the liegekiller said:

The human race colonised the majority of the Galaxy during the 'Golden Age of Technology' (later known as the 'Dark Age of Technology' during the Age the Imperium). This was the utopian sci-fi age. Everything was going fine until the Fall of the Eldar and the birth of Slaanesh, which gave rise to the Eye of Terror, and spread warp storms throughout almost the entire galaxy, making warp travel almost impossible and cutting off nearly every system from every other. Heck, it even made it impossible to travel from Earth to Mars, and they're in the same system! This caused several millennia of wars called the Age of Strife. Many human worlds, including Earth, were reduced to a dark-age state, and it took several thousand years for them to progress back to space flight etc, once the warp storms subsided. Pre-unification Terra was ravaged by nuclear, biological and chemical warfare for hundreds of years.

Of course people pass on knowledge, but if you store it all in computers, and then there's a nuclear war and all the computers stop working, you're stuck with pretty much nothing.

PGMason said:

Which kind of explains why the Imperium of man is still rather fond of writing stuff down in tomes, manuscripts and scrolls. Sure parchment and paper can be burnt, shredded or even rot if not conserved properly, but at least the information isn't completely and utterly destroyed as soon as some shmuck decides to detonate a nuclear device in the upper atmosphere. Ink isn't that fragile against EMP waves.

PGMason said:

I wouldn't say that it made Martian-Terran travel impossible. After all, we know that Saturn's moons maintained not only colonies, but a relatively powerful navy, and had a trading relationship with Mars. I don't know how good your knowledge of Sol system astrgraphy is, but that's far further than the Earth-Mars run. I suspect it was more a case that Terra was far less self-sufficient, and collapsed faster and further into barbary, and the Mechanicum saw no reason to visit them.

Alasseo said:

A very plausible theory. Especially since the Mechanicum had problems of their own when trying to survive on mars.

Very likely. Terra losing spaceflight (even intra-system flight) might well have had nothing to do with warp storms. However interstellar travel was basically impossible for several millennia during the Age of Strife due to the echoes of psychic Slaanesh's birth scream, which consumed the Eldar homeworlds.

Alasseo said:

warpdancer said:

From other star systems, yes. But how would Terra be isolated from the rest of it's own solar system? After all, with the space technology we have today (which has nothing at all to do with any kind of hell dimension) once every 25 months, we can launch a craft at mars and expect it to arrive at the red planet in a little over 214 days. It takes, on average (based on previously sent probes) about 3-5 years to get from Terra to Saturn. Granted, that's a hell of a road trip, but definitly not out of the realms possibility without slipping into hell for a short cut.

Terra was isolated from other star systems, but not from it's own system. Degradation of technology and fuel as well as a lack of desire might have isolated terra from the rest of the solar system, but that had nothing to do with warp storms.

Two points.

Ok I have seen mentioned a few times something to the effect of "because of the wars technology and knowledge was lost".

I do not accept that premise. Necessity is the mother of invention and war is real good for making invention necessary.

War has almost always been a spur for technological innovation and development... I would need to see an argument why in this case war had the opposite effect.

After all, millennia of war is pretty much a good description of our real life human history and we have advanced technologically.

Second why exactly again would isolating a planet lead to the loss of its technology? I honestly think this comes from the space opera idea of planets. IE planets have a theme or a dedicated purpose. In real life planets would be (or almost be in rare cases such as outposts) self sustaining. Why you ask? Do some math.. If you had a world with a VERY modest population of say 1 billion that was a agro world in the space opera vein. Basically they grew food shipped it off in trade for finished goods (consumer and industrial). Umm ... do you have any idea how many (and how big) the ships would need to be to support trade of this sort for just this one world. !!??? The agricultural output of a world dedicated to farming to such an extent would be immense and would require huge fleets of ships to move that much product off world and to bring needed finished goods back. Oh wait... problem... ok what do huge fleets of ships need? Supply and support.. there would have to be massive orbital facilities and numerous ground side spaceports. All connected to a vast ground transportation net work to get the vast tonnage of goods to and from the spaceports... ... which will require a large workforce of skilled craftsmen/engineers to build and maintain (large AM presence?)...

I could keep going but I think you get the idea.. still sound like a agri world? The point is space opera/themed worlds (agri/industrial/etc) don't really work.

