power of Mankind", which is pretty badass.
Damn that is badass!
That name sounds epic!
And pretty accurately reflects their ideology.
@@boom350ph reeeeee
It could also mean the Sovereignty of Man which is also cool.
This video got a dislike before it had been up long enough for anyone to watch the whole thing. We're finally becoming a real TH-cam channel. Thanks everybody!
Well done!
I haven't made it that far :( but I love your stuff! I'm basing a new Stargate series of you guys :) (links to your channel will be included naturally ;D )
proud of you.
I'm leading a Earth base empire in Stellaris its called the Terran Republic Empire we're a military dictatorship we elect are Emporer after the other dies from the military we use a lot of Xeno slave labor and only humanoid xenos are treated as Terran we control 1567 out of 2000 systems and rest of the galaxy are nothing but our vasilies states
The Templin Institute this was meet. I like what you said about empires. An empire in the traditional sense could never really work in sci-fi
I actually made one before but made sure that it had context.
In it the empire was built during conflict as they built by unifying or conquering all the warlords In Their region of space. They also faced external threats that required martial power to defend against.
As for government they had a society that values intelligence and skill so one could gain or lose nobility due to personal ability. They also had a senate that could challenge the nobles if needed.
There's a historical precedent for naming a galactic-spanning civilization after the planet Earth, in my opinion. The Roman Empire was, after all, named after the City-State of Rome.
Yeah, they just expanded their definition of "Roman"
Well he suggest terran which refers to the inhabitants of terra ala earth just as roman refers to the inhabitants of rome
I also think naming a nation the "State of Earth" or whatever, would invoke a sense of Earth centralism, which could lead to interesting politics. I mean, it's not like Rome was nice to its colonies.
It makes sense. With the reality of history, nations all start somewhere and often need a name early on so, of course they name themselves what represents what they were at their foundation. As they grow, they arent going to keep swapping or voting on names and they certainly arent going to care if enemy culture gets assimilated cause they want the opposite, to assimilate the individual to the nation.
But what about the Republic of Dave?
Clearly a form of satire. They have a democratic form of government but everyone votes for the same individual.
WTH happened on Planet Bob that it became the Republic of Dave???
I mean, they're the sole remaining bastion of democracy in the wasteland, so they can't be that bad.
Well it can't be that great if the leader's father is a butterfly!
Reminds me of the Bobiverse. Maybe everyone is just a copy of Dave?
12:05 if you delve into the names of most countries you'll find their meanings tied into Geography. For example, the Scottish name for Scotland is Alba, which is derived from Albion which was derived from a Roman word describing the white cliffs of Dover. Literally named after the first bit of geography many Romans saw.
Yeah, also the region of Transilvania, it has a Latin etymology, for Trans means over and silvae is the word used for Woods, so basically Transilvania means The Land From Across the Forest or something. It's not really uncommon to name a nation based on it's geographical intricacies. After all, a nation is fundamentally bound to Earth, ain't it? Perhaps that's why it is rather difficult to name a Space Faring civilization.
@@Lt.Boomer Hypo- meaning low, and -emia, meaning presence in blood
@@froglover4203 What?
I think the importance is to worldbuild this correctly in a similar way, Nothing wrong with having say, the Antorran Confederacy for a multi-species multi-planet government, if Antorra is an agreed word for space between its constituents, sort of like how some words in our world stem very similarly. Although how to standardise this would be the worldbuild challenge. That being said having the various constituents engage in contact wars and peroidically undergo occupations by one or a plethora of cross-occupations in their histories would probably solve this through some level of cultural osmosis.
The Rebel Alliance is also used well considering it's truly made up of a ton of small cells organized under the main Alliance banner
IIRC, their official name is "Rebellion to Restore the Republic"
@@Barri2410 “Alliance to Restore The Republic”
@@christophersalinas2722 ah, yes. Thanks
This works precisely because it's not a sovereign government. It's a military hierarchy intending to turn rule over to an actual government after completing its task.
Alliance to Restore the Republic.
11:59
Lakes: “Chad” means “lake”
Mountains: “Haiti” means “mountainous land”
montenegro means black mountain
Iceland means exactly what you'd think (though it's spelt Island).
The Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus and the Republic of Mountainous Armenia.
"Trade Federation makes no sense..."
I thought you said alien societies aren't bound by any human definitions or concepts.
@Internet Entity The trade federation ISN'T HUMAN
@Internet Entity True, But They Had Their Own Culture and Traditions
All "aliens" in Star Wars are just stupid humans on the cognitive level.
@@ImperativeGames that sounds like imperial talk to me
Humans are the majority species in the Trade Federation, and the galaxy at large, and so would have most of the "yee or nee" power with the name. At the same time as making up like 70% of all intelligent life, the 30% that remains is divided up between tonnes upon tonnes of other races -> division among those who aren't you makes you stronger in comparison as it weakens them. This is on top of most of that 30% remaining being very obviously related to humans, most likely mutant strains.
Furthermore, species in star wars generally think like humans, even the ones that don't even look like humans, and the point he made was with regards to if they have a different psychology about them.
* *STELLARIS INTENSIFIES* *
read my mind
I will enslave your pops if you take the same logo that I use.
Way to true to be funny
* *EXTERMINATUS INTENSIFIES* *
forgive me [species], but i must dim my viewscreen, as your appearence is repulsive
I think the word Sol/Solar is actually a good descriptor for anything that is specifically based on our home star system.
"The Solar Union"
"The Sol Federation"
...or for the entire race 'Solomon': the men of Sol...women too, of course!
*The Union of Sol-viet Socialist Planets*
@@maxwellli7057 ...now with 20% more Chinese characteristics! :D
Flapjackpants well played
That works in an early interstellar setting, or a unified interplanetary setting. However in a later interstellar setting, all those other systems might feel underrepresented. Additionally in a interplanetary setting that hasn't been unified, calling your government Sol or Solar might be construed as violating other states sovereignty. That could still work if you are a majority power there, but less so if you aren't. Like, we call the USA America, but if it didn't economically politically and militarily dominate North America would people still call it that?
You should've included "kingdom" as many countries today still use it in their official name. And that is for historical reasons. Like, I don't remember hearing it's use in a sci fi name. It would be cool.
Star Kingdom of Manticore
@@UndeadEmpire472 Well, I honnestly don't know where that is from.
@@nathanaelsallhageriksson1719 the Honor Harrington series. Basically Horatio Hornblower IN SPACE!
“Confederation of Earth” is a lot like “Senatus Populusque Romanus”
Almost the whole empire was not in Rome. But that’s the indisputable center of power and culture.
Exactly, that's why I think the UEG works
"So you want to join the Alliance of Awakened Nations, huh? How woke are ya?"
"Pee is stored in the ba-"
"YOU'RE IN."
poop is stored in the buttcheeks
Tears are stored in the eyes
@@zakaltan-euskaldunen_enjoyer Technically true
@@theloweffortchannel7211
True is when things are correct
@@janusceasar7851 depends on what you define the as the eyes. Is it just the eyeballs or does it include all things that aid with vision? That would include the tear glands.
A democracy can also be an empire.
In the early 20th century Britian was a fully fledged democracy but also held huge colonial possessions and ran an empire
Lee Jenkins Exactly! Not to mention a Constitutional Monarchy with Queen Victoria as the head of the Empire and fountain of Honor and Pride. As well as a functioning Aristocratic class which served in Parliament, Armed forces, and Colonial Officials.
Yes, but this is due to weird ceremonial dynastic laws. The king/queen of Britain was also emperor/empress of India. Britain had a democratic system. India did not. They were still part of the United Kingdom though.
The French Republic had colonies and the Republic of the Netherlands did also.
There was never actually an entity called 'The British Empire' though. That was just the term used to refer to Britain and her various colonies, dominions, and territories, etc... Ergo, there was a British Empire but it never actually called itself that.
Gerishnakov It was an Empire ruled by Great Britain ergo British Empire. You are right in the sense that it was not a formal State named British Empire, but the Empire ruled by the British was called and recognized by others as the British Empire. Just as it is now known as the British Commonwealth or formal Commonwealth of Nations.
A federation is a union of partially self-governing parts, so the ''Trade federation'' is not necessarily disqualified from being a federation
He really doesn't know anything about government forms....
M.A.R.C.: "If your nation is supposed to have a tyrannical central government, maybe don't call it a league".
Classical Athens: "Watch me".
You probably know this, but it was technically (very VERY technically) a democratic union.
I see you are a well read man. I salute you as I was going to mention this too.
I mean "Delio-Attican League" is a name made up by historians. The city-states which were part of it called it the "συμμαχία", which means "Alliance"
Laughs in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
@@hexcss9153 The democratic people's republic of korea is like the holy roman empire. As the HRE was niether holy, nor roman, nor an empire; the DPRK is neither democratic, of the people, a republic, or of all korea
The Trade Federation was made up of a "coalition" of different trade corporations and worlds, which is where the "federation" part of the name comes in. Furthermore, the "viceroy" of the Trade Federation got his title from his home planet, not from the Trade Federation.
I would've just chalked up the Trade Federation's name as a "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" type of situation in the form of a megacorp trying to make their organization sound more democratic than it actually is in order to score some PR points via propaganda. But that explanation works as well.
@@k9thexv630 Agreed, "Ruthless Warmongering Corporate Weapons Cartel" has a certain appeal but it doesn't seem like it would be recognized as a legitimate national polity.
I can’t tell if you like Star Wars.
Also are they a alien fraction which he stated that he Won't cover in this video?
Yup, pretty much.
Dare I say it...
The Holy Human Empire
The Holy Human Empire was neither Holy, Human, or an Empire.
@@polishplanetpursuer4772 except human, all are humans non humans don’t exist in fact non humans never existed! (Edit: Punctuation)
The Holy Imperium of Mankind Legion
@@asaifaji sounds hot
That's what happen when you let Taboritsky colonize the space
Well, a name can very well represent the history of a nation. So, if a state is born out of an Empire and established during its existence colonies on several planets, it very well can be a "Kingdom" without being a monarchy.
For example take the "Herzogtum Lauenburg", an administrative district in Germany, and far from alone. It roughly translates into "Duchy of Lauenburg", yet there is no Duke of Lauenburg at the moment, and the last official one (Bismarck) was gifted the title without any associated power over this region. So, this region keeps this name and also kept the official coat of arms as symbol for the region.
So the name has nothing to do with how politics work, but with the legacy of the region.
Funny thing I had to argue with someone was, that he couldn't accept that a fictional nation elected an Emperor/King rather than a President for a legislative period. Just the same, this is just a title and may not say anything about what kind of power the person holding the title actually has. In some form "Emperor"/"King/Queen" as title can be interchangeable with "President".
Key is, that if you create a culture in any given project, be it sci-fi or fantasy, its not the names which must fit modern definitions, but the names and their definition must fit the world they are created for.
