QuickTopic logo Create New TopicNew Topic My TopicsMy Topics News
Zarthani.net banner

H. Beam Piper Mailing List and Discussion Forum

Skip to Messages
Welcome to the H. Beam Piper mailing list and discussion forum. Initiated in October 2008 (after the demise of the original PIPER-L mailing list), this tool for shared communication among Piper fans provides an e-mail list and a discussion forum with on-line archives.
 
Membership in this moderated list/forum is by invitation only. (If you'd like an invitation please request one by sending an e-mail message to the Moderator.) In order for your messages to be approved for posting to the list you must be both registered with the QuickTopic site (click the "Sign In" link at the top-right of the page) and subscribed to receive messages from the list by e-mail (click the "Get email" button below).
 
Moderation will focus on keeping the discussion related to H. Beam Piper in a broadly interpreted sense. Off-topic posts or ad hominem comments will not be approved for posting and repeat offenders may be banned from posting to the list.
 
There is an annual subscription fee required to keep this list/forum free of advertisements and to provide expanded functionality such as the capability to post images. You can support the continued ad-free availability of this shared resource by making a contribution using the PayPal Donate link at the top of the page. (You don't need a PayPal account to make a donation, just a credit card.) Thank you for whatever level of support you can afford.
^     All messages            1953-1968 of 1968  1937-1952 >>
1968
David "PiperFan" JohnsonPerson was signed in when posted
03-21-2019
14:30 UT
~
John "Calidore" Anderson wrote (about "The Edge of the Knife"):

> I’m glad you like the idea that Professor Chalmers is
> modeled on Nostradamus. The parallels between the
> two men are quite extensive, as the overview section
> will show. And we know that Piper modeled people
> as well as historical events. “Jerry Pournelle still
> remembers many an evening spent with Piper
> discussing _historical figures_ and events and
> how they might apply to the future.” (John Carr,
> Introduction to Federation, p. xix, emphasis added)
> As a well-known historical figure, Nostradamus is
> almost an obvious choice for a science-fiction author
> to model a character on, but as far as I’m aware, Piper
> is the only one who has done it.

I want to be clear that what I like is the way your suggestion of a parallel between Chalmers and Nostradamus resolves the troublesome aspects of Chalmers' "foresight" in a Future History which has no other indications of such capabilities existing (or even that recognizes Chalmers to have existed). I'm not at all convinced though that Nostradamus actually was used by Piper as a model for Chalmers. (We have nothing from Pournelle to suggest this specific link either.) If Beam had modelled Chalmers on Nostradamus, he wouldn't have been tentative in "The Future History" about including "Edge" as a Future History yarn. And, even more likely, he would have dropped a hint or two into a later Future History yarn which referred to the "prognosticating professor." But he didn't do that. We're still talking about Nostradamus centuries after he lived, so why aren't folks in the Future History still talking about Chalmers?

(It doesn't work to say, here, something like, "Well, Chalmers is different because he was 'hiding' or because records of his 'foresight' were destroyed in the Thirty Days' War," because in doing so you've veered away from the very model you're trying to use. That sort of "cherry-picking" would undercut your proposition.)

I think it works to claim that Chalmers was "sort of like" Nostradamus, in the sense that he was someone who claimed he could see the future but who remained controversial for doing so, without anyone ever able to conclusively prove--or disprove--his claims. That allows Chalmers to "fit" into an otherwise "harder science-fiction" Future History, but doing more than that--like your effort to guess at Chalmers' future based upon the later part of the life of Nostradamus--wanders into speculation, without some concrete confirmation in Beam's other Future History works. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? Not very.

> > Future History (much less in Beam's larger body of
> > work). Beam's uncertainty about "Edge" suggests he
> > understood it to be a stand-alone work, or at least
> > had the potential to be read that way. That seems
> > an odd observation for him to make if he'd crafted
> > the story using a meta-fictional "key" which tied
> > it to the other yarns.
>
> Piper’s mention of the Terran Federation in “Edge”
> indicates that this is a THFH tale.

Only if we ignore Beam's comments about the yarn in "The Future History." Besides, Beam "mixed-and-matched" all the time, as with the Philadelphia Project which appears both in "Edge" and in the non-Terro-human Future History "Hartley" yarns, or with the "Islamic Caliphate" and the "Islamic Kaliphate," similar names, yet different things in different universes.

And let's not even try to consider the Freyan Hostigi in "When in the Course--"! ;)

We have to remember that what Beam was doing was trying to make a living as a writer, not trying to build some entirely-consistent, tightly-connected fictional universe(s). He re-used ideas when it suited his dramatic--and commercial--purpose to do so, not (necessarily) to connect the different yarns in which he used them.

> Otherwise, it would be part of the Paratime series,
> in which no such Federation is mentioned (and the
> evidence suggests that he kept the two series separate);
> or his non-THFH future history stories, which use the
> United Nations or Reunited Nations for the near-future
> global state.

That isn't the case at all. I'm repeating myself, but it could easily be a "stand-alone" yarn, like "Dearest" or "The Answer" or "Hunter Patrol."

> So in this case, I think you’re being a little too strict in
> applying Piper’s statements.

I think, here, we have a fundamentally different philosophical approach. I look at what Beam has left us as a sort of metaphorical "box." It's a complicated "box" will all sorts of "pockets" and "extensions" and internal "sub-boxes" and even the occasional "dead end." But when we're trying to make sense of his work we have to "live within" ~all~ of that "box." We can't "discard" something he's left us merely because we don't understand how it "fits" into the "box." If there's a short-coming it's almost always ~ours~, not ~Beam's~.

From this perspective, there is no such thing as being "too strict" in paying attention to what Beam left us. What Beam left us is what he left us, all of it. We should abandon it only in the most extreme circumstances.

> Particularly ones from “The Future History”, which we
> know contain a number of errors.

Yes, there are places where there are apparent contradictions in what Beam has left us. But even there we have to be very careful in deciding what's "wheat" and what's "chaff." If we "throw out" something we have to "throw out" the smallest bit possible and do it in a way that still "fits" with everything else that's left. We can't start "tearing out" whole components of the "box" he's left us just because it fits some idea we have or some model we've constructed ourselves.

> Beam seems to have been somewhat confused when he
> wrote the piece, possibly because it was a rush job to
> placate Peter Weston so he could get back to writing
> saleable stories. I don’t take his “possible inclusion” too
> seriously; I consider Chalmers as unquestionably part
> of the THFH. Especially because, if we leave Chalmers
> out, then we must also throw out nearly everything we
> know about the beginning of the Terran Federation,
> information about which comes almost exclusively
> from “The Edge of the Knife”.

There is nothing Beam told us in "The Future History" about "The Edge of the Knife" which contradicts what we find in the yarn itself. The "confusion" you're trying to attribute here to Beam is actually a "made up" conflict between what Beam wrote in "The Future History" and the model ~you've~ "deduced" and want to apply to Chalmers. That's a very, very different exercise from one that's trying to resolves a genuine conflict in what Beam left us (like, say, when the events of ~Four-Day Planet~ take place).

What you're doing here is finding some (apparent) contradictions in one bit of "The Future History" and then using them as an excuse to "throw out" other parts of "The Future History" that ~aren't~ contradictions of what Beam has left us (but rather merely don't fit your model well).

> If we take as a given that Chalmers is in the Future
> History,

We can't "take this as a given." It is a direct contradiction of Beam's own tentativeness on this point. Beam was tentative because he recognized that Chalmers' "foreseeing" doesn't fit well with the "harder science-fiction" of the rest of his Future History works. There's nothing ~contradictory~ in that that uncertainty. It's accurate and reflects a genuine aspect of the story he told in "Edge."

> and assuming he is modeled on Nostradamus,

As I've mentioned, even though I ~like~ this assumption (or at least the idea of the fictional Chalmers being "explainable" in terms similar to those which explain the actual Nostradamus), it's not at all likely that a direct modelling is actually what Beam was doing. Just because we might like (what) the assumption (does) doesn't make it so.

> then the AE 1 = 1601 AD equation explains
> Pottgeiter’s reference that Nostradamus is “about a
> century late” for him. The statement is true to the
> character, as Pottgeiter is a professor of medieval
> history, but it’s also a subtle hint that Piper’s
> Nostradamus, Ed Chalmers, appears in the THFH
> ‘about a century late’.

I understand what you're trying to do here. I'm merely suggesting you've wandered well into shaky ground. You've made two big leaps ~away~ from what Beam has left us in an effort to "shoe-horn" your model into place. I'm pointing out that in doing so, it's gotten more and more difficult to accept what you're doing as being reasonable extrapolation. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? Not very.

> Rather than conjecture, the word I would use is
> ‘deduction’ or ‘extrapolation’.

We seem to have rather divergent understandings of the specific meanings of those terms. . . .

> The ‘disappearance’ angle is an excellent point. But
> unlike the rosy-future endings of The Cosmic
> Computer and Space Viking, the end of “Edge” is
> hardly a happy or hopeful one.