For an even more insane example look up the various calculations on the web for how many ships are needed to bring food to a hive world (Coruscant) the LOWBALL estimates are 1000 ships bringing a 1 km cube of food EACH DAY. How long does it take to load and unload a cubic kilometer of goods? Plus transit times.. So how big a fleet of ships do you need just for food (ships capable of carring a cubic kilometer of goods by the way)?

I guess what I am getting at is tell me why a "isolated" planet would descend into barbarism... After all earth is currently an "isolated" planet and we are advanceing technologically.

llsoth said:

"Millenia of war" = a good description of the real world? I highly disagree. While one nation might have been at war with another most of the time you can hardly say that mankind has suffered from WORLD WARS to the same extent (we've only had two so far, and speculations point to that mankind would not survive a third). And these two world wars didnt last many years in comparison to how many years mankind has existed. So no it is not a fitting description at all, because if you are to compare warfare of the 41st millenium with our own then the only fitting comparison would be a world war and nothing less (since in 40K almost the entire population of one planet is dedicated to the war effort, simply because they can't do anything else than fight or help in the figjht). The American Civil war would, by Imperial standards, only be considered as a minor insurrection/skirmish and not an actual war.

Secondly, yes wars do give rise to inovation, BUT only certain inovations. Namely inventions that kan be used as military applications, and that has already happened in the 40K fluff. Just look at the myriad of guns, tanks, artillery pieces, armour, doomsday weapons, fighters, bombers, protective force fields, power weapons, force weapons, grenades etc. etc. All results of a civilisation that has been completely locked in warfare for quite some time. BUT that also means that other forms of inovation will have less priority. If one planet is at war with another, the scientists that can come up with a superior infantry rifle will be given much funding to their research, all the while the scientists who are dabbling in cutting edge mathematical theories will have to take a step back.

Also add to the fact that the Imperium of Man is a culture or a mix of cultures that are militarized in the extreme. Not even Nazi germany can be used as a proper comparison because even the nazis had a substantial civilian life and industry as well. Ancient Sparta would perhaps be the best comparison to the Imperium of Man, where the sole purpose of the brunt of all industry and learning is for warfare alone. Which also serves to explain why technological progress concerning weaponry and other military applications are of much larger proportions than any other forms of research. Also add to the fact that the Imperium of Man is heavily religious and superstitious and generally preaches that knowledge and scientific progress are bad things that lead to even worse results (and have the history of the Dark Age of Technology to prove their claims), then it's no wonder why the status quo look like it does...

llsoth said:

But this actually is the premise of the WH40k universe. Most planets are *not* self sufficient. A Hive-world does not have the agricultural means to support its population with food (hence the low-hide resorting to rats, mold, and recycled bodies for unofficial cheap food). They require vast amounts of food from Agri-worlds. Agri-worlds are worlds dedicated to almost entirely agricultural pursuits. It is a world that is one big farm. The Empire *does* specialize worlds to maximize output. Why farm a couple acres of a relatively barren world, when you get a greater yield from the same couple acres of an eden-like agri-world? Why waste precious food-growing space on a luscious agri-world to put in a hive city or industrial complexes? There are entire worlds that are nothing but mines, industrial Forge Worlds, etc. Certainly, not all worlds are completely specialized ... most likely because they don't have sufficient resources to make specializing them efficient. But a good chunk of worlds are indeed specialized for a single (or a few closely related) purposes if that is the most efficient use of the planet.

Consider an Agri-world. It is one big farm. Sure, there are small hubs of living quarters and loading ports, as well as a transportation system. Likely, the majority of it is automated. There would be a few work/maintenance crews, but the automated nature and the use of electronics (plus shuttles for transport) means that a small crew could cover a good portion of the planet. There doesn't need to be a 'large workforce of skilled craftsmen' to maintain a worldwide rail network. And the Empire has hundreds of thousands (millions?) of huge transport ships it can use. On the other hand, the machines needed to farm the fields and transport the food are not manufactured on-planet, and need to be imported from a Forge world. And so on.