If a nation was named "Empire" at some point, why would it need a renaming, if the shift in politics and ethics came peaceful and natural through time and not through an uprising/revolution or by being overthrown?
If a "United Nations of Earth" was founded during a time, when colonies were just at their smallest beginnings or even before that, without colonies, the name makes perfect sense.
@VulpesChama exactly, him malding around 7:48 seems pointless exactly because of this
"Nations on Earth aren't named after geography"
Tell that to the United States of America
Muckknuckle Or Iceland, Australia among many others.
@@TheLordUrban Or Costa Rica (Rich Coast), Cape Verde (Green Cape), Denmark (roughly "caves on the borderlands"), Equatorial Guinea (it's in the damn name), The Gambia (for "The Gambia River") Haiti (Land of High Mountains), or my favorite, East Timor (Timor means "East", so East Timor is "East East")
USA isn't a good example. States are not geographic features, but rather political bodies. America is just the name of the continent, which isn't "geography" per se either. Iceland, Greenland, Costa Rica, etc are better examples
@@nickritchie2154 denmark as far as im aware (as a swede) is acctually named fro who lived in the land and not so much the feutures of the land. Denmark essentially means the ground of the danes or the land of the danes much like how sverige (sweden in swedish) is simply the relm of the sweds norway however is intressting as it is the norse way or the northern way. finland is the land of the fins obviously and the swedish name for france is frankrike which means the relm of the franks. regardless since the english word for denmark is derived from the scandinavian name for denmark i would imagen that indeed even in english denmark is named for who lived in the region and not from "caves from the borderlands" as you say.
Yeah..like most countries ARE named after geography, they just don't translate well.
I think a name like "Federation of Earth" can work for an interstellar civilisation, if you deliberately want to depict a government that is terrancentric in its policies and outlook.
A neo-colonialist faction, that rules from earth, with its interstellar holdings being mere colonies, could be an intentionally positive name for what is in essence an informal empire
@@TargunYssboern ...or it could mean a nation that came into being at a ceremony that was held ON Earth.
HPA = Human Planets Alliance
french republic : "laughs in imperialism since the 1500's"
usa : "laughs in manifest destiny and foreign conflicts"
UN : "LAUGHS IN FUTURE COLONIZER OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM"
I think it has more to do with rather or not there are rivals.
Humans don't see themselves as one because there is no one else like us. An identity can only really exist if you have something else to compare to.
You lump a lot together under "Empire" and end up missing the point of it. It is not just a society ruled by coercion. It is a society in which the willing members approve the ruling of the unwilling members by coercion. There's nothing stopping an empire having a highly meritocratic organization based on its willing members. See the Galactic Empire from Star Wars, whenever it's not portrayed as comically evil for narrative purposes. There's also no reason an empire needs to be a monarchy, much less have an aristocracy. See the Romulan Star Empire, which is apparently a Federal Republic, but only allows representation to Romulans and rules over subject species by threat of force. It's also possible for an empire with an aristocracy to not have a monarch - see the Klingon Empire, which is ruled by a council of nobles.
You're right that rule by coercion tends to waste people's potential. But you're wrong that this means a more inclusive government would always perform better. Most often, the alternative to an interstellar empire is not to have the same realm with better governance due to greater participation by the population, but to have a large number of competing petty states that hate each other's guts. An empire is not formed just to oppress people for the sake of it, it's formed because the willing and unwilling members have irreconcilable differences that prevent a peaceful union. The willing members are simply the winners of that conflict. The alternative would be the winners genociding the losers. In that context, wasting some of the potential of the subjugated populations seems like the least bad thing. They'd otherwise either be dead or wouldn't be contributing to that society at all since they'd be part of a competing nation.
Som also called the USSR the "Soviet Empire"
Having only one way of a race to achieve unification is boring. What if the Habsburgs dynasty(which had at one time a relative most of the thrones of Europe) had united together. If all of the European empires had not been fighting each other and were united into a early form of the European Union most of the world would have been under European rule.
And to answer your question about how an intelligent citizenry could allow a tyrannical regime to rise (Star Citizen) ask the Germans before the Second World War. Or any of the other societies that started as democracies only to become dictatorships. Fear and desperation can cause even the most intelligent to turn to someone offering to solve the problems.
And let's not forget that Empires can have merit based aspects like the Star Kingdom of Manticore from the David Weber Honor Harrington book series. Honor though born a yeoman (basically a commoner) rose the ranks of both the Navy and the Nobility. And the Kingdom itself evolved into a Empire out of necessity as it gain territory and states join it for protection.
Lastly I would like to say the power of the monarch could vary depending on the state of the Empire is it takes weeks to travel across the empire then most worlds would be fairly independent and the empire run more like a confederacy or federation. If not then most likely the better choice would be a constitutional monarchy with some kind of parliament or system of checks and balances. Also the monarch could be viewed as central connecting force. The one stable constant in the various parties in parliament or society at large the one person above the politics and champion for the people.
@@romelllowery9549 The Star Kingdom of Manticore is a democratic monarchy whose sovereign is stylized as an Empress due to the government having holdings in more than one system.
S
Also misses the point that it is certainly possible for an empire to have once began as some other form of government before branching out into space. The most famous empire in the western world, the Roman Empire, began as a primitive form of republic.
"The Free Aligned United Democratic Theocratic Congressional Confederated Federal Commonwealth of Hegemonic and Imperial Republics of Terra as a Protectorate of the League of Arcadian States and the Concordian United People's Front" is me trying to use all the adjectives used to describe a country
Could only imagine if there’s an alien civilization out there with that name in their language(s)
“Nations on Earth aren’t named geography”
Iceland: ._.
Greenland: ._.
Iceland: should we-
Greenland: *don’t Iceland*
In this case, they're named after the name of the region they're in. Something like calling a star nation the 'Orion Arm Republic' or 'Messier Cluster Empire'
Lord Inquisitor Uh... South Africa
@Bungle Booce he's just saying there are places on earth named after locations.
Australia literally means bottom of the world.
Long Island
Japan/Nihon(Sun rise kingdom) because the sun rose on them first before America was discovered.
Haiti means mountainous land
Norway means northern way(if that counts, more of a direction then a land feature)
Republic of Congo is named after their River
Brazil is named after a tree
And Antártica is “opposite of the arctic”
So when you say countries/places aren’t named after their geographic features well...
Iceland does have Ice though. And Greenland does have some Forests.
Next Incoming Idea: The World Backstory
The Earth-is-devastated future: (StarCraft, Alien, Firefly, Warframe, Avatar)
The middle road Future: (Halo, Battlestar: Galactica)
The near-utopian future: (Star Trek, Mass Effect)
And the fantasy world: (Star Wars, Middle-Earth, Dragon Age, Witcher, Game of Thrones)
Share exactly how to create a back story for factions and how they factor into the themes of the Universe.
Rainbowhawk1993 Avatar and Alien is earth devastated? Since when?
Michael J. Caboose The Extended Cut of Avatar showed Earth being Blade Runner Earth and The Encyclopedia guide explained nearly all national parks were torn down and the Earth is over populated.
Alien is a future where Whelen Untani basically monopolized space travel and their obsession with controlling the Xenomorph shows it’s a future that’s doomed with or without a Xenomorph invasion.
no green, the entire planet is a huge industrial estate.
Mass Effect and Star Trek as utopian?
You need to read more Banks ;)
Or Science Fantasy.
Like Warhammer 40’000
I believe that a space Empire can work through various manners, either genetic modifications to heirs to ensure competency, an immortal AI advisor, loyal chips in the brains of the subjects, a social credit system, a Imperial Cult or having the emperor be the protector of the faith, etc. So I wouldn't rule off interstellar empires, I think technology will be able to support it's dominance
I mean you can just make the emperor or royal family to have some kind of special powers that their subjects cannot resist in interstellar settings, not uncommon tbh. That way, the monarchy can protect its authority better.
Warhammer 40k. (The God emperor of mankind.)
My empire in my book is literally based on Immortal rulers who lead the nation in war, technology, and meritocracy. The race literally is ordained by an ambivalent god who owns the planet and dictates rule through that royal family. Maybe they have a bias against it
Or just be future north korea
@@srash8854 my Empire is sort of a Republic with a senate. The Emperor (me) is a figurehead with half the power of the Empire, and whenever the Emperor leaves or something happens to the Emperor, an election would take place to select who would be temporary Emperor or empress.
For me the the whole trade federation in Star Wars was as far as I knew, the companies within the Star Wars Galaxy were more massive and influential than most individual planets so companies creating a united federation of them kinda makes sense, as for the whole Viceroy part, I always assumed Viceroy was an honorary title or maybe the primitive or pre Trade Federation, were originally a monarchy
I don't think every government in fiction should be some form of democracy or total authoritarianism. I think the idea of a corporate is unique and fun, as well as a bit more imaginative.
The Trade Federation was also represented in the Galactic Senate, so I'm not entirly sure how that went.
Something to point out is, that it was called the trade federation because they were a group of systems that traded with each other for profit and necessity due to lack of senate support. There is also the matter of when they finally went to war they changed to the C.I.S. or the confederation of independent systems.
A monarchy isn't always doomed to a power struggle every time a monarch dies, succession laws exist for a reason.
Power struggles don't spell disaster necessarily either. Oftentimes the greatest leaders are the ones that emerge from such struggles, harder and stronger than ever before.
Yeah, that statement is as wrong as saying "democracies are doomed to a power struggle every time someone's term ends". Yeah, sometimes. There've been civil wars because the losing candidate didn't want to step down. Even now there's people in the US insisting that Hillary Clinton is the real winner of last elections. But as long as due process is being observed, the country should be safe.
And in Science Fiction there are plenty of workarounds when it comes to monarchy.
In the Sten series by Cole and Bunch, for instance, the empire is ruled by the Eternal Emperor. He started off as an engineer who figured out a way to fuel starships, then applied that knowledge to other things, such as power plants and weapons. He kept control over the material’s manufacture, becoming incredibly wealthy as a result. Anyone who duplicated his method was sued out of existence, and it is implied that when organized crime tried to get a piece of the action, he financed ruthless extermination of such groups.
He then turned his vast wealth to cloning technology, memory recording and uploading, and life extension. Once those technologies were perfected, he kept them secret. So he has long life, then if he gets sick, old, or is assassinated, another clone is activated with new memories installed and he carries on ruling.
He’s also smart/practical enough to allow both gray and black markets to exist, which work as safety valves. People will rebel, so he contains and directs their rebellion.
That’s just one example. There are also hive minds or android bodies or other forms of life extension one could employ to plausibly have an empire.
This was an interesting read. Thank you.
Laws aren't always absolute especially when someone has enough power behind them. Many medieval nation has solid succession laws, but all it took was a person with a big enough army to get their way. It happen in Russia with Empress Catherine, even though her husband was the rightful ruler, she forced him to advocate when almost everyone in Russia wanted him out even though I'm all intents and purposes she forced him out of his position.