This is an interesting point. I'm not sure I agree--Chalmers' quick planning with Pottgeiter at the end is clearly intended to leave the reader with a hopeful expectation of his future--but I agree the hopefulness is much more muted than is the case at the end of ~Junkyard Planet~ and ~Space Viking~.

That doesn't mean I'm ready to accept your claim that Chalmers' future can be modelled on that of Nostradamus in his later life but it does leave me willing to entertain the possibility that Chalmers doesn't die in that mental institution (either during the War or in its aftermath).

But if Chalmers doesn't end his days in the mental institution then he becomes, like Merlin, another "great mystery." We never get another indication in any other Future History yarn that Chalmers survives. We have no evidence that he was somehow able to "take advantage" of his ability to "foresee" the future.

That leaves lots of room for "dreaming" about Chalmers' future, but if we're going to engage in that exercise then we need to find ways to connect that "dreaming" with other parts of what Beam has left us. From what I've seen so far of your effort to model Chalmers' future on the later life of Nostradamus, there's been very little indication of that sort of connection. You're not able to point to something Beam left us in the rest of his Future History and say, "Here is evidence that Chalmers survived and became influential."

> so Chalmers should do his best work after AE 31
> (WWIII). That he resumes this work is suggested at the
> end of “Edge” (late AE 30). Becoming an advisor to the
> US and/or Federation governments after WWIII should
> enable Chalmers to help secure the postwar peace, by
> providing accurate forecasts (based on his real
> knowledge of future events) which enable government
> leaders to adopt good and effective policies to deal with
> what’s ahead.

Perhaps, but where are the connections to what Beam left us? We can't just make them up. There has to be some connection from Beam himself, like the way the ~Hubert Penrose~ in "Naudsonce" connects to "Omnilingual" or the way Lord Koreff in "Ministry of Disturbance" connects to ~Space Viking~. Beam was ~great~ at this, so where is the indication in a subsequent Future History work that Chalmers may have survived and come to use his "foresight" for "good"?

> And if Ed’s advisory job is with the secretive Politico-
> Strategic Planning Board (which he never worked for in
> “Edge”, but could be invited to join after WWIII due to the
> wartime deaths of some of its members), his
> contributions could remain “pretty hush-hush” as Major
> Cutler says (Empire, p. 48).
>
> Thus, by entering the ‘clandestine world’, Chalmers might
> indeed disappear from the Future History, even while
> helping it.

Sorry, but this doesn't work. It is suggesting there ~aren't~ any connections that Beam left us, so let's "make up" whatever we want. Here, I would offer, is a pretty clear distinction between "conjecture" and "deduction" or "extrapolation."

Cheers,

David
--
"Ideas for science fiction stories like ideas for anything else, are where you find them, usually in the most unlikely places. The only reliable source is a mind which asks itself a question like, 'What would happen if--?' or, 'Now what would this develop into, in a few centuries?' Or, 'How would so-and-so happen?' Anything at all, can trigger such a question, in your field if not in mine." - H. Beam Piper, "Double: Bill Symposium" interview
~
1967
David "PiperFan" JohnsonPerson was signed in when posted
03-19-2019
04:55 UT
~
John "Calidore" Anderson wrote (about Venus):

> OVERVIEW OF HISTORICAL MODELS IN THE EARLY
> FUTURE HISTORY

> WWIV obviously occurs after WWIII in AE 31, and
> probably sometime before the Secession of Venus in AE
> 174 (timeline in Empire).

I've mentioned this before, but we have a basic disagreement here about the dating of the succession of Venus (and thus the dating of World War IV). You prefer the date in the ~Empire~ Chronology for the succession of Venus (174 AE) and I prefer the date shown in Beam's "The Future History" for WWIV (106-109 AE). I don't know where the date in the ~Empire~ Chronology comes from but there is plenty of internal evidence in Beam's work to support the WWIV dates in "The Future History." Indeed, you can see me making a guess at the dates of WWIV (circa 101-108 AE) based upon the internal evidence in Beam's work back on the old PIPER-L mailing list here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080310091549...-l&T=0&F=&S=&P=3632

That guess, from May 2003, was made three and half years ~before~ I got my hands on a copy of "The Future History" from Peter Weston (and posted it shortly thereafter at Zarthani.net).

So, we'll have to keep these different ideas about the dates in mind as I respond to your historical models for the Venus secession.

> The timeline in Empire places the secession of Venus in
> AE 174, and adding 1600 makes its historical model
> 1774 AD; that is, the American Revolution.

Putting the dates aside for the moment, it seems to me like post-Revolution America is a poor model for the Future History Venus. Venus is described throughout the Federation era as a corrupt and seemingly backward place, sort of a Federation version of what used to be called a "banana republic." That seems rather different from the American experience, at least through the period when Beam was writing. . . .

> Piper similarly relates the Secession of Venus to the
> end of the First and beginning of the Second Terran
> Federations. “And after Venus seceded from the First
> Federation, before the Second Federation was
> organized.” [9]

[Moving reference up from below here, for context.]

> [9] H. Beam Piper, Space Viking (New York, NY: Ace
> Books, 1963), p. 13

> The secession therefore seems to be the catalyst for the
> fall of the First Terran Federation, an interplanetary
> organization confined to the Solar System, and centered
> on normal-space trade between the ‘great island’ of Terra
> and its ‘continental’ Venusian and Martian colonies, as
> well as with such minor celestial ‘islands’ as Ceres,
> Callisto, Ganymede and Titan; followed by the rise of
> the Second Terran Federation, which in the following
> (Third) century AE begins its interstellar expansion of
> colonization and hyperspace trade to eventually become
> a vast empire spanning at least 500 worlds spread over
> “a space-volume of two hundred billion cubic light-years.”
 [10]

[Again, relocating the reference for context.]

> [10] Ibid., p. 32

Even without your attempt to use the American Revolution as the historical model--and when you want to date that using your "key" and the ~Empire~ Chronology date--it's clear from Beam in "The Future History" that the "First Federation begins to crack under the strains of colonial claims and counter-claims of member states." This seems to be a broader-based problem rather than something focused on Venus specifically. Furthermore, the unfolding of "colonial claims and counter-claims by member states" is something rather different from the revolt of the American Colonies against the British Empire. But, in general, we agree that the succession of Venus from the "first" Federation--whenever it occurs--is part of the process of disintegration and transformation from the U.S.-led "first" Federation to the Southron-led "second" Federation.

> The timeline in Empire placed the end of the First
> Federation, and rise of the Second Federation, in AE 183.
> This is exactly right, as adding 1600 results in 1783,
> the very year the Treaty of Paris was signed, and which
> historians typically use as the date marking the end of
> the First British Empire and the beginning of the Second.
> [11] Wars are usually concluded by treaties, so it seems
> likely that the Treaty of Paris, which officially ended
> hostilities in 1783, is paralleled by a similar document
> in AE 183 (which I tentatively dubbed the ‘Treaty of Venus’),
> that in Piper’s Future History marks the end of the First
> Terran Federation and the beginning of the Second.

I don't think there is any "treaty" marking the transition from "first" Federation to "second." As Beam puts it in "The Future History" (and describes in several places in his Future History yarns), WWIV results in the "complete devastation of [the] Northern Hemisphere of Terra." There is no one left in the North to make any treaties (though there may be rump elements of the U.S. and some other Northern states in the Southern Hemisphere or even, perhaps, among the remnants of their former off-world colonies).

As Beam further explains in "The Future History," rather than being formed by a war-ending treaty, the "Second Terran Federation [is] organized by South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, Brazil, the Argentine, etc." What Beam has described here is something rather different from what historians had in mind in the transition from "first" to "second" British Empires. It's also a process where the role of the rebellious Venus is secondary at best. Indeed, Beam's very next sentence says there are "wars of colonial pacification and consolidation; the new [Terran Federation] imposes a System-wide pax." These are the Southrons bringing to heel those off-world colonies, including Venus, which had "cracked" and "strained" the "first" Federation, leading to WWIV and the destruction of civilization in the Northern Hemisphere of Terra.

> So what does this mean for the early Federation? First,
> the equation supports the dates in the Empire timeline
> for the Secession of Venus and the rise of the Second
> Federation as essentially correct. Piper’s short
> chronology of “The Future History”, which implies that
> the Second Federation is formed right after WWIV, [12]
> is therefore in error. This is not a major obstacle, since
> that document contains several other provable mistakes,
> most notably an almost 150-year error in the dating of
> Four-Day Planet.

I don't disagree that there are some dating problems with "The Future History." In particular, there often seems to be the sort of mistake that would be made by someone "who remembered too late that there was no C.E. Year Zero." (The problems with ~Four-Day Planet~ also exist within that novel itself!) Whether this was Beam's confusion or an error in Weston's transcription--or perhaps both--is something we'll likely never know but I am much more reluctant to throw out the dates shown in "The Future History" for WWIV, particularly because there is so much internal evidence in Beam's work--as my 2003 guess on the old PIPER-L list makes clear--which also points to those dates.