This very well could work, you just aren't thinking of the scale correctly. After all, portions of our country are pretty specialized. Much of the US mid-west is dedicated to farming, areas of california and florida to citrus fruit, mountainous regions to mining, texas to ranching or oil, and so on. Remember, the Empire is HUGE. Each planet/system equates similarly to a small county/community. It is not uncommon for a county to have a predominance (or even exclusivity) of production of a single resource. If they need various goods or resources, like gasoline, it has to be brought in from out of the area. Sure, you could try to grow oranges in Iowa. With the right equipment, you could probably even get a small harvest each year, but that would require too much effort and expenditure to make it profitable. Whereas, growing oranges in Florida or California (for example) is much easier and more efficient. If you look at the Empire from this sort of view, although it is a grander scale, you can see how this specialization *could* occur in the WH40k universe.

Now, take this community and isolate them from the rest of the country for several generations. They are missing a bunch of knowledge to start (no one knows how to make or fly an airplane, for example) and skills beyond those needed for immediate survival may or may not be passed along until the community stabilizes into self-sufficiency ... which could take a couple generations to happen.

Besides, this is all fiction anyway. There are Eldar, Orks, the Warp, and all sorts of other 'non-realistic' elements in WH40k. WH40k has a quasi-realistic history (slimly plausible, even if not probable), mixed in with a healthy scoop of fantasy elements.

Re: specialized worlds.

Are you familiar with the economic theories of specialization of labour and comparative advantage? If the same rules of economics from our universe hold in the Imperium, it's folly to NOT specialize planets to a large extent. Sure, agri-worlds with NO infrastructure don't make a lot of sense as you point out because you need some sort of transportation infrastructure, but that can be relegated to rocky, non-crop suitable areas. For the most part a world would produce what it's best at producing (unless things like interstellar security matter; that is, you fudge a little because you don't want to depend on trade with the Tau to feed a nearby Hive world, so it develops more in balance), because that increases the output of the Imperium as a whole, and therefore makes the Guard, Astartes, etc. more efficient due to higher availability of whatever it is they need.

First of all, it is hard to develope a solid theory regarding the conditions that lead to the 40k universe because we don't have all the facts. We have a few pieces of occasionally contradictorary fluff regarding the DAoT, the Age of Strife and the Horus Heresy. Thankfully we are now getting some good info on the HH, which fills in a lot of blanks, but the millenia before that are still mostly an unknown.

What little we can say for sure:

Mankind colonised much of the galaxy. Their colonies used STCs to provide them with the specs on everything from a nail to a Hive City. Mankind's technology surpassed that of the 4oth millenium by a wide magin.

As far as I know, everything else is pretty much a guess. Therefore we can come up with plausible theories all night. You can shoot holes in them all you want, but as we can't say anything for sure...

From the early fluff, it seems that the perfection of the STC technology led to a massive explosion in colonisation efforts. This would indicate that the colonists were heavily dependant on the STC - having it removed the need for a large number of specialists and colonisaiton infrastructure.

More advanced technology was certainly known during this period, but technology that sophisticated would have been delicate and required a lot of maintenance and specialised training to maintain. STC is by its very nature durable and easy to maintain, so it lasted longer. On many worlds scientific research was probably abandoned simply because it wasn't needed - as has been pointed out, necessity is the mother of all innovation, but due to the STC there was no necessity. Need a new weapon? STC. Need a new type of tractor? STC. Need a new hovercraft? STC. The STCs were intended to provide you with the next level of technological development your world's infrastructure could handle.

This means that scientific research was limited to a few worlds. This research was into those areas that still remained unknown to mankind - which wasn't much. Mankind's knowledge at this time was amazing - but the practical applications of much of that knowledge was of no use to the vast majority of humanity. Sure, someone on Mars knows how to make a gun that shoots black holes and makes a great lasagne - but that doesn't help the colonists on 448/7/B plant their crops.

Over the Millenia, of course, the STC began to fail. They were probably the most advanced piece of technology on most of the worlds of man, who had yet to develope the technical ability to replicate STC technology. Therefore they were almost impossible to repair. At this point, some scientific innovation probably began again, but for the most part it would have focused on tinkering with available STC tech, trying to improve or combine it in new ways. Much of the basic foundations of science were unknown to the colonists (things like physics), again because there was no need for them to know about them, nor was there really a need for them to learn. STC tech still provided them with what they needed, they just couldn't move on to the more advanced tech.