"empires are ineffective and outdated". Well that sounds like heresy to me. Time to fire up the exterminatus!
no u
Rathcore 18 stfu heretic
Isn't one of the major characteristics of the Imperium of Man that it's a bloated mess that is constantly on the brink of collapsing into itself, were it not for the outside threats that allow this behemoth to direct the internal pressure at them.
Vesten ziRnis
, not that I'm supporting Monarchs, but the Imperium of Man is a bloated mess because they lost the emperor, not because they had one.
mosteel88 But, they had to have had an emperor in order to lose one, which is kind of the point. The biggest flaw with most traditional, monarchical/dynastic forms of government is that they concentrate most, if not all, power into a singular point. That type of government can be useful, particularly when a state is faced with some sort of existential crisis and can't afford to get bogged down with political red-tape, legislation, and constantly having to receive approval from the legislature. The Imperium of Man was born out of necessity, after all.
But, it still fell to the pitfalls of most empires.
"Unlike most federations, membership within a confederacy is voluntary, and states within it can relinquish their membership."
Swiss Confederation: *Sweats profusely*
Canada: *Sweats profuselier*
@@Squaretable22 Canada is a federation. To confederate in Canadian law means to become a part of Canada, but Canada is still a federation.
@@minutemansam1214 Canada calls itself a confederation still, or at least did
USA : "SWEATS IN CIVIL WAR"
the only thing holding Switzerland together is that Romands hate French more than they hate Swiss Germans, and Swiss Germans hate Germans more than they hate Romands
And there is Swiss Italians who are constantly complaining but they're still there because everything runs fine
I’ve heard Empire defined more as “A government that rules over diverse peoples and/or lands, usually by force” By this argument, Rome was an Empire even before it had an emperor and the United States is an Empire today. So an Empire doesn’t need an Emperor or hereditary monarch at all.
You made no reference to the most likely thing to be used in naming a nation: geography. For example, did you know the spiral arms of our galaxy have names? We live in what is generally know as the orion arm. So if you don't want to rely on references to earth or humanity then why name your nation something like the Orion Federation.
'Ello Guv'ner What I was thinking.
problem is that includes the entire arm. its like calling the british empire the Empire of Earth
@@EthanThomson or referring to China as East Asia. Orion Federation sounds cool tho, ngl.
confederate states of orion arm
@@EthanThomson Are you denying humanity's birthright to rule the Galaxy?! If anything, Orion Federation is far to constrictive! May the Emperor smite you!
"United Federation of Nations"? Lelouch, is that you???
The Delusional Reacts didn’t expect this reference in this corner of the internet
I literally pERKed up when i heard him say that lOL
All hail Lelouch!
huzzah! a man of quality!!
ALL HAIL LELOUCH
Ok... So about the empire thing. Empire does not mean that the head of state makes all the decisions. The Roman, British and German empires all had highly advanced bureaucracies and Germany was THE most advanced state in the world during it's existence. Empires usually have highly advanced administrations where the sovereign let's the day to day affairs be administrated by smaller organs some even with some form of democratic representation. More often than not Empires are autocracies and the Emperor/Empress can be a mere symbolic figure. If the the sovereign does have highly centralized power there are numerous way to ensure a strong succession:
1: Inheritance is through designated adoptive heirs, as Augustus did.
2: Ensure the emperor have an enormous amount of children through harems, and then let them assassinate each other to decide the heir. As the Ottomans did.
Then there's the sci-fi options:
The Emperor is immortal/cyborg/machine.
The heirs are biologically engineered or enhanced.
The heirs are clones.
And many many more options.
Nothing prevents empires from having elements of meritocracy, especially considering that Democracies often have issues themselves with meritocratic inheritance of power, be it corruption or simply the voters being unable to vote for an efficient leader.
Theres one Problem with the "German". The "Heilig Römische Reich deutscher Nationen" thers no "empire" word in it. Its jsut poor ..... Translation that got Stuck. So the "Holy Roman Empire of German Nations" wasnt really an Empire in the Name. The Word "Reich" means more Like Teritory. First it was the "Regnum Teutonicum" later on it got the "Sacrum Imperium". Gotta Love my History Teacher for those intense detail on german History (as a German ofc).
A better example for your case would be the Chinese Empire during certain dynasties. Western bureaucracy was influence (whether highly or loosely, it's both to be exact for different aspects) by the Chinese system during the 1700s to 1800s when Sinophilia was at an all time high in Europe but also due to it's relative efficiency in ruling a nation where a single province can be as large as the largest European country (excluding colonies). Chinese imperial bureaucracy was also highly based on meritocracy, although there is no denying it could get corrupted later on, but there are more than enough examples of peasants becoming high ranking officials, generals and even emperors to prove that meritocracy is highly valued in Imperial China. There are also records of some form of democracy during certain periods where people get to vote for their village chief and in some cases town/city "mayors".
But all in all, you are right, empire does not automatically means a dictatorship but mostly represents highly centralised bureaucracies.
Thats the negativ point for the Detailed German history. We had to let out other stuff. As Example WW1 was one school year and WW2 the same. sSo we let out lot of Historic Events to learn more than jsut "there was the Holy roman empire and 1871 it was gone"
But mostly i choose the "Holy Roman Empire" because f the Translation problem that "Reich" doesnt mean Empire. "Imperium" is the German for Empire. And Im Sure other Languages got the same Problem with poor Translation leading to misunderstanding.
But yeah your Example is a better one and nice too cause i learned something new for me. Thanks
Hello Kaitan. I'm NOT speaking about the HRE, I'm talking about Der Deutsche Kaiserreich. Empire is an anglican word that was created to reflect the roman empire. The title of the sovereign of the roman empire was Caesar. Kaiser is a direct germanification of that word. Whether the nation itself was called an empire in german, is quite frankly inconsequential, because administratively they absolutely were.
But the Kaiser in the "Kaiserreich" didnt had that much Power. There was the "Reichstag" with politicians elected by the ppl. The "Bundesrat" where the 20+ (dont remember exactly how much sorry) States did send Representatives. and those two made Reichs Laws. Otto Von Bismark made the "Reichsverfassung", the Constition. And it stated that the "Reich" (which reminds me Realm is the Word for Reich XD) cant overrule the Constituion of the States. The States didnt even had an "Standard" form of Government. Some still had "Fürsten" (Nobleman?) some were Republics. And Every State had its own Set of Laws (Constituion "Verfassung") to ground new Laws on. The only Power The Kaiser really had was Military. He was Head of Military and even could Decide the Etate for it (How much money per year for Army Navy) and even There it wasnt "fully". Cause Bavaria and Würtenberg had the "reservatrecht" (i believe thats what its called) which stated the Kaiser only could get theyre Armies in War Times. But the Army was allowed to Act inside of the Country. So If you say the Kaiser had Full control you basically say it was a Military Dictatorship.
So alot of States with own Lawsystems and different Types of Government came Together. Seems more like a Federation.
And they came together while at War with France. So it was more like a necessity to have an Coordinated Military agaisnt an common enemy. Dont forget France was back then stil lthe "Erb und Erzfeind" (Heritage- and Archenemy roughly Translated). Little Fact the Reason the Eagle looks to the left is for That. Always Watchfull to the Archenemy.
In the HRE the Kaiser had more Power. If let say Brandenburg attacked Saxonia and took Land. The Kaiser could take the Land and give it back to Saxonia. If Brandenburg in this "Story" trys to hold the Land, the Kaiser could call to Arms so all "German" states had to follow to attack Brandenbrug. So HRE the Kaiser could make Laws, Control Army and Control the Borders of the States. Thats seems more like an Empire. Thats why i thought you meant that.
But ofc The Kaiser there was more like a Puppet. Elected by "Kurfürsten" and had always try to hold the Balance and dont make all States his Enemy cuase there where his Power.
Sorry for that long Post.
I think that the Imperium gets an additional pass because, well, their head of state is basically a god. Same with the Galactic Empire or something like it. If your faction has a leader who's power level dwarfs the basic citizenry, you definitely have an edge.
If I'm not mistaken, the Trade Federation was called so because it was built up of many worlds with huge amounts of of business and trade who worked together for mutual gain. Nemoidia was one such world and it's individual form of government included the title of viceroy, who most likely brought the most to the table and was therefore elected to represent the Trade Federation.
Zach Siltanen If I'm not mistaken, they're based off of the Japanese "Zaibatsu" concept.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaibatsu
I always assumed it was a federation of planet-owning corporations which came together as a cartel/alliance. But that's partly because I forgot one of their leaders was called a Viceroy.
Yep, just wanted to add that the "Viceroy" thing also makes sense when you consider that the Queen of Naboo was a popularly elected official with strict term limits. In SW, monarchial titles do seem to be used differently.
Kinda like Viceroy of Spain or closer to British East India Company who is a corporation with their own army and government in exchange for goods from their territories?
I think you forgot Dominion, since this is in many concepts in Science Fiction
As I understand it, Dominion is basically the same as empire.. at least, that's the general usage.
Ah. I see. Thanks for sharing.
victory is life!
However, in Latin "dominion" means something along the lines of "possession", "ownership". With such a reasoning, "Human/Earth/Terran Dominion" may indicate a state/international organization representing Humanity.
Would that be the same as a hegemony?
Actually the name of the Martian state does have a precedent in Earth's history. The USSR is a short for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with "Soviet" standing for the name of the parliament "The Supream Soviet". It directly translates to "Congress" or "Council" in English. Knowing that, you can see where the name "Martin Congressional Republics" comes from. I reckon if they put "Union" in front of it, it would be a bit too obvious what Mars actually represents :)
Eltaccos Neczy I think they are. Mars is not directly the USSR, but it is close. Consider, they are portrayed as semi-authoritarian and communalist. We never heard anything about Marian corporations or private businesses. Casually militaristic - check. What is added, I think, is the American frontier spirit, however, if they ware a 1:1 copy it would be boring.
To me, it seems, that MCR is a mix between the early USA and the USSR, while the UN is a mix between the present day US and the old colonial empires of Europe
The Articles of Confederation (1777) went to some lengths to assure the populace that the government of the proposed Confederation would be limited in the extreme, for example every time "the United States" was mentioned in the text, "in Congress assembled" was suffixed to it without fail, as if to claim that the government existed when and only when Congress was assembled--a part-time government (hence "sessions of Congress") with extremely limited powers. Under such a model, Trump would be "not my President" for all citizens, having rulership only over the Congress.