That internal evidence--and "The Future History"--puts the secession of Venus circa 105 AE, which, using your "key," would have us looking for the historical model circa 1706, well before the American Revolution. This is, as you've mentioned, the period of the War of the Spanish Succession--and the Great Northern War--which, considered together, seem like a pretty good model for a global war which results in the end of civilization in the Northern Hemisphere.

> k) AE 106-109 = 1706-1709 AD. WWIV is also called
> “the First Interplanetary War”. [17] This means that its
> extraterrestrial theater is modeled on Queen Anne’s War,
> which was the “North American theater of the War of
> Spanish Succession.” [18] Queen Anne’s War “produced
> few memorable hostilities”, [19] so the battles on colonial
> Venus and Mars are presumably minor compared to
> the major fighting taking place all over North Terra.

Here, I think, is the better model for the secession of Venus. Rather than being modeled on the American Revolution, I think the tertiary theaters of the War of Spanish Succession where European powers battled for control of colonies in North America, South America, South Asia and Southeast Asia are more like what was probably happening on Terran colonies throughout the Solar system during WWIV.

> o) circa AE 156-163 = AE 1756-1763. In addition to
> the secession of Venus mentioned by Otto Harkaman,
> Professor Chalmers foresees “the revolt of the colonies
> on Mars and Venus.” [27] This may be the same event.
> However, since Harkaman does not mention the
> secession of Mars, it could actually refer to a separate
> conflict. And between Queen Anne’s War and the
> American Revolution, there was another major colonial
> war in North America. This was the French and Indian
> War (1756-1763), which could therefore be paralleled
> by a ‘Sino-Colonial’ war on Venus and Mars (circa AE
> 156-163). If so, this would be the Second
> Interplanetary War, and one of the “Wars of colonial
> pacification and consolidation” mentioned by Piper.
> [28] The effects of the French and Indian War led to
> the American Revolution, so the effects of the deduced
> ‘Sino-Colonial War’ may similarly lead to the Secession
> of Venus.

There is much conjecture here which rests on a foundation that rejects the dates provided for WWIV by Beam in "The Future History." It's conjecture--rather than deduction or extrapolation--because there isn't anything tied to Beam's work which suggests there was some additional conflict beyond WWIV. (Interesting that you've chosen to dump Beam's dates for that conflict but keep his mention of the "wars of colonial pacification and consolidation." That seems like some heavy-handed cherry-picking to me, especially since Beam seems to suggest in the same paragraph that these wars are completed and a "System-wide pax" imposed within ten years, i.e. by 119 AE--smack-dab in the middle of the period of a "completely unified world" foreseen by Chalmers in "Edge" too.)

(I've already questioned your proposal of China as a major combatant in any war after the Thirty Days' War and I'll comment on your responses to that separately.)

> p) circa AE 174-181 = 1774-1781 AD. The
> Secession of Venus, possibly the Third
> Interplanetary War, is modeled on the American
> Revolution. The Thirteen Colonies banded together
> against the tyrant King George, and declared their
> united independence, almost exactly sixty years
> after Great Britain itself was unified. Similarly, the
> formerly-loyal colonies on Venus unite, roughly
> sixty years after Terra is completely unified, and
> secede from a First Federation which has become
> ‘tyrannical’.

One of the things you've done in dumping Beam's dates from "The Future History" for WWIV is to miss their alignment with the "completely unified world" Chalmers "foresees" in the period 2050-70 AD (108-128 AE). This is the period immediately following WWIV, when the Southrons are establishing the "second" Federation and imposing that "System-wide pax." This is a bit of what I mean when I say that there is internal evidence in Beam's work which fits well with the dates he's provided in "The Future History." You've overlooked--or dismissed--this by choosing the date from the ~Empire~ Chronology for the secession of Venus.

> The fledgling American Republic is paralleled by
> a ‘Venusian Republic’, while the Martian colonies
> parallel the Canadian colonies (Nova Scotia,
> Newfoundland, St. John and Quebec) which did
> not revolt against the British.

This again is conjecture, unrelated to anything we can find in Beam's actual work. The chronically corrupt Member Republic of Venus seems to be a poor analog to the post-Revolutionary history of the United States. (There's also nothing in Beam's work--certainly not the single French-Canadian on the ~Cyrano~ expedition any more than the Andean Martian in ~Uprising~--to suggest that the Martian colonies are somehow modeled on British-controlled Canada.)

I think there are better models for Venus in the various European colonies which "changed hands" during the War of the Spanish Succession. And if you're willing to abandon your commitment to the dates in the ~Empire~ Chronology for those provided by Beam in "The Future History" the model aligns nicely with your "key" too.

Here, I think, is a highlight of something which has been nagging at me about your "key" thesis. Too often it seems you're committed to the "key" being the only connection between the models you find in actual history and Beam's fiction. I think you can do better than that by looking not solely to the "key" but also more closely at the ~substance~ of what Beam has left us. When something Beam has written doesn't fit your "model" (or your "key") the solution shouldn't be to pitch out Beam's "error." The solution should be to take a second--and third, if necessary--look at your models.

That's what Beam would have done.

Cheers,

David
--
"There had been the time he'd mentioned the secession of Canada from the British Commonwealth. . . ."- Edward Chalmers (H. Beam Piper), "The Edge of the Knife"
~
1966
CalidorePerson was signed in when posted
03-19-2019
01:30 UT
Thanks again to David "Piperfan" Johnson for his comments on Part One; here is my second set of replies.

>Was there something other than the similarity of names which led you to see the
>Thirty Years’ War as a model for the Third World War? “Thirty Days’ War” seems
>chosen specifically to indicate that a global nuclear war would be very, very, different
>from previous, modern, conventional wars. “Twenty Day’ War” doesn’t quite seem like
>long enough and “Forty-Five Days’ War” would have been a lot more awkward to
>write, so “Thirty Days’ War” may have simply been a convenient dramatic choice.
>The connection you’ve proposed here, based simply on the similarity in the naming
>conventions, does not seem to be compelling in and of itself.

And,

>Was there something other than the affinity with the “key” dates which led you to
>see the War of Spanish Succession as a model for the Fourth World War?

The equation more or less came first, and the affinity is that the Terran Federation is modeled on the British Empire. So I started with a general or overall view, then got down to the specific details. The inspiration arose from John Carr’s and Jerry Pournelle’s introductions to Federation, back in 1981. John described how Beam apparently modeled the Terran Federation on the British Empire, and Jerry wrote that “Beam firmly believed that history repeated itself; or at least that one can use real history to construct a future history.” (Preface to Federation, p. viii) At some point over the following years, the thought occurred to me that the easiest and best way to do that would be to use an actual timeline. Though no expert on the field of science fiction, the future histories I had read seemed to use historical models in a random manner (such as Asimov) or not at all (Niven). So if Piper had used an actual timeline, it would make his Future History a huge improvement over existing ones, or at least the ones I was aware of. It would ‘feel’ like a real history, because its course was based on real history.
  
The British Empire model got a boost around 1990, when I read Dr. Bayly’s Atlas of the British Empire. This gave me the idea that the First and Second Terran Federations were modeled on the First and Second British Empires. Writing these ideas down in the summer of 2000, I soon realized that this meant the Secession of Venus was modeled on the American Revolution. So it was by back-projecting from that event that the models for WWIII and WWIV were revealed. The Terran Federation is modeled on the British Empire, so the Federation in AE 174 (the Secession of Venus in the Empire timeline) would align with Britain in the 1770s (the American Revolution), and the Federation in AE 31 (the Thirty Days’ War, a major conflict) would align with Britain in the 1630s, which was in the middle of the Thirty Years War (another major conflict). Finally, the Federation in AE 114 (WWIV, as I thought at the time) ‘almost’ aligned with Britain in the next major European war, the War of Spanish Succession (1701-1713).

Thus, it appeared that Piper had aligned the great wars of the Federation’s first two centuries with the great European wars of the Seventeenth and Eighteen Centuries. The similarity of names (Thirty Days’ War, Thirty Years War) was actually something of a ‘eureka’ moment, as it suggested that my line of reasoning was on the right track. This was supported by other events which seemed to align; the unification of Terra in 2050-2070 (50-70 years before the Secession of Venus) with the unification of Britain in 1707 (almost exactly 70 years before the American Revolution), and the Cyrano’s voyage to Mars (AE 53) with Cyrano de Bergerac’s Voyage to the Moon (1650s AD).
   
My first thought for a specific date was that AE 174 paralleled the iconic 1776, so that the original ‘key’ equation was a couple years different. But it didn’t take long before I realized the events lined up best by using AE 1 = 1601 AD. It’s a more elegant solution, and as I said in my original post, WWIV’s alignment with the War of Spanish Succession became perfect eight years later, when I read “The Future History” in John Carr’s biography of Piper. To me, this confirmed the correctness of my research.
   