By the time the Age of Strife ended, humanity was a fairly uneducated bunch. The founding colonial policies had created a society of survivors - everyone had a job that would help the colony thrive, but that didn't include people wasting time on unnecessary research. There were worlds which had broken from this mold, probably due to necessity - a colony that suffered a massive disaster would be more likely to innovate - but these worlds were few, scattered throughout the galaxy. None could match the high point of human development, because that science was mostly abstract, with few practical applications.

The holders of that technology were mostly located in the Sol system. Much of the knowledge would have been lost when Terra and Mars descended into anarchy. The Martians recovered first, the harsh conditions of their world forcing them to form a world government and pooling their resources to survive. Again, much expertise must have been lost as the focus of generations was on survival, rather than creating new black-hole-lasagne guns. But the survivors remained dedicated to the pursuit of science (at least in theory). The Emperor's arrival forced them to abandon some avenues of research - but that research continued, in secret. The HH allowed those factions which disagreed with the Emperor's edict to fight for their beliefs. This in turn led to their purging from the AdMech. While some 'progressives' surely remained with the loyalists, their fear of persecution would have smothered much of their efforts.

Millennia later, there are certainly factions of the AdMech who perform illegal research. There are plenty of references to them in the fluff, especially in DH. However, their research doesn't really benefit them (or humanity) much. Even if they make an amazing discovery, they can't spread that knowledge to the rest of the AdMech. Their rivals will destroy them as soon as they find out. Even if the AdMech does decide to allow the new tech, the adepts of the mechanicus are jealous of each others secrets. The culture of secrecy that has developed amongst them results in the hording of knowledge. The faction which makes a new discovery might allow other to use the products of their research (ie new weapons or defences), but won't tell them how it works. This again cripples research, as each new project must relearn everything from scratch. It also makes it very easy to lose knowledge, as the destruction of one faction can cost the Imperium much of its tech base.

Graver said:

A warp storm will do more than prevent interstellar travel. If it is powerful enough it will rip right through the veil into reality like a 300 pound yokozuna through a rice paper wall. Even relatively weak warp storms have an effect beyond the immaterium. Unexplained psychic phenomena, madness and more. With sufficient strength (which I am sure the warp storm caused by the destruction of the Eldars "empire" and the birth of Slannesh had) even atmospheric flight could be dangerous in some systems; let alone intrastellar flights and communications. Interpret as you will.

-=Brother Praetus=-

Varnias Tybalt

Since there has been at least one war going on somewhere on the planet for the entirety of recorded history... I will have to continue to disagree about whether millenia of war is a good description of human history. As you say they have not all been "world" wars but then again neither were the wars fought before the founding of the imperium. As you stated mankind may not survive world war 3... so how did these planets survive thousands of years of constant war with weapons even MORE destructive than what we have today? They couldn't...

Lets take a look at what a war between 2 worlds would actually look like (say in the time of strife). This is really simple... there would be a space battle and the victor of that would win the war. After the space battle was decided the loser would either surrender or be obliterated. Ground invasions would be a extreme rarity (the cost in blood an treasure would be astronomical). The big planetary invasions in interstellar war would be rare (though big power blocs like the imperium could mount them when deemed necessary/worth the cost) . They also probably would not drag on for decades (or longer) like they do in the 40k stories. The cost of mounting such a operation is so high that you would only do it where you were fairly assured of a victory and, increased firepower and troop mobility would shorten the duration of wars especialy without things like the geneva conventions to deal with (just like in real life). So what do they mean by constant war? I would guess they mean that taken as a whole there is always a war going on (just like on RL earth). That most planets would NOT be a battlefield but rather (in the imperium days) they would contribute men/material to the war effort (think WW2 USA)... perfect conditions for technological development (which has throughout history had a bleed over/through effect on other technology as well).

As to how militarized the average culture in the imperium is... depends on which source material you are taking from sooo....

Knowledge and scientific progress are bad... possibly, though tthere are 2 problems with that.. First is the Adeptus Mechanicus. Second is it does not explain the -->>continued<<-- loss of vital tech. After all while NEW tech might be bad, known/existing tech is good.

I disagree that battles would be decided by who won the space war. Aerospace forces can not take or hold land, they can only deny the enemy access to certain areas. Ground troops are needed to actually take and hold objectives. Since wars are normally fought to gain something, then you need ground forces. Sure, an Imperial cruiser could lance the planet a few times to obliterate a company of troops, but what if you want to take the city they're in? Hell, there are stories in the fluff about particularly powerful/lucky lance hits cracking planets apart.