It is possible that the Founders of the original Mars Republic felt that a return to the roots of American political principles was necessary, and explicitly written, to ensure that the new Republic would not decay in the same manner as the old, with nominally opposing Congressmen and Senators instead combining to consolidate power, but would maintain the sovereignty of the individual. And then history did repeat itself, and Congress did gain power to match its o'erweening pride and arrogance. So that what had started out as a Tea Party experiment became an imperialist, expansionist, militarist government, much like the United States between the War Between the States and the rise of the Corporations. As to whether Martian corporations will be mentioned, that depends largely on further developments of the Transport Union, though I would suspect that the Martians have a large, if veiled, interest in the Tycho Manufacturing and Engineering Concern.
I don't think it has to do with the USSR.
I think they went with "Martian Constitutional Republic" because the initials "MCR" rolls off the tongue easier than "MR" (say "MCR Forces" and "MR Forces" a few times and I think you'll see). And that doesn't address the traditional abbreviation for "mister."
That is wrong.
"The United States in Congress Assembled" is the rarely used official name given to unicameral legislative body created by the Articles of Confederation. It was more commonly still referred to as the Continental Congress. It appears so frequently in the Articles of Confederation, because the Articles where the official document that created the United States government, and since the Continental Congress is the only organ of government created in the Articles of Confederation, the document is almost entirely about the powers and function of "The United States in Congress Assembled".
There are multiple points in the Articles of Confederation where the United States is mentioned without "in congress assembled", most obviously in Article I: The Stile of this confederacy shall be, “The United States of America.”
Thank you for the correction. But I still think that in the context of Martian Government, there is a good argument to be made in my argument's favor.
12:25
You could use the Greek alternative (or original, rather) for Terra, Gaia.
Confederation of Gaia, Gaian Union, a Gaian diplomat.
It sounds much more... Unique than Terran, considering how overused it is.
Both sound pretty good, if ignoring how overused terran is
I would've used it too, but it sounds too similar to the word "gay" in my native language
@@darkleome5409 god forbid
"Imperium of man" is the only correct name, everything else is Heresy
Not for another 30000 years
THE INQUISITION APPROVES
Imperium of Man! *STOMP STOMP*
the O.D.S.T spartan That’s Heresy.
You did good, citizen! The emperor protects
The congressional federation of independent democratic collective councils of the imperial theocracy of earthlings
sword of war that's amazing
thanks
The C.F.I.D.C.C.I.T.E...
Nailed it!
You're missing commonwealth xD
My method:
1. Figure out the way the country is governed first. A democracy, an aristocracy, autocracy, oligarchy, technocracy and so on?
2. Have words for the culture, the ethnicity, the land itself.
3. Add some form of adjective for flavour, preferably something that fits with the cultural identity or the local viewpoint.
For example, The Greater Arctic Federation. Set in a post climate change Earth where a majority of the surface has become a wasteland of dust and firestorms and most nations have long collapsed. Various local city states and nation fragments band together regardless of their past, eventually the infrastructure is rebuilt and they begin claiming everything around the Arctic Sea through diplomacy (both regular and gunboat). Slowly terraforming the planet and taking to space.
I think you are overthinking it. I like it xD
I am definitely overthinking things.
10:30
Hegemony and empire are often used interchangably in the real world. Think of like the British and French empires.
About the Galactic Federation of Free Alliances: while it *is* a terrible name, it's meant to be a fourth-wall breaking joke.
Galactic Federation of Free Alliances = GFFA = Galaxy Far, Far Away
Also the shortened name was Galactic Alliance, which is a combination of the two warring factions of the Civil War, the Galactic Empire and the Rebel Alliance.
The Alliance of Allied Allies. would be better.
+Duck ,formally known as Censor : Also, they get first listing in the 'phone book.
I thought their name was Alliance to restore the republic. Not exactly a governing body but more of a central command of all rebel groups.
It's a shame that both Galactic Federation (as a successor to the New Republic) and Galactic Alliance (as an alliance of what was the Republic, the Empire, Hapans, Chiss etc) make sense as names.
''empires go into a state wide crisis if their emperor dies without succesion''
imperium of man: what if your emperor is imortal and also godlike
*loophole aquired*
Also, the head of government is the Regent/High Commander.
The God Emperor merely serves as the head of state.
roman empire : even the poorest general can be imperator! WE HAVE INFINITE IMPERATORS!
the Imperium doesn't go to an stade-wide crisis
It *IS* a state-wide crisis
@@pendragon0905 In fact, the God Emperor is de Jure (legaly) both head of state and governement, but is unable to lead du to his injuries. The Primarch Robute Guilliman, who is both Imperial Regent (civil leader) and Lord Commander of the Imperium (military leader), merely runs the Imperium in the name of the God Emperor, being de Facto leader of the Imperium, until his father either dies for his injuries or his healed.
@@AntoineSojicYT
Actually, even when the God Emperor was active, he spent his time in science rather than governance.
You do realize that empires can be meritocratic?
Also many, many countries are named after geography
Yeah, hell, even many kingdoms can be meritocratic. Where the difference lies between empires and monarchies (the two can and usually are intertwined but its not required) is Rome, I'd sure as hell call the Roman Republic around the time of Julius Caesar an empire, and for much of its time the empire was only partially dynastic. Not to mention he really overstates the problems a bad monarch can cause, because one or two bad monarchs isn't going to change much unless they're back to back, in my eyes the bad monarch isn't the cause of the downfall of nations, but rather it is merely what finally does these nations in. I mean Karl I of Austria-Hungary was a great monarch, and had he stayed in power Austria Hungary could have possibly even stuck around into the 21st century (albeit in a different form), but by the time he came to power, things were already starting to shift in favor of the Entente, and the strain of the war made it an impossibility for a comeback.
The best example of this is the Amarr Empire from EVE Online, where the succesors are chosen via a proxy war between each candidate.
Empires can be meritocratic, but they don't ever stay that way.
@@CallanElliott That is very true, but that is also true of really any government, eventually they will become bloated or corrupt, and no amount of checks or balances will protect it forever.
@@thethirdsicily4802 Yeah, but even still, some are more meritocratic than others.
"Union" can also be used in the context of like a territory controlled by a labor union, along with "guild". for example the Transport Union in The Expanse works like a state in many ways
An empire wouldn't need to be authoritarian or archaic in any way, Japan is technically still an empire, albeit parliamentary.
"Imperium" doesn't actually mean empire (in Latin), it means, or meant "Authority", someone who held an imperium could be in command of an army or govern a province, "Imperium Rōmānum" meant "Authority of Rome", Usually held by an "Augustus" or "emperor".
an "Empire" is an aggregate of nations or people ruled over by an emperor, other powerful sovereign or government, many empires in history weren't ruled over by an emperor, (Athenian empire, Dutch empire, British empire, etc.). It is in fact, perfectly suited for a collection of human planets, moons and stations to be called an empire, just as suited as federation or confederation, just look at history.
While Japan has an emperor, the actual government is officially known as the "State of Japan".
The U.K. is still a kingdom. The Queen is also the sovereign of former parts of the Empire too.
(I'm sorry for any grammatical errors)
"Imperium" was the power of the Imperator (or Pontefix or Caesar or Augustus) to lead the armies and the possibility to give orders to which the recipients can not avoid. But also when Rome was a republic the "imperium" and "Imperator" existed, for example: "Magisterium cum imperio" or "sine imperio" (Magistrate with or without the Imperium) or the Dictator (Gaius Iulius Caesar was a dictator)
+Jaron Ehlers & Elektron117
True, but the form of government is a constitutional monarchy with an emperor as head of state, they could've called themselves the Empire of Japan and it would still be appropriate, although it might have upset the countries around them.
Constitutional Monarchies have no power, they're just legacies of history / cultural icons. Japan doesn't call itself an Empire either.
“If you want a tyrannical central government, don’t use league”
5th century Athens: am I a joke to you?
This makes me want to create a fictional alien species that just gives simple person names to their countries. Stuff like "Fred", and "Susan".
"Hey, did you hear that Bob started a new trade agreement with Jack? Everyone is wondering how Clara is going to react; it seems likely to end in war, from what I've been told."
question how would they react to typical human country names
Probably confusion, since that would be outside of what they consider the norm. "You name your countries after their geographical location? How does one tell if you're talking about the country or the place?"
This just in Billy has attacked John, Sally is expected to come help John, which may also drag in Bob and Jim
John just had a terrorist attack by Vince, Grace sent its army to John to back it up
Marley Most human countries are either named after the place or after the people who live there.
Then to that we add the political stance and other thing (aka Democratic People Republic of something).
So not that wierd.
I feel like Empire still works, but depending on the faction. Because development can happen, the Empire could be ruled by a single family, which may be split into several branches. The aristocracy may also be specialized in certain areas and trained from young. The laws of the empire and how they develop could have changed, that aristocratic families began specializing in, say, pumping out officers. Current times stuff may be loosened up, that in the future, civilians could still get higher positions, and earn a nobility, or be accepted into a nobility, bringing in fresh blood to their gene pool.
>Empire will lose out to meritocracy
>Because those are mutually exclusive
It isn't like the first 'meritocratic' state was imperial China. Or the fact the German Empire became one the most advanced states in the world leading in science and statecraft (it was imperial Germany that gave us state pensions).
Germany never called itself empire though, which is his point.
At the time you refer to it, the name was Deutsches Reich, first part meanign german, and reich being closest resembled by realm.
TheGahta Reich was often used to denote empires, to say it only means realm is highly misleading. Its leader was Kaiser which means emperor. It was clearly an empire.
TheGahta the British empire for example is Britisches Weltreich in German.
It was the Deutsches Kaiserreich. Very much an imperial monarchic empire.
TheGahta It was an Empire so the other dude is right
Two things, The Holy Roman Empire wasn't a empire, it was an Electorial Monarchy. It is okay to have a nation to misname itself out of cultural heritage.
Corporates are very unstable and manipulative, so it isn't insane for them to have mislabeled names in an attempt to save face in international politics.
Nor was it Holy or Roman.
It was an electoral monarchy ruled by an Emperor, so it was an Empire. It's as simple as that.
@Kory Chouinard The word 'empire' is just a strange label to begin with. And the translations of this 'empire' into different languages makes it even weirder. The 'Holy Roman Empire' was called either 'Sacrum Imperium Romanum' or 'Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation' - the translation is a little different, as you can easily see. 'Reich' is more akin to 'realm' though, it just labels a possession that belongs to someone (or something). And that it was. 'Holy' simply referred to it being a Christian state and 'Roman' was added to make it clear that it was to be seen as the heir to the Roman Empire (as in: kind of a big thing in Europe).
The Japanese have an Emperor, the Chinese had one ... but neither of those actually held that title, of course. They had their own words that got translated with Emperor by the people that thought that 'king' wouldn't cut it because of the power or reverence that these figures commanded. All I'm saying is that 'empire' is a very muddy term, I guess ...
Hmm, since the elected monarch of the HRE was the "Holy Roman Emperor" it is save to say that it was an Empire in the sense of the word.
BUt didnt have derect control over the entrie empire
"Nations on Earth aren't named after geography"
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: "Am I a bloody joke to you?"