So you are right, though perhaps not precisely in the way you meant, that “ “Thirty Days’ War” seems chosen specifically to indicate that a global nuclear war would be very, very, different from previous, modern, conventional wars”. What took thirty years to destroy in the Seventeenth Century only takes thirty days in the nuclear-armed Twentieth. And that Piper would purposely echo the name ‘Thirty Years War’ in the Thirty Days’ War is supported by his use of the Confederate States of America (CSA) as the model for the System States Alliance (SSA). On at least some occasions, he didn’t just model the historic event or organization, but its name.

>The parallel you’ve drawn between the Thirty Days’ War and the actual Thirty Years
>War is interesting but is there anything about the _character_ of that conflict that you
>believe gives us some insight into the Thirty Days’ War? You’ve suggested a traditional
>ideological component but Beam never mentions an ideological struggle in his work.
>Sure, many of us bring a bundle of ideological assumptions to Beam’s work ourselves
>based upon our memories (and experience) of the U.S.-Soviet Union Cold War, but
>the Eastern Axis itself seemed much more worried about the genuine security threat
>posed to them by the missiles of the U.S. Lunar Base. What’s the Thirty Years’ War
>analog for that?’

Piper’s official Future History began with Uller Uprising, published in 1952. Since this was at a ‘hot’ point in the Cold War (the Korean War was then raging), I believe the ideological component was not only present, but paramount. In 1952, everyone was convinced that a nuclear war with the Communist Bloc was inevitable, and could happen at any time. Indeed, the Korean War could have exploded into just that, which was why President Truman tried to contain the conflict. Piper himself appears to have been convinced of this, and when Barry Goldwater lost the presidential election in 1964, he grew despondent, believing that the US would lose the inevitable war with Russia. (This was a contributing factor in his suicide.) So in creating his Future History, I don’t think Beam would have ignored the most important geopolitical fact of that time. While he was not explicit (perhaps he felt he didn’t need to be), the Eastern Axis almost certainly refers to the Communist Bloc, in my opinion.
 
The name ‘Eastern Axis’ would then be modeled on two factors. One, the fascist Axis of WWII, in which Germany (Central Europe) was the main foe, just as it had been the leader of the Central Powers of WWI. Two, the old ‘central’ element was updated to reflect the new main foe in ‘eastern’ Europe (the communist Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact) and the Far East (Red China, North Korea, North Vietnam). The postwar, bipolar world was East versus West, so we get the Eastern Axis against the ‘Western Allies’, or Terran Federation. The great ideological struggle of the Twentieth Century (which could be called the ‘Wars of Ideology’) therefore parallels the great religious struggle of the Seventeenth Century (the Wars of Religion).

The moonbase concept is a kind of ‘planetary excalibur’, in that whoever builds it becomes king of the world. The Cold War was about whether democratic capitalism or communism would become the prevalent politico-economic system, so in light of this, the Space Race becomes of vital importance. Because whoever gets to the Moon first can annex it, and build the Lunar fortress, thereby gaining “world supremacy” over the planet below. (Worlds, p. 30) The security threat goes both ways; if Russia gets there first, it gains world supremacy, and vice-versa. So both sides are compelled to make a maximum effort to win. We can debate whether the importance of a Lunar nuclear missile base was actually a good assumption for Beam to follow (in hindsight, I would), but beginning with the movie Destination Moon in 1950, this became another one of those Cold War ideas that seemed to make perfect sense.

Thus, there is no parallel for the moonbase in the Thirty Years War. As I will show in the overview section, the Thirty Years War ended with neither a Protestant nor a Catholic victory, meaning that the Thirty Days’ War should end with neither a Proletarian nor a Capitalist victory. And in the real world, a no-win general Atomic War is certainly the most likely outcome. But the US lunar base changes the equation, allowing the US/Federation to destroy the Soviet Union (and perhaps the whole Eastern Axis), which is (are) “utterly overwhelmed under the rain of missiles from across space”. This secures ‘world supremacy’ for the US-led Terran Federation. That was possibly a change Piper had to make, because his Future History is partly based on Toynbee’s concepts, including the ‘universal state’. And its victory in WWIII enables the Terran Federation to become the first universal state in the THFH.

>Putting aside that France tried to forge “one preponderating empire” not by taking
>over Spain directly but rather by seeking to place a friendly monarch on the Spanish
>throne, what is there in Beam’s work which leads you to make the leap to a Chinese
>Fourth World War combatant?

I would argue that King Louis’ goal was not that limited, but the rest of your question again takes us into the full overview section, where I show my method for identifying the parallels between the modern nations involved in WWIII and WWIV, and their historical models in the Thirty Years War and War of Spanish Succession. Basically, in both of these eras, France was the most populous nation in Europe. This means its parallel in WWIII and WWIV should be the most populous nation in the world, which is China. That this aligned the “Sun King” with the leader of China, traditionally called the “Son of Heaven”, seemed a point in its favor.
 
But there is also a geographic component. To the northeast of China is Korea, split between the communist North and democratic South. This parallels the Low Countries northeast of France, which were split between the Protestant north (Holland) and Catholic south (the Spanish Netherlands, which became Belgium). Also, India is a peninsula southwest of China, separated by the Himalayas, just as Spain is a peninsula southwest of France, separated by the Pyrenees. (Pakistan parallels Portugal.) So the Sun King’s effort to consolidate France and Spain into one preponderating empire is paralleled by a new Son of Heaven, who similarly tries to consolidate China and India (the two most populous nations) into a superpower.

>Beam hardly mentions anything about China in any of his Future History works.
>There’s no explicit indication that China is part of the “Eastern Axis” in “The Edge
>of the Knife” but more importantly there are hardly any Chinese-surnamed characters
>which appear in the yarns of the post-Atomic Wars era. (Harry Quong, specifically
>identified as a “Chinese-Australian,” spells his surname in a variant way that is found
>in Australia but differs from the more common Mandarin spelling of the Chinese mainland.
>He is obviously meant to illustrate the “Southron” character of post-Atomic Wars Terran
>civilization rather than to suggest a surviving remnant of the Chinese nation.

Based on the historical model, it is possible that Red China is not an official member of the Eastern Axis (see below), but the enemy alliances in previous world wars had three main members. For the Central Powers in WWI, these were Imperial Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey. For the fascist Axis in WWII, it was Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan. So the Eastern Axis most likely has three main members. The Soviet Union is the obvious leader, and mainland China became communist even before Beam began creating his Future History. Piper then projected that India would fall to communism sometime in the late 1960s or early 70s (it is communist in the 1973 of “Edge”), which would make a triad of the Soviet Union, Red China and Communist India.
 
Another reason to include it is that throughout the 1950s and to the end of Piper’s life, Red China was part of the Communist Bloc, and allied to Russia. The Sino-Soviet split didn’t occur until the late 1960s. So I believe Red China’s membership in the Eastern Axis is almost a given, being an underlying assumption that didn’t need to be made explicit. Piper made it explicit in his non-THFH story “Hunter Patrol”, in which documents of the “Pan-Soviet” forces (alternate version of the Eastern Axis, or Communist Bloc) are “tri-lingual, Russian, Hindi and Chinese.” (Worlds, pp. 79, 97) In “The Mercenaries”, the Fourth Komintern (Communist International) plays this role, being one of “the four great power-blocs” of the world. (ibid., p. 30)
    
The second part of your statement is actually an argument in favor of my scenario. For if Red China is the main enemy in WWIV, its total destruction means that few Terran Chinese will survive, particularly those with Mandarin names. And if I’m right that “the revolt of the colonies on Mars and Venus” is modeled on the French and Indian War, then the deduced ‘Sino-Colonial War’ will see the defeat and/or destruction of the old Red Chinese colonies on Mars and Venus, which several decades after WWIV revolt against their old foe, the (formerly North American-dominated, now South Terran-centered) First Federation. This can explain why so few Chinese characters (or Indian characters, for that matter) are found in the post-Atomic Wars era.

>(We should also keep in mind that throughout the period when Beam was writing the
>”Nationalist” government on Taiwan was recognized by the U.S. and most of its allies
>as the legal government of all of China. The non-Communist Republic of China, for
>example, held the UN Security Council seat throughout this period. It was not obvious
>to someone of Beam’s era that China would continue/come to be dominated by the
>Communist government. Given this, it could even be that Beam saw the U.S.-allied
>non-Communists making gains on the Chinese mainland in the aftermath of the Thirty
>Days’ War.)

That’s a keen observation. As an American ally and former Security Council member of the disbanded UN, Nationalist China probably becomes an early and important member of the Terran Federation. And in the overview section, I show that during the Thirty Days’ War, Federation forces from Taiwan (Nationalist Chinese, Americans) do invade the mainland. Its model is the Spanish invasion of eastern France in the Thirty Years War. This invasion was subsequently defeated, however, suggesting that the Nationalist/American invasion of eastern China is ultimately a failure.