So sure, if you just want to exterminate the population of a planet and destroy everything there, a fleet could do it. But if you wanted anything on that planet, you need infantry to go take it.

Tyraxus

Actually you don't need to go and take it, you just need to have them surrender and hand it over.

I think my points stand.

1. The winner of the space battle can obliterate the enemy planet at will (and everybody knows it).

2. The costs in blood and treasure of mounting a planetary invasion are astronomical (so high that generally speaking it would require a power bloc to pull off not just a single planet).

Now think how this effects the decision process.

If the loosing planet says we lost the space battle but they won't warm up the lance batteries and go to town on us, because we have X resource they want. Is a risky business at best. Lets go down the logic path for what is needed to have that be the right decision instead of just surrendering.

First whatever resource the winners want from you will need to be worth more than the cost of a planetary invasion, if it is not they will just glass you.

Second whatever resource they want, would need to be effected/damaged by the orbital bombardments so that it at least costs more to repair than the cost of a planetary invasion, if not they will just glass you.

Third the people involved need to be powerful enough to actually mount a planetary invasion, if not ..you guessed it, glass.

Fourth you have to actually beat the invasion forces of said powerful enemy capable of mounting a planetary invasion, if not your head goes on a pike.

Fifth.. uh oh this is a bad catch 22 here. After you have beaten the invading ground forces off you have to somehow convince them not to glass you, umm yah good luck with that (YaY we won... Oh **** now they are just going to kill us all.).

So basically if your enemy has a battle fleet in orbit the best outcome for you (barring outside intervention) you can hope to do is surrender. Next up is if the conditions are right you can kill some of his ground troops before you die... up to you. So yah while that battle fleet cannot take and hold ground it sure can make you hand it over without a fight.

a space engagement won by the assaulting force would easily have the upper hand. i'd like to think they'd drop some boots on the ground. boots would be needed to establish true dominance, cull and police whatever population was left. that is, IF they wanted anything from said world. it could just as easily be a war of ethnic/racial/religious cleansing. there are many on this post that seem to think the ppl of the 40K environ would be very diffferent from the humans that have been living on this world for 10s of thousands of years. but many of you seem to be thinking in modern based warfare.

the 'take and hold' mentality is alive and well on this planet because as human beings, well we have no place else to go. much of our history was fough without the advent of extreme long distance warfare... cruise missiles, ICBMs, stratofortresses, etc. weapons that project power and lethality. conflicts in the last 50 years have steadily increased this capability. and even then this ability is def. not shared by all, only a precious few. if one considers the nature of many early wars many were about land. carving up territory and wealth. but they were often bloody affairs with no care whatsoever to the human cost. this attitude prevailed right through WW2. the Geneva Convention gave western countries a document of rules in how to conduct warfare. western culture currently has all sorts of fanciful and stylish ideas on how wars should be conducted. we have a populace that can only take so much of seeing soldiers killed. and a populace that for the most part believes in the concepts of fair play. these are limiting factors to open warfare as we know it.

in the 40K environ. mans aggression can be fully unleashed to the extent of his ability to project power and lethality. and malice. trying to take a world might be attractive to some. but a hugely costly venture. we use 'boots' these days not because we NEED to, its because we HAVE to. modern media and our populace would have a meltdown watching American forces mercilessly bombing Iraqis and Afghani civilians into oblivion. will u need to put boots on the ground at some point. yes u will in order to take what u need..like oil fields. that is IF u want or need anything. lets suppose u do. those are limited in geographic location as opposed to the size of the nation. WW2 is really our best example of projected warfare..we mercilessly bombed cities not caring too much for loss of life. there may be a limited ground offensive in taking long range land to space weapon facilities, taking limited vital comms sensor facillities, maybe even resource facilities to prevent their destruction by the enemy.

the dimension of space adds another layer. another facet. it becomes the new type of siege warfare. once u have established space supremacy. the defenders are immediately at a huge disadvantage. obviously u will mercilessly attack all defense installations and large troop concentrations. identified concealed bunkers. etc etc. u are going to eliminate as thoroughly as possible as much resistance to a ground assault as u can.