He means more like calling it "The United Kingdom of Islands" though I still disagree with him on that loint
Montenegro, Means Black Mountain
YES
USA , South Africa : 💀
Yes. Yes you are
7:40
"empire" is also often used when you have a confederation with one nation being completely dominant over the others. The collenial empires were that. The French empire was ruled by a republic, the British by a constitutional monarchy, the Russian empire by an absolute monarchy. The Austro-Hungarian empire was even a diarchy.
Austria-Hungary wasn’t a diarchy. A diarchy means having two leaders/monarchs. Austria-Hungary only had one Emperor-King. It was a dual state in that it had two governments: the Cisleithenian government (Austria) and the Transleithenian government (Hungary), but it wasn’t a diarchy, because it only had one monarch (who was simultaneously Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary)
12:59
Templin: *refers to United Nations Space Command as UNSC*
The United Nations Security Council: Am I a joke to you?
@@pi1523 the entire UN is a joke lol
@@Bob-lr2xp I mean, China is one of the more powerful nations on earth. Why shouldn’t they get a seat, they aren’t western enough?
@@Bob-lr2xp yeah, and I’m not defending China, but the point of the UN is for every nation on earth to be represented. Even China.
@@Bob-lr2xp the seat was originally offered to India(multiple times). But our dumbass of a prime minister at that time, Nehru refused it and instead supported china for the seat.
Ummmmm, yeah.
Using the term republic for the Centauri isn't so wrong.
Republic comes from res publica meaning the public matter. While Emperor comes from Imperator a title describing the holder of a potestas - simply described as an official power - in this case the Imperium, the power to raise troops and command them. Following this and the use of the term in roman law, res publica and the later principate, the Imperium is the military sphere of power of an Imperator or common emperor.
A republic can have an Imperator, the roman republic had always a minimum of 2.
Emperor and King is not the same thing, the title can be hereditable but doesn't have to be.
Further even during the principate (the roman imperial age starting with Augustus) the roman state was still called res publica (republic) even though there was an Imperator (which became a quasi-hereditable title - even though technically the title wasn't hereditable but only the underlying social system of the clients and patron relationship with the soldiers were).
Given that the Centauri were modelled after the romans the naming shows a very detailed understanding of roman history and not a lack of understanding of how to name a state
Yeah, that should have been explained by the humans in-universe. I mean, a simple "how come we translate their name as 'Republic' but their leader's title as 'emperor'?" from one of the characters could have cleared that up. Also, not even sure if I'd agree with you entirely, since "Emperor" isn't "Imperator", but rather the later title created from the Latin root, and the "emperors" weren't usually "Imperators", in fact, they all had different titles to suit their styles. Augustus was "First Senator", some later "emperors" held seemingly "powerless" positions like department/office heads. So, maybe it was a good understanding of the Roman system, but conveyed in a bad way.
Actually all roman "emperors" (what also counts as simple english translation also used in textbooks) were Imperator in the sense that all had an imperium proconsulare (Augustus even consulare).
And these emperor hadn't official titles, per se. Being roman emperor meant to have a compination of different potestas, not a strictly leagally speaking inheritable title - even though in praxis these combinations of potestas became "inheritable "
And Augustus was even acclaimed Imperator (16.4.43BC, before 15.3.40BC, and 19 times after that)
Meritocracy - Ruled by Merit
Technocracy - Ruled by technical experts
Autocracy - Rule by supreme power i.e. tyrant
Oligarchy - Ruled by a council or small group of people
Aristocracy - Ruled by the cultural elite
Plutocracy - Ruled by the rich
Stratocracy - Ruled by military service
Theocracy - Ruled by religious leaders
Ergatocracy - ruled by the working class
Bureaucracy - ruled by many systems of governments and officials and administrators. Good luck getting anything done.
Uniocracy - ruled by the singularity of *race here* minds
Dominion
Commune
Territories
Mandate
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government
Wouldn't technocracy be the same as meritocracy?
Nope. More specific. And its just for naming your government. You can use meritocracy if you want and be boring AF
Kraterocracy: Rule by strength and/or deceit. This actually helped me develop a species' government quite a bit for something I was writing.
You forgot the most common one in the world, kleptocracy. ;)
@@wasserruebenvergilbungsvirus Actually it is different. In a meritocracy, you can do something like bolstering the economy tenfold but in a technocracy economic decision would be given to a scientist or who obviously know their way around the economies of nations...
I remember a history teacher of mine once said that United and Federation are basically a pleonasm (an over-statement of things meaning the same, i.e black darkness, or tall giant). Her reasoning was that a Federation already unified some smaller nations within itself, so there would be no need to call it United.
Yeah
"Democratic peoples republic" Can't imagine who you're referring to there 😂
Austin Greever I think that rhymes with Tim Bong Boon aka Pocketman
Austin Greever If your country has democratic in the title, its most likely not democratic.
Send nukes
Ever heard of the Democratic People's Republic of the Congo?
Roland Deschain not necesarilly
I feel like you went a bit to all in on the negative aspects of empire. A lot of British Sci-fi uses it in a positive tone for scenarios where the current ceremonial monarchy state becomes space faring and sets up its own colonies. The naming approach there is more monarchy + colonies = empire, how the collective is maintained doesn't really come into it.
Yeah well, that's British Sci-fi. Ask someone from India and they'll probably have a very different conception of the British Empire...
Joss Goyanko of course they will, I didn't say it was a completely positive word, just that there is more than one way of look it it.
It would still make sense at a certain point in the history of a space faring civilization. An earth empire would entail early colonies on Mars, the moon; perhaps even other star systems. They would be much like when earth was a mix of "civilized" areas colonizing the "untamed wilderness". This is a perfect description of humans, backed by a central earth government, tame the wilds of space. Empire works here until those colonists become sufficiently advanced or independent that the empire model falls apart.Then you get your federations or republics or what not.
Nicolaus Gilbert Wilson Except why would anyone Earth willingly be part of an empire? If you hadn't noticed people kinda really don't like empires and really like democracy a lot. Styling yourself as an empire makes no sense if you see yourself as a democratic society that's just spreading into space. To be an empire you have to be conquering other people, not just expanding.
Hedgehog3180 Empire actually has multiple meaning and isn't exactly an equivalent to monarchy... It's more of a cool word to describe the dominance of the central part of the empire over the rest (except for german empires or eastern roman). During the middle ages it was mainly used to say that your kingdom was an offspring of the roman empire. Then it was used to mean first a collection of kingdoms (like spain) or a kingdom with lots of colonies (Portugal, Netherlands, Britain,...). with the 19th century it became more of a state with lots of colonies and national pride (19th century = birth of nationalism). And for the Nazis, Japan and Italy it was nationalism, imperialism and militarism.
So the definition changes with time and it works if you have a monarchy, fast growing and expanding country ( usually a constitutional monarchy but can be a republic) growing through colonisation or a fascist regime.
And for the fact that you think everyone love democracy... well, fascists consider it is inefficient and to slow to react so they prefer a dictatorship, reactionaries think it was better with kings and queens, technocratists thinks peoples are inherently inefficient and think the state should calculate what to do,... and even if many ideologies like democracy, they cannot agree on what it means ( like freedom)... and the way out of democracy is a slippery slope.
Democracies hate autocracies and like democracies, that is true and so they tend to not declaring war to democracies but they also tend to push autocracies to conflict with them.
Like others have said, I disagree with your conclusion of the word "Empire". It doesn't necessarily mean there has to be a monarchy, or a singular despotic ruler. In my mind, an "Empire" just denotes a government with many sprawling claims, where the claimed regions may have some autonomy, but are ultimately subservient to the primary government. Again, as others have mentioned, the Roman and British Empires, fit this bill, as both had relatively democratic governments while still being called an Empire.
In that context, something like Star Citizen's United Empire of Earth makes a lot more sense.
"an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress." - Empire meaning.
While Britain had a democratic governments the monarchy was still the head of state. France would have been a better example.
@@donttrytokillme1231 I agree. Although I'de have to add that there was a(n unfortunate) distinction between France and France's Empire (I know that there was the same distinction between Britain and Britain's Empire, but both were subject to the same individual, the king or queen of the UK and England, whereas France's Empire whilst technically under the authority of the chiefs of the 3rd Republic, and latter on the 4th and 5th, was more subject to France as a nation than subject to a particular individual).
But I also agree with the Institute here, Empire would be a ridiculous name for politically literate free people that recently fought against a tyrannical self appointed emperor, even if you think of «empire» as meaning «a collection of territories, nations or states bounded by a supreme (potentially democratically elected) authority».
Especially since the Colonial Empires and their eventual demise.
Except if it's for our wise and beloved Holy God Emperor, he can make an Empire of Man whenever he wants ^^
In Stellaris, I named my federation, "Federation of Sentient Life"
But...only human are sentient...
All others are just a targets.
That would come across as insulting to everyone not inside your federation, as it implies everyone else is non sentient (even if that is not the intent behind it).
let me guess...human civilization with full xenophobe settings?
I named mine Galactic Alliance. Granted we don't own anything close to the whole galaxy but I'm working on that.
@@guillermodiezbazan5638 yeah that's the point
Thing is... there isn't really a definitive requirement for a future interstellar power to be based on a unified humanity, or even Earth. Why not an interetellar European, American, Chinese or Indian polities in a cold war while spreading accross the Milky Way?
I've actually been working on an idea along those lines, those as my father often says, war usually forces us to look at ourselves. Put the entirety of man in war for their survival for 40 years, and they might just come together at last.... mostly.... no one said it has to be perfect.
Mostly I think people like to unify Earth because 1) in many ways, it makes things easier from a writing standpoint. 2) Maintaining control over/support for colonies, while still being based on Earth, is problematic at best should conflict arise. 3) (and probably the primary reason) we all like to think it would happen by the time that future rolls around. Just a warmer feeling than thinking we'd still be at each other's throats in 200 or more years.
Actually, I'm using the divided nations thing in a novel I'm working on: the EUN (Earth United Nations) doesn't govern anything, they simply coordinate the military and colonization efforts from the nations on Earth.
This reminds of Miner Wars, and also of The Expanse (tho that's Earth and Mars in the cold war, it is similar in theme.)
If you're interested in such ideas, check out Aurora 4X. Its developer put out basically campaign reports on some of his games, including one that starts out with the premise of NATO and the Warsaw Pact going into space, and continuing their standoff as they expand to new worlds and build star-fleets etc.
it's sobering to think about us taking our national and racial prejudices up into space with us, and a future I don't want compared with a united world, but I can't say it's not both realistic, and an interesting possibility space for new types of stories.
Because it doesn’t actually make sense, at least of there’s ever going to be an actual war
"It's not really an empire" *And WHO are you to question the will of the Helghast!?* Our collective willpower has imagined it and the strength of our arms will see it manifest! Helgan and Vekta, together as nature intended.