>I recognize that identifying the combatants of the Fourth World War remains one of
>the more inscrutable puzzles in Beam’s work but it does seem problematic to propose
>a “Chinese component” when there is virtually nothing from Beam to suggest it.
 
>If there’s something about the War of the Spanish Succession itself which points to
>China as one of the major combatants in the Fourth World War it would be good to
>learn about that. But barring that sort of pointer, are there other elements of the War
>of the Spanish Succession model which might help us to identify other potential
>candidates for a Fourth World War combatant?

>What’s interesting to me about the War of the Spanish Succession as a potential model
>for the Fourth World War is the way it pits France, the hegemonic Continental power of
>the era, against Britain, the rising revisionist power, and the way, as you’ve suggested here,
>that conflict also unfolds in the two nations’ respective colonial holdings in the Americas
>(and Asia). That does seem to be a good model for the “interplanetary”—and “colonial”—
>elements of the Fourth World War. But the key insight seems to remain in being able to
>identify who the principal combatants might be. It seems fairly reasonable to assume that
>the U.S.-led (first) Terran Federation was one of them. What can the War of the Spanish
>Succession model tells us about the other?

You’re absolutely right about that being the key insight (or the “sixtifor”, as Prince Trevannion might say), and it was one of the problems which gave me the most trouble in the early part of my research. This will probably require a separate post, in which my method can be revealed in detail. There is some interpretation involved as to which nation parallels which, so alternate scenarios are certainly possible.
 
But to give you a brief ‘preview’ of the overview, once again I started with general concepts and then got down to specifics. First, the Terran Federation in the Thirty Days’ War parallels the Catholic League of the Thirty Years War, while the Eastern Axis parallels the Protestant Union. This seems right, because in the 17th Century, Catholicism was the long-established faith, whose abuses led to the rise of Protestantism. Similarly, by the 20th Century Capitalism was the long-established politico-economic ‘faith’, whose abuses led to the rise of Proletarianism, or Communism. Next, the major powers of the Protestant Union were Denmark (a peninsula) and Sweden (a great northern power); these are paralleled by Communist India (essentially a peninsula) and the Soviet Union (a great northern power). Another great power was France (the most populous nation in Europe at the time), which although Catholic, fought on the Protestant side in the Thirty Years War. This means that Red China (the most populous nation) fights on the Communist side in the Thirty Days’ War. Since France was not part of the Protestant Union, Red China may not be a member of the Eastern Axis. However, France was Catholic, not Protestant, while Red China was Proletarian, not Capitalist. For this reason (and those mentioned previously), I believe that it is part of the Eastern Axis.
 
Moving on to WWIV, the major Western or democratic powers of the Terran Federation now parallel the ‘democratic’ powers of the Grand Alliance in the War of Spanish Succession (these were Britain, a constitutional monarchy; Austria, with its elected Holy Roman emperors; and the Dutch Republic). The Grand Alliance's enemy was the Franco-Spanish (or Bourbon) Alliance, led by the Absolutist monarch, Louis XIV. Since France in the Thirty Years War was paralleled by Red China in the Thirty Days’ War, the Franco-Spanish Alliance in the WSS becomes the model for an ‘absolute’ or totalitarian ‘Sino-Hindic Axis’ in WWIV.
  
John
1965
CalidorePerson was signed in when posted
03-16-2019
18:01 UT
David “Piperfan” Johnson paid me several compliments in his first reply to Part One of the Overview, for which I thank him, and am very grateful. He said I gave him a lot to digest; in turn, he has given me a lot to reply to. Here’s the first group of responses, and a second set will follow on Monday.

>2) The parallel drawn between Ed Chalmers and Nostradamus. What a wonderful
>way to ground the seemingly-fantastical-and-therefore-ill-fitting Chalmers in terms
>of an actual historical figure!

I’m glad you like the idea that Professor Chalmers is modeled on Nostradamus. The parallels between the two men are quite extensive, as the overview section will show. And we know that Piper modeled people as well as historical events. “Jerry Pournelle still remembers many an evening spent with Piper discussing _historical figures_ and events and how they might apply to the future.” (John Carr, Introduction to Federation, p. xix, emphasis added) As a well-known historical figure, Nostradamus is almost an obvious choice for a science-fiction author to model a character on, but as far as I’m aware, Piper is the only one who has done it.

>3) The idea that the revolt of the colonies on Mars and Venus is a secondary
>element of the more general Fourth World War, as Queen Anne’s War was a
>secondary aspect of the War of Spanish Succession.

A slight correction here. The parallel of Queen Anne’s War is the extraterrestrial theater of the Fourth World War. The revolt of the colonies on Mars and Venus is either the same as the Secession of Venus (Piper is unclear on this point), or a separate conflict between WWIV and the Secession (my deduced ‘Sino-Colonial War’), which is modeled on the French and Indian War.

>The parallel drawn between the Boers’ Great Trek and Barron’s intention
>to use Freyan “free companies” to colonize the other continents of Freya.
>(I do have to disagree with—and even object to—the suggestion that Beam
>would ever draw a parallel between Africans and chimp-like Freyan ~kholphs~.
>There is nothing anything like that in any of his work and much else that makes
>it clear this is not the sort of idea he would entertain.)
  
I’m also glad you like the Boer/Freyan connection. Your objection to the kholphs’ model may not be warranted. I’m not suggesting Piper was some sort of racist; the kholphs are primitive in relation to the Freyan mercenaries simply because the African tribes were primitive in relation to the Boers. The degree of difference is of lesser concern. Also, I don’t think Beam described the kholphs as “chimp-like”, except in their level of mentation. In Little Fuzzy, they are the subject of studies along with Terran chimpanzees, and seem to have the same high degree of sub-sapience, but the other test subjects include Terran dogs and cats, as well as Mimir black slinkers. (LF, pp. 50, 96, 153) And it is my belief that the sub-sapient slinkers are the same as Mimir’s “race of semi-intelligent quasi-rodents, murderous, treacherous, utterly vicious” mentioned by Carlos von Schlichten. (UU, p. 16) Thus, since the mentation subjects on Zarathustra including simians, canines, felines and (presumably) quasi-rodents, the kholphs could be something else entirely; perhaps an avian or amphibian species.

On the other hand, if Piper did describe the kholphs as primates somewhere, please let me know and provide the reference. I have no problem admitting I’m wrong if so.

In any event, I think Beam was simply drawing a parallel, not an equivalence. This is also true of his other alien races, such as the Ullerans. I don’t believe he was comparing the people of northern India to merciless, hermaphroditic lizards by using the Sepoy Mutiny as the model for the Uller Uprising. He was just using the Mutiny to create a similar “historic situation, at least in general shape” for his Future History (Empire, p. 55), within which his imagination could supply the science-fictional details. In the case of Uller, these were inspired by Dr. Clark’s essay.

When the Second British Empire began colonizing far lands in the Eastern Hemisphere, they often came in contact with primitive peoples. So when the Second Terran Federation begins colonizing far worlds beyond the Solar System, they will likewise encounter primitive alien races. In keeping with the differing evolutionary rates and processes of each world, some of these aliens will be sapient, some not. Among the sapient ones, the vast majority will probably be humanoids (thus, the Fuzzies “have all the physical characteristics shared by other sapient races—lower limbs specialized for locomotion, upper limbs for manipulation, erect posture, stereoscopic vision, color perception…hand with opposing thumb—all the characteristics we consider as prerequisite to the development of sapience.”, LF, pp. 56-57), but not necessarily descended from primates. In First Cycle, the humanoid Hetairans evolve from feline ancestors; in “Naudsonce”, the humanoid Svants seem to have evolved from a chicken-like creature; and in “Ministry of Disturbance” we learn that the Thorans are of canine ancestry. So I do believe that the kholphs, whatever their physical form and level of mentation, parallel (but do not equate to or reflect upon the innate intelligence of) the black tribes of South Africa.
  
>"Nothing else, with the possible exception of a novelette called
>'The Edge of the Knife,' Amazing, May 1957, belongs to the History
>of the Future. This was a story, time 1973 CE, about a history professor,
>who got his past and future confused, and had a lot of trouble as a result."

>Beam's uncertainty about its "fit" here indicates that he was aware
>that "Edge" might be something a bit different from what he was doing
>in the rest of his Future History yarns. That insight suggests that he
>did not see himself as writing in a single, large "meta-universe" where
>different yarns in seemingly different settings were nevertheless connected
>because they occurred on different timelines in the same multi-universe.

And,

>Pottgeiter's reference to Nostradamus is keenly observed, and it seems
>apparent that Beam himself is trying to draw a connection between
>Chalmers and Nostradamus here, but I don't think that means that this
>allusion is part of some larger pattern hidden throughout the Terro-human
>Future History (much less in Beam's larger body of work). Beam's uncertainty
>about "Edge" suggests he understood it to be a stand-alone work, or at least
>had the potential to be read that way. That seems an odd observation for
>him to make if he'd crafted the story using a meta-fictional "key" which tied
>it to the other yarns.