but....but...thats IF u even want a ground assault. many cultures and warring nations have been just fine in razing everything. destroying anything of their opposing culture and its ppls. the same hatred we have in our hearts historically i would assume would be the same hatreds these folks of 40k would also have. i say 40k with understanding we are referring to the dark age of technology and the age of strife by the way. why commit the lives of my pplmwhen i don't care for the lives of my enemy. if i really do want something, i'll get it when i'm good and ready to. on my terms. after killing off most the population eliminating any civilian ability to resist.

if ur looking to take something from the planet below, by this time, most human gov'ts would capitulate and that would be that. sure a few might commit mass suicide..a few may resist to the last. but these would be very far and very few in between.

but herein lies the real question for those that buy the 40K history as depicted hook, line and sinker...

if u truly believe that the colonists had such a rough time of it trying to survive, isolated by warp storms, assaulted by warp entities and aliens, decaying technology, and for the most dullards because they have let the STC do the thinking for them....

how the HELL did they mount any invasion to fight anywhere, at anytime?

these folks A. would have been too damned busy with their own miserable lot in life thinking...**** i shoulda just stayed home. and their descendants would have said....dude this sukks! my ancestors should have stayed home. curse them.

B. how would they have even know about planet Thissukksalso..to mount an attack? because as many of u so eloquently stated. their main concern would be for what they needed to surive. stargazing and building interstellar ships ain't a survival need.

we went to the stars as men because we were CURIOUS, not from NEED. according to many of ur posts, u have all stomped out the one thing that makes humans human. the need for knowledge and our own inimical curiosity. on a GALACTIC level. the whole human race just shuts down everything that has made us what we are. cast off. just like that. becuase of our need to survive....? its amazing how different u all think humans being will be in the 40K universe. especially all these worlds that have no real way to either communicate nor come into contact with each other.

Just a short reply here. This has been a very interesting thread to read, and I wonder if anyone here has read the Foundation trilogy by Isaac Asimov? There are some excellent similarities between some of the early plotlines of those books and the Imperium. I don't want to go into too much detail as it may ruin the books for anyone who hasn't read them.. however in the books a religion based on a machine spirit is created to control the populations of planets that threaten the rise to power of the planet the books focus on.

These planets are losing their knowledge of technology and set their sights on the one shining beacon of knowledge in the area. The planet has the ingenious idea to just offer those planets their technology. Of course, the technology can't work without the accompanying tech-priests to run it for them. Hence any time one of these planets wants to revolt, it angers the machine-spirit and voila! No more power. Brilliant method of control. One of the interesting points is that even the tech-priests buy into the religion fully. Not a one of them actually knows how things work. They recite their incantations, and press the mystical 'on' button. They all go to the main planet to be educated by the priesthood.. and only the heads of the church truly know how things work and how to innovate new technology.

So, perhaps that is how things began with the Imperium. The outer colonies decided they wanted autonomy, however so far from home and lacking the knowledge of how things work at the base level, they were forced to accept technology from the government. Of course that technology came with the accompanying religion and any time those colonies decided they weren't happy with how things were being run... BAM! No technology for you.

Pretty decent little method of controlling rebellion, and maintaining a system wide totalitarian government.

Anyway, I highly recommend the books. Possibly the best science fiction series ever written... and I think you will see some excellent parallels between them and the 40k universe. Even more exciting when you realize they were written in the 40's... and that Asimov based that series on a book about the rise and fall of the roman empire, which has also been mentioned as an example in this thread.

U r right about Foundation, infernofish. they are very similar, 40K is albeit darker. the Dune series had very much the same parallel. once again 40K being darker. correct me if i'm wrong preceding the dark ages in the novels, they were equipped with both FTL travel and FTL communications? something that was never present in 40K. what is there is unreliable in a variety of ways.

also what separates Foundation and Dune from 40K is motivation. in Foundation this happened by design through the law of mass action. a means to an end. in Dune it was through a direct resultant at humans being enslaved by machines, leading to the Butlerian Jihad. in both cases there was a reliable network to pass along ideas.

pre-Imperial society had none of these things. even during the Crusades with the Emperor these things were missing.

i don't doubt that a good chunk of the galaxy would have fallen to religion. many ppl looked at the Emperor as just that. but also remember WHY the Emperor created the Space Marines. to bring the rest of the disparate worlds of man into line. the novels called it Compliance. from what i understand. many worlds resisted. in the novels a number of worlds, resisted, fell, and when the Marines left Guard regiments..the worlds once again resisted. this kind of fierce reistance can last a very very very long time/ as we see parallels on this world.