The MCR is basically a two part government, with the Martian people choosing a congress, and the martian military promoting a military president. The reason it works, is because the means through which the military promotes it's leaders is through merit, which is dictated by rule set by the congress. Kind of like the Zulu empire, where the council of elders dictated certain traditions and norms, and through these norms, the most "normal" person became overall leader. The difference here being that MCR has term limits, and the next leader is almost always promoted upon approval of both the Congress and admiralty. It's basically a very dangerous nation to fuck with, because everyone is a soldier, and their potentate is not someone you can easily negotiate with. The bonus is that their military is diversified, thus A scientist can lead, or a pilot, of an architect...etc. All of which is entirely dependent on the climate of the times.
Also, look at what who they were opposing the 'United Nations'. By naming themselves the Maritain Congressional Republics, not only were they saying they were from Mars (not earth) but that they were truly unified towards their desired future, not like earth which still has divisions by individual nations (or at least remnants of this by the time of the books/show)
So basically, the Martian Congressional Republic is the Terran Federation of Starship Troopers. Except is actually intended to have checks and balances, and not just be a lecture about how brainwashing and torture results in morally superior citizens?
Huh neat. The MCR has always been a fascinating part of The Expanse. And it is worth noting how easy Martians are to convince that fascism is in their interests.
The Laconians are Martians at their worst.
I think it's a lot simpler. "Congressional" is basically "Independence of the United States"-like, since no other political ideology is associated with a congress specifically as the legislative body
In fact, most states have either a "parliament" or "some native name" as its legislative body, and then most political ideologies aren't strongly associated with making or having that specific legislative body.
The closest things to "congressional" might be Cromwell's Parliamentarians (civil war side associated with parliament), the various communist Parties (associated with the executive branch), and the Ayatollahs in Iran (which I think is associated with the Judicial branch).
the name of my empire would be "I came to chew gum and kick ass, and I am all out of gum" Kind of long but very indicative of what I wish to accomplish
My Empire's name is short and simple, not meant to associate a single person or system.( because my empire is also a multidimensional empire as well)
Name it whatever you want, as long as the military is called the "Earth Defense Force"
*E-D-F!*
*E-D-F!*
Tsukuyomi Phase EDF EDF EDF EDF
So, Électricité de France ?
you mean Astra Militarum.
That ain't the EDF.
unless it's the Earth Federation, In which case "Earth Federation Space Force" is necessary.
"The United Federation of Nations" was a thing in Code Geass
re: the Centauri Republic - medieval english writers referred to the king's actions as being damaging to the health of the republic, without irony. republic simply means that the government of the realm is a res publica - a public affair, rather than the ruler's private interest. is it so impossible that the Centauri (whose emperors can come from different families) could think of their society as a republic? Or that the Minbari, Earthers, and Narn might have higher considerations? (respectively, federation between castes, alliance of constituent nations, and military revenge on their oppressors)
the brakiri syndicracy is stupid tho. fight me.
I think we can all agree that The Rakatan Infinite Empire has the most intimidating name in all of Sci-fi.
When you get to the point where you can call yourself the “Infinite Empire”, it’s safe to say that you’ve won galactic history. The only ones I know of are the Rakata and the Necrons, both of whom are extraordinarily cool.
I think the Eternal Empire of Zakuul is up there.
Infinite
Choose your words carefully
I think the most intimidating name in Sci Fi has to be the Combine from Half life 2. The Combine's name has multiple meanings that being like a harvester sucking resources out of planets and due to the fact that they Combine species together. you will never be able to name a Sci Fi nation more existentially terrifying than the Combine.
"United Federation of Nations", you call most titles and names bland, yet this is probably by large the MOST blandest of bland names for a nation I've ever heard: it's redundant and incredibly generic. Also, nearly all nations on earth are named around geographic locations. United States of America, East Timor, both Koreas, Oriental Republic of the Uruguay (which is a double geographic meaning, since it refers to the country being east of the Uruguay river), both Congos, Nigeria and Niger, India and many others.
I believe that was the intention.
The Koreas actually werent named for north and south. They are the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea.
@@praeposter But in both cases named after the people who live there and the peninsula they live on.
Ever heard of multi national united?
Any kind of united earth government would have to have a fairly bland and generic name, at least until politics around it change
Great episode.
I think your definition of empire is a bit narrow. You only really need multiple population entities (defined by things such as ethnic groups, nationalities, culture, etc) ruled by an elite or institution composed of a different/specific population entity. Say Apennine Romans ruling Gauls, Iberians, Egyptians, etc. or Brits ruling Indians, and so on. It really doesn’t have to have an emperor/Sovereign, even it that is one example of it.
Also, plenty of empires were highly successful and stable for comparatively long stretches of time. The Persian empire lasted something like 500 years; Rome lasted in the ballpark of 2000 years if you count East Rome (as you should); Basically, all the colonial empires lasted for 300-500 years as empires; The Ottoman Empire was something like 600 years, and that is just on top of my head. I am sure there are some great Asian examples too. And obvious empires worked rather well even somewhat recently: The British Empire did okay for itself for a few hundred years didn’t it?
A number of them didn’t have power follow hereditary lines either and some were highly meritocratic, at least for its time. Rome was de facto an empire even during most of its republican days with all those conquered provinces, and later many of the emperors were appointed outside of blood lines (i.e. for their merits); The British Empire had a rather strong democratic parliament for basically all its imperial time.
You do have a point in that most empires don’t name themselves empires though. I just don't see why empires would be especially improbable in the future?
the chinese empire lasted for more than 3,000 years
The British Empire? The first or the second?
The most representative Empire from Europe was the Spanish Empire, the first global empire in history for more than 300 years!
Regards
@@DarthMalgusSith_Lord No it didn't. The Ming dynasty was among the longest lasting but even it didn't last 3000 years. There was several different dynasties vying for control of china over the 3000 years and times where China was split into multiple warring kingdoms.
@@KyleAPemberton to be fair while i do agree with you i think we do have to take into account they were technically fighting over the same thing the throne and government so while china broke apart the goal was the same empire as before just a change in dynasty what made them different to the shorter less bloody transfer of power in the west is because of exactly that they were shorter and more controlled.
@@tjcaranese5533 They were literally conquered by the Mongols who then installed themselves on the Chinese throne twice.
Cool video, though I disagree with the description of empire. If we look at empires of history, ignoring those claiming legitimacy from the roman empire, it seems that "Empire" is either more of a prestige title that doesn't mean much, or a multi-ethnic state. Indeed many nations today that do not style themselves as empires (such as the USA and PRC) are described as such. No one could call these states mono-ethnic and neither of them has (so far) fallen apart due to unrest. It is a very overused title in fiction but let us remember that some of the largest self-styled empires of history (France, UK, etc) were quite democratic and/or had good freedoms for their time.
Speaking as a Classist, I have to disagree. The Rome was an Empire long before they had what we could call an Emperor. An Empire is where 1 sovereign state gains control over different nations and ethnic groups, then allows them to remain with their own laws and customs while still subject to authority of ruling state. The term Emperor comes from the term Imperator, which merely means "one with authority/command". Any general, governor or local magistrate had Imperium (authority) which was granted to them by the Senate.
Indeed this is where I have to disagree with @Templin Institute. The likelihood of a large scale galactic/interstellar nation becoming an empire ruled by a single ruling monarch is actually quite high. At a certain threshold a nation controlling other territories or states becomes so large that it requires an ultimate decision maker. This is what we saw in Rome, with the civil wars and the rise of first the Triumvirate and then Augustus. They grew beyond what the Senate could control without individual interests of the Senators causing a failure of operations.
Of course any large scale empire would require a large amount of bureaucracy, but there would need to be a central figure who can make immediate determinations about any crisis. This is why even with dynastic changes the Chinese Emperors were so successful. Their bureaucracy was based on a merit, while they maintained an ultimate decision maker.
You're free to think that, but you're wrong. There's a reason empire and imperialism share a root.
Praxagora Thesmophora
Isn't modern democracies much the same thing with the president as the central desicion maker rather than a emperor. The only difference been how their elected.
Genetix not really
The Roman Senate was much more of an administrative body with all authority in the control of the emperor.
@@genetix7173 no, because an emperor would have near to full absolute power. Presidents usually share power. They are the head of the executive branch. Meaning their role is to approve laws not to make them. They also have the role of setting policy but not the power to ensure its followed. A legislature of a different political party further reduce their power as they are less likely to follow the policy the president has set. For a president to do well they will need to build Bridges and seek compromises to get their agenda through. An emperor won't have these types of issues. They are more likely to have to worry about usurpers or revolts
This is an old idea for a Sci-Fi setting I worked on a couple years ago and want to revamp. But I want someone more versed in naming to give it their seal of approval
If you don’t want to read the entire thing, here’s the important nation names:
-UHF (United, Human, Federation)
-MGC (Modified Genetics Confederacy)
Here’s the full thing
About 145 years ago, humans discovered the presence of not only other life outside of their world, but several advanced civilizations.
They began to develop technology to stand a chance to the other civilizations across the galaxy. This lead to the discovery of a rare mineral known as Lawrencium (that’s what humans called it, after its discoverer Thomas Lawrence)
This element was used in many unique and advanced technologies, such as rudimentary warp engines (used for long distance space travel fast, several other variations of warp engines were invented and used by other civilizations, but most refused to share their secrets), weaponry, and even more advanced levels of genetic engineering.
The existence of this material drew the eyes of several other civilizations, one of which, decided to act on their desire for this material, and colonize earth. However they were not met with warm welcomes. They attempted to enslave the humans, but they lashed out and fought back, calling in allies from other nations, the invaders did the same, and this soon lead to the “Terran War”. A war fought for the colonization of earth.
The war was waged primarily on planets within “our” solar system
This war sparked even more innovation, in an attempt to win, the human settlements of the solar system gathered together, forming the United. Human, Federation, or the UHF.
Together they not only fought stronger, but also were able to begin work on creating a brand new genetically modified species, designed to be the ultimate soldier.
Once they were complete, they called their “perfect soldiers”, “Brutes”. With the assistance of the brutes as well as other allies, the UFH successfully took back control of the solar system, agreeing to form trade routes with willing nations.
Afterwards, several factions of “Brutes” rebelled against their creators, fighting back. At the end of this smaller conflict, the Brutes left the UHF, and colonized a smaller planet far away.
The creation of the technology to create the Brutes, lead to several other core species, and more humans creating more genetically modified races.