Piper’s mention of the Terran Federation in “Edge” indicates that this is a THFH tale. Otherwise, it would be part of the Paratime series, in which no such Federation is mentioned (and the evidence suggests that he kept the two series separate); or his non-THFH future history stories, which use the United Nations or Reunited Nations for the near-future global state.

So in this case, I think you’re being a little too strict in applying Piper’s statements. Particularly ones from “The Future History”, which we know contain a number of errors. Beam seems to have been somewhat confused when he wrote the piece, possibly because it was a rush job to placate Peter Weston so he could get back to writing saleable stories. I don’t take his “possible inclusion” too seriously; I consider Chalmers as unquestionably part of the THFH. Especially because, if we leave Chalmers out, then we must also throw out nearly everything we know about the beginning of the Terran Federation, information about which comes almost exclusively from “The Edge of the Knife”.

If we take as a given that Chalmers is in the Future History, and assuming he is modeled on Nostradamus, then the AE 1 = 1601 AD equation explains Pottgeiter’s reference that Nostradamus is “about a century late” for him. The statement is true to the character, as Pottgeiter is a professor of medieval history, but it’s also a subtle hint that Piper’s Nostradamus, Ed Chalmers, appears in the THFH ‘about a century late’. The reason for this will be more fully discussed in the overview section, which is ready to be posted.

>This seems to be conjecture without any specific tie to Beam’s work
>(or his writing about his work). It is also at odds with the recurring trope
>which Beam uses throughout his Future History yarns, from Conn Maxwell
>to Lucas Trask musing about a “League of Civilized Worlds.”
>Those yarns end with those hopeful aspirations—just as Chalmers hopes
>to escape the mental institution in the chaos of the coming apocalypse—
>but, alas, we never again hear of Poictesme (or Merlin) in the Future History
>and Trask’s League, if it is ever born, is quickly subsumed by the empire
>which arises on Marduk, with Tanith also lost to history.

>Unfortunately, I suspect Chalmers’ future is more likely akin to that of
>Maxwell’s Poictesme and Trask’s Tanith. Rather than rising to the
>dynamism seemingly foreshadowed at the end of “Edge”, Chalmers
>likely disappears into history as well.

Rather than conjecture, the word I would use is ‘deduction’ or ‘extrapolation’. Assuming the hypothesis that Chalmers is modeled on Nostradamus is correct, then we can use the details of Nostradamus’ later life to deduce or extrapolate details of Ed’s life after “Edge”. And when we know Piper’s historical models (which I believe the AE 1 = 1601 AD equation reveals), this method can help us fill in the missing details of Beam’s early Future History—precisely those areas he did not write about.

The ‘disappearance’ angle is an excellent point. But unlike the rosy-future endings of The Cosmic Computer and Space Viking, the end of “Edge” is hardly a happy or hopeful one. Chalmers is committed to a mental institution, Leonard Fitch, who believes wholeheartedly in Ed, is “going to be frightfully let down” at the verdict of Dr. Hauserman, the authoritarian Dean Whitburn is seemingly vindicated in his erroneous belief that Chalmers was insane all along, Stanley Weill leaves for Reno probably convinced Ed has succumbed to “a system of fantasies” resulting in “mental incompetence”, just as he warned him, and even Max Pottgeiter has a moment of doubt. (Empire, pp. 24, 53, 56, 58) Moreover, Chalmers knows that WWIII is going to occur in less than a year, in which tens of millions will die, but does nothing to try and stop it, or at least alleviate its effects, or even warn people. He leaves his friend Fitch, his other Blanley College colleagues, and all his young students—who have their whole adult lives ahead of them—to their horrific fate (and does even Whitburn really deserve to die in an H-bomb blast?), when he was able to, and should have done, much more to save the day. Piper’s ‘self-reliant man’ has not won the battle here; all he does is save himself and the two people closest to him, Max Pottgeiter and Marjorie Fenner.
  
But, as counter-intuitive as it may sound, Ed can still win the battle AFTER the war. And by following the Nostradamus model, we find that’s pretty much what should happen. Nostradamus really began his successful career as a prognosticator after 1531, so Chalmers should do his best work after AE 31 (WWIII). That he resumes this work is suggested at the end of “Edge” (late AE 30). Becoming an advisor to the US and/or Federation governments after WWIII should enable Chalmers to help secure the postwar peace, by providing accurate forecasts (based on his real knowledge of future events) which enable government leaders to adopt good and effective policies to deal with what’s ahead. And if Ed’s advisory job is with the secretive Politico-Strategic Planning Board (which he never worked for in “Edge”, but could be invited to join after WWIII due to the wartime deaths of some of its members), his contributions could remain “pretty hush-hush” as Major Cutler says (Empire, p. 48).

Thus, by entering the ‘clandestine world’, Chalmers might indeed disappear from the Future History, even while helping it. And assuming he dies circa AE 60 (paralleling Nostradamus’ death in 1560), by this time the future does look rosy. The whole world is superficially united in the Terran Federation (which as “some kind of a world empire” is presumably much better than the old UN at world peace and collective security), Mars is beginning to be colonized, and Venus is probably soon to follow. But in keeping with Piper’s self-reliant theme, although Ed may have helped win this battle, the war is lost, as this hopeful future will eventually be disrupted by the even worse nuclear nightmare of WWIV.

John
1964
David "PiperFan" JohnsonPerson was signed in when posted
03-11-2019
03:46 UT
~
John "Calidore" Anderson wrote (about the Third and Fourth World Wars):"

> A simple equation; AE 1 = 1601 AD.
>
> In other words, just add 1600 to Piper's Atomic Era
> dates to get the historical model. The Third World War
> occurs in AE 31; adding 1600 would then equal 1631
> AD, a date almost precisely in the middle of the Thirty
> Years War, which ran from 1618 to 1648. This gave
> new meaning to Beam's other name for WWIII, "the Thirty
> Days' War", [1] and in hindsight it is a glaring clue.

Was there something other than the similarity of names which led you to see the Thirty Years' War as a model for the Third World War? "Thirty Days' War" seems chosen specifically to indicate that a global nuclear war would be very, very different from previous, modern, conventional wars. "Twenty Day' War" doesn't quite seem like long enough and "Forty-Five Days' War" would have been a lot more awkward to write, so "Thirty Days' War" may have simply been a convenient dramatic choice. The connection you've proposed here, based simply on the similarity in the naming conventions, does not seem to be compelling in and of itself.

[Rearranging a bit, to keep similar parts together.]

> e) AE 31 = 1631 AD. The Thirty Days' War (AE 31) is
> modeled on the Thirty Years War (1618-1648). The
> Wars of Religion in the Seventeenth Century, which
> pitted Catholics against Protestants, are paralleled by
> the ‘Wars of Ideology' in the Twentieth Century, with
> Capitalists versus ‘Proletarians', or Communists. The
> Protestant Reformation is therefore paralleled by the
> Communist (Proletarian) Revolution, while the Catholic
> Counter-Reformation has its parallel in the Anti-
> Communist Crusade of the capitalist nations.

The parallel you've drawn between the Thirty Days' War and the actual Thirty Years War is interesting but is there anything about the _character_ of that conflict that you believe gives us some insight into the Thirty Days' War? You've suggested a traditional ideological component but Beam never mentions an ideological struggle in his work. Sure, many of us bring a bundle of ideological assumptions to Beam's work ourselves based upon our memories (and experience) of the U.S.-Soviet Cold War, but the Eastern Axis itself seemed much more worried about the genuine security threat posed to them by the missiles of the U.S. Lunar Base. What's the Thirty Years' War analog for that?'

- - -

> Again adding 1600, AE 114 equated to 1714 AD.
> Though this was one year outside the range, I felt
> certain that the historical model for the Fourth World
> War was the War of Spanish Succession, which ran from
> 1701-1713. A conviction effectively confirmed eight
> years later, when Mr. Carr's biography of H. Beam Piper
> was published. Because Appendix B is "The Future
> History", a short summary written by Beam, which gives
> the date for WWIV as AE 106-109. [4] Adding 1600
> would make that range 1706-1709; right in the
> middle of 1701-1713.

Was there something other than the affinity with the "key" dates which led you to see the War of the Spanish Succession as a model for the Fourth World War?

> j) AE 106-109 = 1706-1709 AD. The Fourth World
> War is modeled on the War of Spanish Succession
> (1701-1713). Louis XIV, the "Sun King", whose
> Absolutist regime tried to unite France and Spain
> into "one preponderating empire" able to dominate
> Europe and thus the world, [16] is the model for a
> new "Son of Heaven", or Chinese leader, whose
> 'absolute' or totalitarian regime tries to unite China
> and India into a single empire able to dominate Terra,
> and thus the whole Federation.