after the Heresy, when the Imperium was established and weak from civil war. one should ask what i consider to be a reasonable question. how many would have fallen sway to the dogma of religion? and how many would have remained independent? how many worlds that were highly advanced would have kept that technology? or reduced their standard of living to mirror that of the Imperium. how many would have bought into the religious dogma of the AM?

there is no doubt that faith is a powerful thing that makes ppl at best irrational believers and at worst can make them fanatical murderers.

if u can recall about...what was the psychohistorians name? ****..gonna bug me...Hari Seldon!!! it was ultimately the idea of change. in effect, he took into account that no situation of man lasts forever. that man changes and casts down one civilization while another one rises anew. that is IF i recall correctly.

but thanks though, u';ve made me want to reexamine the series. give it another read.

Hi again Leigekiller. You are very correct about that series and indeed many of the worlds did not accept the religion of technology, especially once they saw how it affected the planets who had accepted it. I think I agree overall with you that this situation would not have lasted as long in the imperium as it has, or would have taken hold as fully as it did. It seems like the creators of the setting had a really specific idea of where they wanted humanity to be at this stage and did their best to find ways to force humanity into that situation. I have to say though, that while it would be wondrous if you could follow a straight plan with a good core of believability all the way through the timeline, I certainly enjoy where it has ended up, and it makes for some great reading and gives a ton of ideas for in-game storylines.

Especially when you have series like Foundation and Dune out there that parallel the system in such great ways, to draw from. I very much enjoy getting everyones sense of how things would have proceeded though, and how things ended up the way they are currently, so keep it going.

the liegekiller said:

We've hardly gone to the stars. We've done some limited exploration and information gathering of our local system. There's been no significant movement to GO to the stars yet. Now, imagine that we know our sun is going to go nova in the next 100 years, or a giant meteor/rogue planet is set to collide with the Earth, or some other planet-wide disaster scenario (which could include extreme overcrowding or world-wide famine). You can bet that there will be a significant interest and drive in actually GOING to the stars (i.e. creating sustaining long-term colonies)

Yes, humans are curious. When we are curious, we will dabble and experiment. Honestly, though, the greatest results/changes occur because of great need, especially when it relates to survival. Survival is a much stronger motivator than curiosity.

Tell a man that exercise can be fun, or that it is good for him, and he may or may not exercise. If he does, he may or may not stick with it or may not do it regularly. However, impress upon him, and convince him, that he will *die* if he doesn't exercise every day then I bet he will exercise every day.

People always tend to assume that winning the battle in space is sufficient to assume dominance over a planet, that they will be able to bombard cities from orbit with impunity. This is not necessarily the case. It depends on the technology available to the attackers and the defenders.

A planet is big. Really big. Imagine it as a giant spaceship, then compare it to a typical warship. Imagine the potential resources the defenders of that planet could draw upon. Cities could be defended by Void Shields too powerful for the warships to overcome. Hidden weapon silos can launch a barrage of missiles that can wipe an entire fleet from the skies. See the experience of the CEF during the invasion of Terra Nova in the Heavy Gear setting for an example.

If the planet cannot be defeated from orbit then the fleet will have to put boots on the ground. As pointed out, planets are big, so there will be plenty of blind spots for them to safely put down. After that they'll have to march to the cities to take out their defences.

It's also worth noting that while someone who hold the orbits unchallenged can bombard a planet with impunity, to do so he has to be in a predictable orbit. Predictable orbits mean that they can be mousetrapped into minefields, deadfall torpedo salvoes or other nastiness. However, that presumes that people prepare for failure in a way that the attacking force has not anticipated, or detected.

And as for the idea that an attacking fleet in orbit can destroy the planet they orbit? To that I say: They can try. It's harder than you might think.