As many of them rebelled and left, or joined their creators civilly, these new races were becoming more common and more seen as sentient. This meant that injustice against them was being recognized, and protests and civil disarray lead to the decree that “Genetic Races” would have the same rights as “Core Races”. As this happened, the Genetic Peoples began to integrate into society, joining nations, forming independent nations, and allying with the Nations dominated by Core Peoples. This resulted in the foundation of the first multi-species, Genetic Race dominated nation. They designated themselves as the MGC (Modified, Genetics, Confederacy)
The united Islamic hegemony commonwealth's unified imperial democratic congressional people's republic of fascist interstellar federationaly allied confederatsions protectorate states
Also known as UIHCUIDCPRFIFACPS
Obi-Wan Kenobi Lol 🤣 i would think the speaker was having a stroke while uttering the acronym. 👏👏👏👏
nah just call it the UIHCUIDORFIFCPS Empire and leave as that. maybe you can change it in the future or something
I'd just call them Uni's and wait for the first shots to fly!
All hail the Imperium of man!
yes
Tremble before the Emperor's majesty, for we all walk in his immortal shadow
#notmyemperor
For the Emperor!
Beware the alien, the mutant, the heretic.
Its probably worth adding that the Imperium of man, doesn't really function as a unified nation state and for ten thousand years has basically been teetering on the edge of total collapse.
Incidently, my favourite race that I created for Stellaris, is the Principality of Highstar, a Constitutional Theocratic Monarchy, where the ruler (Called The High prince), is also the head of the state religion.
Especially as, like the later Holy Roman Empire, its an absolute mess. The Imperium of Man, is deliberately presented as this nightmare of beaurocracy and insainity, that really is only held together by constant war.
HERETIC BLAM
I love the Lore Fact from 40k that whole System get "lost" because of the non Functioning bureaucracy.
Yeah the Imperium is really closer to a militaristic federation/theocracy/representative dictatorship/police state/...you name it it's in the Imperium somehow.
“Imperium” means “order” or “the order of” in Latin. It can be used to refer to the state, the states authority, or even an entire culture. “Imperium Germanica,” for example, is what the Romans labeled their maps of Germany with, disputed the region having no single government.
Now to clear the misunderstanding of the trade federation let me explain like this(it’s normal to not know it since it is Star Wars EU/legends or just happened before the films so it isn’t know): The trade federation at its golden point or before the neumodians took over was actually most had humans and Muuns in the council and in the Viceroy position( Viceroy is actually elected by the council and can be replaced by them) but by the time the films start things have changed. First of all the reason it’s called trade federation is that normally in the past any trader or a merchant could join the organization and work with them to get certain benefits, deals, loans or even given a ship by them and continue to get promotions to use bigger ships like lucrehulks and then be a senior member to join the council/elders. This is also to have a collective trade, monetary and economic influence on systems such as blockades, trade embargoes and cheap materials. Secondly before clone wars neumodians were not a large part of the TF(Trade federation) high command and were mostly low on numbers and in the council which is until Darth plagues’s master(Darth plaguis is the master of palpatine/Sidious) which infiltrated the TF and the banking clans. He evens gets to meet plaguis and take it as an apprentice because he knew The demask family head (The Muun family that plagues comes from) and made the Family head the leader of the banking clans with his influence which inturn the family head gave his son to the sith for training and be its apprentice for a closer relation. This in fact proceed for Hego Demask (Darth plaguis original name) becoming the defacto and then the next leader of the banking clans. Then Darth plaguis and his them at the time young apprentice Palpatine started to influence and assassinate Higher ups of the TF which then they were replaced by the remaining member under their control the neumodians. You should also know that the leader of the neumodians are called Viceroys but when they became the sole ruler of the TF they changed the title of the Elected chairman to Viceroy since the TF ruler was also their elected ruler of the planet. It is also noted that actually the Families of the Kuat (the ten families that lead Kuat and its driveyards which include the Kuat family) were founding or atleast really early members of the TF since these families were merchant families that combined their influence to rule a planet (planet of Kuat) which the most powerful and the most contributing family at the time the Kuat family was named after the planet and had the heridetary ruler position ( it’s like the Kuat family is the royal family chosen at ten founding of a kngdom but the other families are archduke families which are autonomous and are also heridetary/cannot be revoked by the royal family.) It’s also know that each family controls a section of the Kuat driveyards ( The shipyard around the planet). As I was saying when there was an accidents which most of the higher ups of the TF was assassinated which included their representatives, the Kuat driveyards broke their relation as a subsidiary for the TF which is also one the reasons the Kuat system chose to side with the republic and the sith (The planet of Kuat was originally mostly under the Old Sith Empire and that’s where their arrow head designs come from not just the influence of palpatine. So with also the Kuat families and other important organizations of the TF getting of the ship all that remained were the neumodians and the independent people who were mostly suppressed killed or subordinated by the neumodians which is why later on it doesn’t have teh characteristics of a Federation and has the offfice of Viceroy. I hope this has been helpful to understanding SW universe and the TF.
M.A.R.C. "empires are obsolete"
Japan(in games and IRL): sharpens katana
Britain(in games and IRL): Sharpens Excalibur
Brunei: Sharpens Kriss swords
East Rome lasting over a thousand years past the west *sharpens gladius*
Japan is no longer an empire in theory or in practice, the British Empire now consists of one large island, a number of tiny islands, and a chunk of Ireland, and Rome, both halves of it, fell for a reason. And then the empire that finished it off also fell. Those aren't exactly good counterexamples.
@@cooperross9495 every government fails and falls. Not just empires.
These examples are excellent in debunking the creators claims.
So you're saying you're an anarchist?
@@cooperross9495 My God. Cathy Newman much?
I'm saying that the fact that Rome fell and Britain is no longer a globe spanning empire in no way detracts from the point, because no government entity has lasted forever. They ALL fall apart at some point and are replaced by something else. That's not a political belief, that's just a fact.
Is it not possible that they included “congressional” in MCR since the congress holds a great responsability in keeping the executive in check and is therefore imperative to the stablity of the state and the democratic power of its people?
"The United Sol System" This would include Earth, Luna, Mars, and the Belt. With the possibility of other colonies with in the Solar system
British Empire wasnt dumb just because Britian is puny compared to the rest of the Empire. If that works, the Empire of Earth, or Empire of Humanity are great.
What do colons have to do with nations of the solar system?
@@dutch_asocialite fixed typo's
"Settlement defense front" sounds like a branch of the military. It's like calling a nation "Homeland Security", or naming a military branch "The United States of America".
Hey, it worked for Prussia ;)
"the united Federation of Nations"... are there ununited federations?
isnt it kinda the point of federations to BE united?
not if its say a conglomeration of member states that are in reality entirely both part of the same nation and not, think the galactic republic in star wars.
@@seamusfinnegan1164
a)
SWs republic was one nation. yes each planet held some autonomy but it was still a nation (similarly to the USA or Germany today)
b)
even if that wasnt the case it was still united untill the CIS tryed to break free.
c)
hell even the most disunited federatin like entety in our history (holy roman empire) was united enough to make that descriptor useless...
if you join/create a federation you are by definition united.
@@drizzt7dourden7 for A I never said it was not still a nation and that was kind of my point as a nation within a nation, or a state within a state.
B. SW's republic could be called united in that its a singular nation but in other aspects its also disunited in its capability to have inner nations fighting within itself.
C. Not neccesarily as with the Holy Roman Empire you can be united in some aspects and disunited in others be it the capability for nations within the nation to fight each other, for parts of the nation to still be part of the nation but be part of another nation entirely, among countless other things.
I dont think naming has to make sense. The Holy Roman Empire wasn't holy, Roman or an empire
Exactly what I was thinking, "united states of America" isnt a country the encapsulates the americas for example.
Was studying that in history class and was so confused.
They shold call it the Confederate Reich of Germanic and romance States
Voltaire.
Y'know, HRE was a fuck.
It did have a strong religious influence.
You know what I love......Narcissism. I love how we now think that empires inherently do not work, and that monarchies are inherently ineffective. I am NOT arguing for the morality of it, obviously they are not moral. The narcissism I refer to is due to the fact that for most of human history the world was ruled over by a bunch of empires that achieved great things. Only recently, and I mean really recently did we shift to a less imperial system, the results of which (when viewed in the grand scheme of things) are yet unknown. in a 1000 years, our time could be called "the couple of centuries where we doubted empires and were then proven to be idiots".
LOVE YOUR CHANNEL BTW
I agree. Not only that but all the countries today can barely remain stable or are inefficient in many ways. These forms of government won't stand a fucking chance running a bunch of planets if they can't even retain order and efficiency within continents.
Empires aren't much better but if we really going to make an argument for which government would work better in space, the answer is none of them. Distance will always cause a nation to fragment.
Sharif Qaddomi so the problems with monarchies just don't fit modern day which is why we don't use them anymore. They can be incredibly effective and they were when the right people were in charge but then some shitty son takes over and ruins it all. They're not stable because while one or a few people having power works on certain situations it doesn't work long term because people are flawed and eventually you're gonna get shitty leaders with a ton of power and things go bad. Republic and constitutional monarchies are much more stable but not as effective when it comes to getting things done. And people like stability not crazy drastic changes every couple of decades. One minute the country is fine, the next it's in a dozen wars. People don't like that which is why they changed the system and nowadays that's good. I'd hate to have somebody like king John from robin hood, the real guy though who lead to the manga carta becoming a thing, having nukes. Seriously that'd suck. Or just imagine Trump with a ton more power.
@sombodi200 Agreed. The only real scenario, I feel, is when technology gets advanced enough to do most governing for us.
Vys Erion True, but they create new flaws, the wisdom of the masses is extremely over rated, look at the current leaders of a bunch of democratic countries, they're not exactly shining examples of the benefits of democracy. But really, all I'm saying is that we have no idea how history will judge our time, or whether democracy is here to stay.
Sir Bone-voyage!
I agree with you 100%, especially regarding communism, it's a beautiful concept, but so is the idea of Santa
"Nations on Earth aren't named after geography"
Every country that ends in land:
*Am I a joke to you?*
"Galactic Federation of Free Alliances" is terrible, but in its defense, GFFA was named solely in reference to "galaxy far, far away."
I can't say I agree with your points about empires and protectorates.
First, empires don't _have_ to be hyper-centralised. They don't even have to be autocratic - just look at the British Empire. An empire could be a parliamentary democracy with colonies, or a very decentralised autocracy based on cooperation and gradual integration with local leadership.
And as for the Helghan Empire needing a more fascist name - what? What about the Greater German Reich (meaning Empire)? You do the same thing with protectorates - you ignore historical examples, like the Cromwell regime in Britain which, while not (by your standards) a protectorate, was officially referred to as "The Protectorate".
Overall, while I liked the video, a lot of it smacked of dictionary definitions to me.
Nerdsoft The British Empire was still centralized and only let people in some parts of Britain vote, it's not very democratic when the vast majority can't vote.
Nerdsoft You are completely right about Empires. An Empire tecnically doesn't even need an Emperor, they only need to be a powerful nation that has an Imperialist politics towards its neighbours.