Putting aside that France tried to forge "one preponderating empire" not by taking over Spain directly but rather by seeking to place a friendly monarch on the Spanish throne, what is there in Beam's work which leads you to make the leap to a Chinese Fourth World War combatant?

Beam hardly mentions anything about China in any of his Future History works. There's no explicit indication that China is part of the "Eastern Axis" in "The Edge of the Knife" but more importantly there are hardly any Chinese-surnamed characters which appear in the yarns of the post-Atomic Wars era. (Harry Quong, specifically identified as a "Chinese-Australian," spells his surname in a variant way that is found in Australia but differs from the more common Mandarin spelling of the Chinese mainland. He is obviously meant to illustrate the "Southron" character of post-Atomic Wars Terran civilization rather than to suggest a surviving remnant of the Chinese nation.)

I recognize that identifying the combatants of the Fourth World War remains one of the more inscrutable puzzles in Beam's work but it does seem problematic to propose a "Chinese component" when there is virtually nothing from Beam to suggest it.

(We also should keep in mind that throughout the period when Beam was writing the "Nationalist" government on Taiwan was recognized by the U.S. and most of its allies as the legal government of all of China. The non-Communist Republic of China, for example, held the UN Security Council seat throughout this period. It was not obvious to someone of Beam's era that China would continue/come to be dominated by the Communist government. Given this, it could even be that Beam saw the U.S.-allied non-Communists making gains on the Chinese mainland in the aftermath of the Thirty Days' War.)

If there's something about the War of the Spanish Succession itself which points to China as one of the major combatants in the Fourth World War it would be good to learn about that. But barring that sort of pointer, are there other elements of the War of the Spanish Succession model which might help us to identify other potential candidates for a Fourth World War combatant?

> k) AE 106-109 = 1706-1709 AD. WWIV is
> also called "the First Interplanetary War". [17] This
> means that its extraterrestrial theater is modeled
> on Queen Anne's War, which was the "North American
> theater of the War of Spanish Succession." [18]
> Queen Anne's War "produced few memorable
> hostilities", [19] so the battles on colonial Venus and
> Mars are presumably minor compared to the major
> fighting taking place all over North Terra.

What's interesting to me about the War of the Spanish Succession as a potential model for the Fourth World War is the way it pits France, the hegemonic Continental power of the era, against Britain, the rising revisionist power, and the way, as you've suggested here, that conflict also unfolds in the two nations' respective colonial holdings in the Americas (and Asia). That does seem to be a good model for the "interplanetary"--and "colonial"--elements of the Fourth World War. But the key insight seems to remain in being able to identify who the principal combatants might be. It seems fairly reasonable to assume that the U.S.-led (first) Terran Federation was one of them. What can the War of the Spanish Succession model tells us about the other?

Cheers,

David
--
"Britain was a great nation, once; the last nation to join the Terran Federation. . . ." - Lord "Dranigo" Dranigrastan (H. Beam Piper), "The Keeper"
~
1963
David "PiperFan" JohnsonPerson was signed in when posted
03-10-2019
23:40 UT
~
New Piper Academic Research

I've just posted a link at Zarthani.net to some new research which looks at Beam's "Omnilingual." Here's the abstract:

The article will focus on H. Beam Piper's classical story Omnilingual (1957). This Piper-esque writing has entered the records of the science fiction prose for the 'Martian' periodic table of elements, being synonymous with a scientific 'Rosetta-like stone' in the decipherment area. The work, while having a search potential in text analysis and stylistics, may add in a parallel fashion some lustre to the validity of science as a communicative channel in non-conventional circumstances. In order to capture stylistic features of the novelette, a number of quantitative indicators are drawn in. The study will concentrate on vocabulary-richness indexes (TTR, entropy, RR, RRMc, G, ATL, HL, MATTR, and Lambda), a complex assessment of activity (Busemann’s coefficient, the chi-square testing classification), and a sketch of the Belza chain analysis. The goal of the article is to find distinctive features of the piece in question, and point out ways for further research.

Sounds like interesting stuff (with perhaps more to come). The link is near the bottom the page here:

http://www.zarthani.net/h_beam_piper_reviews.htm

Cheers,

David
--
"It is not . . . the business of an author of fiction to improve or inspire or educate his reader, or to save the world from fascism, communism, racism, capitalism, socialism, or anything else. [The author's] main objective is to purvey entertainment of the sort his reader wants. If he has done this, by writing interestingly about interesting people, human or otherwise, doing interesting things, he has discharged his duty and earned his check." - H. Beam Piper, "Double: Bill Symposium" interview
~
1962
David "PiperFan" JohnsonPerson was signed in when posted
03-10-2019
08:45 UT
~
John "Calidore" Anderson wrote:

> d) AE 30 = 1630 AD. Professor Edward Chalmers, who
> foreknows the future, is modeled on the seer, physician,
> scholar and professor Michel de Nostredame, better
> known as Nostradamus.

As I've mentioned, I like how this idea helps the seemingly-fantastical Chalmers to better "fit" into the "harder sci-fi" Terro-human Future History, but here is Beam writing about "The Edge of the Knife" in his essay "The Future History":

"Nothing else, with the possible exception of a novelette called 'The Edge of the Knife,' ~Amazing~, May 1957, belongs to the History of the Future. This was a story, time 1973 CE, about a history professor, who got his past and future confused, and had a lot of trouble as a result."

Beam's uncertainty about its "fit" here indicates that he was aware that "Edge" might be something a bit different from what he was doing in the rest of his Future History yarns. That insight suggests that he did not see himself as writing in a single, large "meta-universe" where different yarns in seemingly different settings were nevertheless connected because they occurred on different timelines in the same multi-universe.

> Both men foresee very similar events; such as rockets to
> the moon, cities destroyed by great fires, world wars and
> the sudden death of current leaders. Chalmers organizes
> his future knowledge in file folders by 'century' (such as
> the Twentieth Century file), and Nostradamus organized
> his visions into 'The Centuries'; groups of one hundred
> quatrains pertaining to various future events.
> Nostradamus actually lived from 1503-1566, not 1603-
> 1666; meaning that Chalmers appears "about a century
> late" in the Future History, as suggested by Max Pottgeiter.
> [14]
[snip]
> [14] Piper, Empire, p. 59

Pottgeiter's reference to Nostradamus is keenly observed, and it seems apparent that Beam himself is trying to draw a connection between Chalmers and Nostradamus here, but I don't think that means that this allusion is part of some larger pattern hidden throughout the Terro-human Future History (much less in Beam's larger body of work). Beam's uncertainty about "Edge" suggests he understood it to be a stand-alone work, or at least had the potential to be read that way. That seems an odd observation for him to make if he'd crafted the story using a meta-fictional "key" which tied it to the other yarns.

> f) circa AE 32-60 = 1632-1660 AD. The future years of
> Prof. Chalmers are modeled on the second half of
> Nostradamus' life (actually 1532-1560). Queen Catherine
> de Medici made Nostradamus a Councilor of King Charles
> X of France, which means Ed Chalmers eventually becomes
> a close advisor to the leaders of the United States and/or
> Terran Federation, probably in regard to postwar recovery
> and planning for the future.

This seems to be conjecture without any specific tie to Beam's work (or his writing about his work). It also is at odds with the recurring trope which Beam uses throughout his Future History yarns, from Conn Maxwell looking to Poictesme's bold future guided by the "Merlin/Maxwell Plan" to Lucas Trask musing about a "League of Civilized Worlds." Those yarns end with those hopeful aspirations--just as Chalmers hopes to escape the mental institution in the chaos of the coming apocalypse--but, alas, we never again hear of Poictesme (or Merlin) in the Future History and Trask's League, if it is ever born, is quickly subsumed by the empire which arises on Marduk, with Tanith also lost to history.

Unfortunately, I suspect Chalmers' future is more likely akin to that of Maxwell's Poictesme and Trask's Tanith. Rather than rising to the dynamism seemingly foreshadowed at the end of "Edge," Chalmers likely disappears into history as well.

Cheers,

David
--
"I was trying to show the results of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War, and the partition of the Middle East into a loose collection of Arab states, and the passing of British and other European spheres of influence following the Second." - Edward Chalmers (H. Beam Piper), "The Edge of the Knife"
~
1961
David "PiperFan" JohnsonPerson was signed in when posted
03-08-2019
13:40 UT
~
John "Calidore" Anderson wrote many remarkable things under the heading:

> OVERVIEW OF HISTORICAL
> MODELS IN THE EARLY FUTURE
> HISTORY
>
> PART ONE

There is a lot to digest here and I may have more to say about it in the future but I wanted first to mention some of the things I liked.

1) The recognition of the interplanetary nature of the "first" Federation era and the interstellar nature of the "second" Federation era in the parallels to the "First" and "Second" British Empires. The model illustrates the two fictional eras quite well.

2) The parallel drawn between Ed Chalmers and Nostradamus. What a wonderful way to ground the seemingly-fantastical-and-therefore-ill-fitting Chalmers in terms of an actual historical figure!