Actually, Alasseo, in WH40k it is quite 'common' (and common knowledge) for the Empire to perform Exterminatus on a planet. Now, this isn't planet-cracking or Death Star blowing up into tiny pieces. But it does eliminate life on a planet. More of a 'scorched earth' or 'turn the entire surface of the planet into one big fireball' . It's not destroying the planet, per se. The planet is still there at the end, but nothing left. Compare it to Earth if aliens came and dropped nukes at regular distance intervals across the globe simultaneously so that they covered every square inch of the surface. The Earth itself would pretty much still be here, but practically nothing living (except maybe something DEEP underground) would be. Same premise, and, at least for the defenders, pretty much equates to the planet being destroyed.

dvang said:

dvang said:

when i say we went to the stars i am referring to our jaunt above. my apologies if u took the wrong meaning from a lack of specifity. we can't go any further because of the lack of technology and money and some would argue real concerted effort. of course the scenario that u set up would prompt man to do that. goes without saying. but rarely will those situations of dire necessity occur. we only have scant details of Terra and its surrounding colonised planets at this time. nothing of which i have come across would prompt the necessity of mass exodus.

5000 yrs later according to RT timeline the STC was created,the navigator gene, warp drives and the ushering in of the DARK age of Technology. so lets assume just from timeline guesstimation..humans were traversing the stars for 5000 maybe 6K years before the advent of these technologies. obviously contact with aliens would ensue. some would trade and make nice , others would go to war. according to many posts here, the need for survival being great and all...most would be wiped out in short order by alien incursions...i mean having no military personel, no engineers, no scientists, only that darn STC. no starships with guns and maybe only basic comms. if they even saw the need to build any...which brings me to the next point....

curiosity and survival. the greatest results/changes occur through necessity. there are many that would agree with u. i'm not sure i fully buy it. most advancements we have had, have come through early developments in warfare. warfare which was for the most part unnecessary. there was more than enough space. more than enough land. but greed and ambition took hold. we just didn't like them other folks and wanted what they had. we MADE it necessary. it was the human mind that percieved what was needed. not what was ACTUALLY needed. and rather easily, they coulkd have stuck to rocks and flint spears but they didn't

man advanced. killing with a rock and flint spear is killing with a round from a gun or a sling shot. killing is killing. but..we advanced our killing techniques that was rarely from necessity it was from sheer bloody-mindedness and ingenuity. according to how u all envision 40k...if that had occurred in real human development we would still pretty much be hurling rocks and flint spears becasue well...why do anything else?..its all killy goodness is good enough. but humans just don't work that way...

u see what many of u seem to miss from the equation of technology and man and necessity. is that we all don't have the same understanding of necessity. we don't all have the same drives and motivations, goals and dreams and desires. the arts and entertainment, the building of culture, the making of civil works, law, governmentt, the study of animals and plants...they continue apace as well as that of basic human survival...not everybody will be a soldier fighting the aliens, not everybody would be a farmer. human history is rife with examples of ppl looking at an individual and saying why waste ur time with that bit of foolishness..go tend the crops. some will put that foolishness aside..others will grow and dvelop. the irrepressible intellect and curiosity of humans transcends sheer necessity. always has and always will.

and even religion hasn't done a very good job of stifling that. even to the point when mathematics and the sciences were seen as the devils work. these disciplines were frowned upon and men charged as being heretics. it didn't kill ideas. it didn't kill invention. given the holes in communications and travel in 40k..i highly doubt it would that environ. slow it. yes. def. smother.maybe. kill it. no. we humans LOVE the black market and ppl know when something can give them an edge when they see it. thats why and how 'illegal tech' establishes footholds in totalitarian societies.

as far as the exercise. ur joking right? CNN released a report today that 2/3rds of the American population is overweight or obese. u don't think that these ppls physicians are trying to impress upon them, convince them, told them that they can die from this. all the media, diets, work out plans run amok....hasn't changed much..if anything its gotten worse...

survival would tell modern man to stop going to war. survival would tell us to look after our environment. survival would tell us to eat better foods, survival would tell us that we need to get along and work together. the problem with the concept of survival..is most humans have a different idea of what it means to them.

in 40K , u'd think that being beset by all manners of aliens, beasties, heretics, mutants and what have u...survival would make them put aside their religious/political doctrine somewhat and get into some serious tech so that they can actually cull and claim the galaxy in which they believe to be their manifest destiny. even the High Lords of Terra must be asking these questions right about now...and if they aren't, they should be removed from office...

cause being assaulted on all sides, from outside and within...would produce a WHOLE LOT of necessity and survival..at least according to ur theory of it all...

in my mind, the Imperial powers that be are too dogmatic and stupid to know whats good for them