Technically the British Empire was never called the British Empire - only India was ever a formally named Empire. There are examples of decentralised and not crazily autocratic (if still undemocratic) empires though, like the Holy Roman Empire, which was formally named an Empire but was so far from the normal implication of a heavily centralised state that it was sometimes referred to as "neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire".
I should also note that "Reich" doesn't translate to "Empire" - I think the closest translation would be "realm". A country that is specifically ruled by an emperor would be a "Kaiserreich" or "Kaisertum".
I do agree that the video smacked of strict dictionary definitions though - the meaning of words can evolve, as can political organisations, which may start out as an alliance of sovereign nations but evolve into something else, but keep the name "Alliance" or "Coalition" for continuity.
For the record, the Cromwell regime _was_ officially referred to as The Protectorate (1653-59), part of the Commonwealth period (1649-60). That it was the official name is _why_ it "is widely considered as such." It could also be considered a military dictatorship, like a _junta_ or _caudillismo._
It was considered democratic for the same reason Athens was--no matter how limited the franchise, those who cast their votes did so on an equal basis--one man, one vote.
The Terran Hegemony is perfectly named in Battletech. It is founded when a military coup wipes out the collapsing Terran Alliance, and the name symbolizes Earth's importance on the galactic scene. It also proclaims their early ambitions to resubjugate all of their colonies.
Yeah
United Federation of Nations is pretty terrible... Apart from being just a bit bland, it has no reference to humanity, so in an interstellar setting with aliens, it becomes completely nondistinctive. Most real countries have some reference to either nationality or geography in their name.
Yeah, it doesn't convince me either. However it would make sense if the way the different aliens are structured is so different from ours that we couldn't call it a "nation"
Since when are aliens mandatory in a sci-fi setting?
If said problem occurs (random alien nation appears, people dont know whom they have to pay taxes), just put terra in the name... with its maxim: "Terra Invicta"!
Marconius
Well, one reason to not reference humanity specifically in a setting with other sentient beings is migration/cooperation: if your nation might end up with a significant percentage of the population being non-human it could come across as a bit off. In the setting I'm writing I'm going to great lengths to find meaningful and unique names without mentioning species, since most nations have several species among their population.
I'm inclined to agree. Also the unintentional rhyming between 'federation' and 'nation' is off-putting, there's a general lack of character, etc. There needs to be something to grab hold of, to investigate and find an interesting story, etc. Sure, the US is referred to as 'the united states' all the time, which is pretty bland, but 'United States of America' being the official name has something to grapple with. What is America? Why is it significant to the history of this nation? etc.
Something like United Federation of Earth might make more sense, Earth subbing in for America, and even if it ends up having a diverse population from numerous other nations/species/etc, Earth is still important because it's a callback to the origin and history of this nation. That said, 'United' and Federation' kind of accomplish the same thing in describing the nation as made up of member states or planets or whatever, and without some kind of proper place-name it sounds pretty generic.
Marconius My greatest problem with the UFN is the fact the lacking of character, like some back story could fix that because the United States is pretty bland but it makes sense and addes to he counties identity once you know the History. I think thats the biggest problem wih country/nation names is the history of that nation is lacking. Like think about it with the history of US, USSR, or UK these names are pretty boring and lackingof character. United States, Union of Sovereign Soviet Republic, and United Kingdoms.(this isnt even including nations like the United Providences, United Arab Emirates, and other nations that with back story lose the importance of the name.
I love the "Chiss Ascendency" from Star Wars
@@louisduarte8763 The Chiss Ascendency was located in the unknown regions, so they had little to no interaction with the rest of the galaxy. In Timothy Zahn's book Thrawn, nobody knows what he is, and if you can't see his eyes, you could assume him to be a Pantoran. In canon, Thrawn is all that the Empire knows about the Chiss, and believe he was exiled. However, I won't even get into Legends, as there is much more interaction. Go look it up on Wookiepedia.
@@EchoKnightYTand... what is an "ascendency" now?
Chiss are the best allies for anyone. ( Especially for Sith Empire )
@@dominiklehn2866 ascendancy means:
occupation of a position of dominant power or influence.
I think you're missing how important tradition is to nationalism. It's hard to rename a country without a complete revolution, and plenty of real world nation's have kept silly names.
The United Kingdom of (insert list of countries here) sounds like a compromise a committee made with the intention that it be temporary, whereas the name The United States of America probably was all that AND it stopped being accurate after the US civil war. In well over 200 years, neither country has decided, "Hey, let's pick a new name that sounds better."
Likewise, a government that formed with a silly name, united the Earth under a silly name and spread into space under that same silly name would likely keep that same silly name there after.
Sadly there was a Name Change for Reasons like "Sounds better." The "Third Reich". It was still the Weimar Republic System. After the "Reichsprogromnacht" (dont know the english name) ppl were so scared that they basically gave him the "do what you want" power. Some say it was planned by the NSDAP that the Parlament got burned down so they had to move to Nürnberg. Hitler got some laws through that steadily gave him more Power till he could bann everyone who was agaisnt him. Then came the "Nacht derlangen Messer" (again sorry no english name XD) where he killed of ppl from his Party and the SA to ensure Power. The "Reich" was just a Psychological thing. Germans where down and hoped to be a Major European Power agian. The German Reich was one. So yes a Name cause it soudns better.
Kaitan I don't know the first one, but in English we call the time he killed his supporters "The Night of the Long Knives."
Not sure if that's a direct translation or not.
Translated Word for Word it seems. Learned something new.
"Reichsprogromnacht" is called "The Night of Broken Glass"
Thanks. But fearing we lose the Initial Point i wanna state again. I thin kwith Greater Changes in Politic, Economy, Borders and stuff i think Renaming happens Naturally. So Colonizing other Planets as a United Species i believe a Name Change would happen.
I made Sci-fi factions before and one of them makes sense such as the A'túrii Celestial Dynasty
Considering the A'túrii is composed of advanced energy beings that able to forge stars and make them as homeworlds sounds like they get the nickname "Star people"
A few things about your problems with Empires.
Firstly, you said an empire is highly unlikely to develop into an interstellar nation in a science fiction setting. This is not necessarily true, as it is highly dependent on how the monarchy in power treats its citizens, whether it develops a large anti-monarchist enlightenment movement. An empire could also develop after space travel is developed, via a monarchist government dominating lesser worlds and races.
Second, you said that a meritocratic system is better than a hereditary system because leaders are picked based on their merits rather than being "rewarded" through birthright. You forget that power is not a reward, but a burden; it should not be given based on who wants it but who would best wield it.
Third, you said that there is nothing in an empire to prevent incompetence. This ignores that heirs to monarchies are groomed to rule, literally learning their whole lives how to be emperor. Other forms of governance are also not free from incompetence; it is possible in a democracy to elect incompetent leadership as we have done historically, for example.
Fourth, not all empires are despotic and authoritarian absolute monarchies. Case in point: The British Empire.
Monarchies have little to no quality control for their leadership. While it is true incompetent leadership does happen in democracies and it is damaging to them, it is down right devastating in Monarchies and other Authoritarian systems. The first born male heir is going to be king whether they are fit to rule or not, the only thing that's going to stop them is a coup by a relative. And any system where governmental overthrow is your only form of quality control is a poor system of governance, and there have been thousands of leaders who in spite of grooming and constant training to be monarch none the less proved to be incompetent leaders. And when you take into account the propensity for inbreeding in royal families incompetent leadership becomes more and more likely as the gene pool drys up. What's worse inbreeding can lead to difficulties in procreating or worse yet sterilization which can only lead to power struggles and civil war. And while by no means ALL absolute monarchs are oppressive and cruel, any system where the governing bodies and their families are above the law is going to breed psychopaths who will exploit this to be oppressive despots.
Also the Irish, the Indians, the Americans, First Nations Peoples, Native Americans, Egyptians, and the other former denizens of the former British Empire would strenuously object to the characterization of Great Britain as not being despotic or authoritarian.
As I just explained, quality control in Monarchism is the heir being guaranteed that the heir is trained in statescraft.
Incompetent leadership does not plague monarchies harder than democracies either; there are many examples of it taking generations for a monarchy to go down due to bad decisions, and many monarchies have lasted centuries even without being mere figureheads like in the UK.
It's not always the firstborn male heir who becomes king; besides dynasties that only just begun, there are elective monarchies throughout history.
In democracy, we elect bad leaders of our own volition, with no guarantee of competence or morality. Case in point: Donald Trump, who appointed an energy company lobbyist as head of the EPA, an ISP lobbyist as the head of the FCC, and a public school opponent as Secretary of Education. Or anytime a candidate you don't like is elected to any office, it can be an excuse to rail on democracy.
Inbreeding is hardly the rule in Monarchism, and was only really an issue in the modern era after all the families have been marrying for centuries.
As for those who would contest whether the UK was despotic or authoritarian, I raise you American chattel slavery and the Indian Wars. On top of that, the UK secured relative prosperity for its own people, and was hardly comparable to Republican regimes that were truly terrible.
At the end of the day, Monarchism is just another form of government like democracy, and neither of them are perfect. Claiming there wouldn't be an empire in the future is like claiming there won't be a democracy because people vote against their own self-interests.
Another point I'd like to bring up is how in conversations I had with monarchists they bring up tradition a lot. This may not be important to us, but in a culture that places importance upon religion, tradition, and the like, a monarch is essentially the defender of these principles.
Ryan Frizzell's Libertarian-Level Interstellar Hot Take: a federation is just an empire that pretends to be democratic. Evidence: War of Northern Aggression, French Third Republic AKA French Colonial Empire AKA Third French Empire, Soviet Union, Russian Federation
Monarchist Ball go away you tyrant
15:58
Are you saying I can’t have the Galactic Lone Star Empire of Texas?!
Great vid btw, keep up the good work.
Bruh that pfp fits with what you said lmao
If u want u can
Actually an empire isnt a style of government, but a sort of description of a governance. It may seems a bit confusing, but this is the definition. Empire- A collection of states OR people ruled by an emprah OR sovereign gov... This means empires can be republican or despotism. The USA is an empire because it has both a collection of states and people under one banner. And all I have to say is Puerto Rico to annihilate any counter argument to that. The romans when they incorporated other cities became an empire, if u noticed they were always referred to empire even when they didnt have an emprah.
chaos16boy Likewise the British Empire was ruled primarily by parliament, not by the monarchs/emperors at the time, since parliament has had final authority since before the empire was formed, although the monarchs had much more power then than they do now, it was by no means absolute or primary power and still largely symbolic/ceremonial.
The German Reich was also basically called the German Empire (reich means realm but in Germanic languages it generally refers to a large and powerful kingdom so very similar to an empire, in fact the HRE is known as the German-Roman Reich in most Germanic languages) but was ruled by a dictator in the form of Hitler.
13:42 - yep Turians are no joke. The lore is that they are militaristic and don't go for skirmishes: either peace or all out war to totally decimate the enemy with no mercy. Nothing in between