3) The idea that the revolt of the colonies on Mars and Venus is a secondary element of the more general Fourth World War, as Queen Anne's War was a secondary aspect of the War of the Spanish Succession.

4) The parallel drawn between the Boers' Great Trek and Barron's intention to use Freyan "free companies" to colonize the other continents of Freya. (I do have to disagree with--and even object to--the suggestion that Beam would ever draw a parallel between Africans and chimp-like Freyan ~kholphs~. There is nothing anything like that in any of his work and much else that makes clear this is not the sort of idea he would entertain.)

This handful of examples only begins to scratch the surface of this work but they are the ideas that most quickly jumped out for me.

I'm not sure I'm convinced by the overall "key" premise--in particular, as we've discussed before, I'm much less willing to choose dates from the ~Empire~ Chronology over those we get directly from Beam in "The Future History" when they conflict--but I can only admire the depth and scale of your work here.

I may have some questions and quibbles about bits here and there in the future but for now let me simply thank you for your extensive contributions to the appreciation of Piper's work.

Cheers,

David
--
"I was born in Antarctica, on Terra. The water's a little too cold to do much swimming there. And I've spent most of my time since then in central Argentine, in the pampas country." - Glenn Murell (H. Beam Piper), ~Four-Day Planet~
~
1960
CalidorePerson was signed in when posted
03-01-2019
17:41 UT
Three months ago, David “Piperfan” Johnson wrote,

>>Oh my. Talk about a teaser! I can't help but wonder what this "key" can possibly be.

>>Could it be that Beam's fabled "notes" on the Terro-human Future History actually were
>>in the "trunk" that Mike Knerr took from Beam's apartment after his death? Knerr died in
>>1999 after having some years before sold at auction copies of several of Beam's manuscripts
>>previously believed to have been burned by Beam shortly before his suicide. Beam's "trunk"
>>apparently ended up with Knerr's widow. Is it possible you somehow managed to have a
>>look at what remained inside in the summer of 2000? Do tell!

That would indeed have been wonderful! But alas, not the case. Yet I dare to think this may be the next best thing. For the following is what I believe Piper was really up to for the early Federation. Sorry for the length of this post, but I'm hopeful you will find the content worth it.

OVERVIEW OF HISTORICAL MODELS IN THE EARLY FUTURE HISTORY

PART ONE

John Anderson

February 28, 2019

1. THE FIRST KEY
     Back near the end of the Twentieth Century, on 1 July 2000, I began seriously researching the works of H. Beam Piper. I was trying to figure out his Terro-Human Future History, as daunting and doubtful a task as that seemed. However, since John Carr had written in one of his early newsletters that he and Jerry Pournelle had discovered Beam’s overall historical template, I thought that it had to at least be possible. The timing must have been right, because after writing down the handful of thoughts that had occurred to me over the years, inspiration arrived, and ideas began to flow in ever greater numbers. And before summer’s end, I discovered what I believe to be one of its ‘keys’.

     A simple equation; AE 1 = 1601 AD.

     In other words, just add 1600 to Piper’s Atomic Era dates to get the historical model. The Third World War occurs in AE 31; adding 1600 would then equal 1631 AD, a date almost precisely in the middle of the Thirty Years War, which ran from 1618 to 1648. This gave new meaning to Beam’s other name for WWIII, “the Thirty Days’ War”, [1] and in hindsight it is a glaring clue.
     The AE 1 = 1601 AD formula also revealed the model for the Fourth World War. Piper mentioned this major event in several places (Four-Day Planet, Uller Uprising and Crisis in 2140), but provided very little information about it. WWIV obviously occurs after WWIII in AE 31, and probably sometime before the Secession of Venus in AE 174 (timeline in Empire). In the summer of 2000, the only matching event that I could see involved “the old U.S. [nuclear] data that General Lanningham brought to South America after the debacle in the United States in A.E. 114”. [2] That date was between AE 31 and AE 174, and the departure of Lanningham for the Southern Hemisphere appeared to be related to “the end of civilization in the Northern Hemisphere and the rise of the new civilization in South America and South Africa and Australia.” [3] A catastrophic decivilizing of half the globe could only be the result of an Atomic War, which therefore must have occurred around AE 114.
     Again adding 1600, AE 114 equated to 1714 AD. Though this was one year outside the range, I felt certain that the historical model for the Fourth World War was the War of Spanish Succession, which ran from 1701-1713. A conviction effectively confirmed eight years later, when Mr. Carr’s biography of H. Beam Piper was published. Because Appendix B is “The Future History”, a short summary written by Beam, which gives the date for WWIV as AE 106-109. [4] Adding 1600 would make that range 1706-1709; right in the middle of 1701-1713.
     The equation also works for the next two major events in the Future History. The timeline in Empire places the secession of Venus in AE 174, and adding 1600 makes its historical model 1774 AD; that is, the American Revolution. As discovered by Carr, Piper appears to have modeled the Terran Federation on the British Empire. The Federation has a British-style Parliament, “the Federation government most closely approaches that of Georgian England—a representative government with colonies and member states”, its chartered planetary companies parallel entities like the British East India Company, and the Uller Uprising is modeled on the Sepoy Mutiny. [5]

     Thus, it occurred to me that the First and Second Terran Federations are actually based on the First and Second British Empires. “The concept of a first and second British Empire was developed by historians in the late 19th century, and is a concept usually used by advanced scholars.” [6] I presumed that Beam, a largely self-taught scholar who loved history and “had read more books than most professors”, was familiar with this distinction. [7]
     The reason advanced scholars divide the British Empire in two is the American Revolution. As a major historical event, the Revolution was the catalyst for “The Fall of the First British Empire”, a limited realm centered on transatlantic trade between Great Britain and its North American colonies and Caribbean islands; and the subsequent “Rise of the Second [British] Empire”, which in the following (Nineteenth) century gained control over the whole world’s oceans and became a global superpower ruling vast stretches of Asia, Oceania and Africa. [8]
     Piper similarly relates the Secession of Venus to the end of the First and beginning of the Second Terran Federations. “And after Venus seceded from the First Federation, before the Second Federation was organized.” [9] The secession therefore seems to be the catalyst for the fall of the First Terran Federation, an interplanetary organization confined to the Solar System, and centered on normal-space trade between the ‘great island’ of Terra and its ‘continental’ Venusian and Martian colonies, as well as with such minor celestial ‘islands’ as Ceres, Callisto, Ganymede and Titan; followed by the rise of the Second Terran Federation, which in the following (Third) century AE begins its interstellar expansion of colonization and hyperspace trade to eventually become a vast empire spanning at least 500 worlds spread over “a space-volume of two hundred billion cubic light-years.” [10]
     The timeline in Empire placed the end of the First Federation, and rise of the Second Federation, in AE 183. This is exactly right, as adding 1600 results in 1783, the very year the Treaty of Paris was signed, and which historians typically use as the date marking the end of the First British Empire and the beginning of the Second. [11] Wars are usually concluded by treaties, so it seems likely that the Treaty of Paris, which officially ended hostilities in 1783, is paralleled by a similar document in AE 183 (which I tentatively dubbed the ‘Treaty of Venus’), that in Piper’s Future History marks the end of the First Terran Federation and the beginning of the Second.
     With the equation AE 1 = 1601 AD in mind, further research revealed answers as to who Professor Chalmers is modeled on, why the first spaceship to Mars is named the Cyrano (including its implications for the human remains found there, and why one of the crewmembers is French-Canadian), the possible model for General Lanningham, the model for global Terran unification around the time of WWIV, why Freya has three continents but only one is currently inhabited, who the sub-sapient kholphs are modeled on, and the appearance of Lt. Ranjit Singh in Four-Day Planet. The ‘key’ even seems to work for Beam’s non-THFH tale Lone Star Planet, as well as the rise of the Free Scientists in “The Mercenaries”.
     My conclusion was that Piper was working with TIMELINES, rather than individual historical models at random. This made sense, for two reasons. First, because it would keep cause and effect relationships intact, allowing his Future History to progress just like real history. And second, because almost his entire published literary opus was concerned with historical timelines. The Terro-Human Future History itself was a timeline of Man’s expansion into the Galaxy, while his Paratime series literally involved a near-infinity of timelines, all of which were based on alternate probabilities of various historical (and para-historical) events.

     So what does this mean for the early Federation? First, the equation supports the dates in the Empire timeline for the Secession of Venus and the rise of the Second Federation as essentially correct. Piper’s short chronology of “The Future History”, which implies that the Second Federation is formed right after WWIV, [12] is therefore in error. This is not a major obstacle, since that document contains several other provable mistakes, most notably an almost 150-year error in the dating of Four-Day Planet. Furthermore, the 63 years between WWIV and the development of hyperdrive theory are covered in just two vague sentences. The Secession of Venus and its date are not even mentioned. [13]
     Second, by analyzing the historical models, I was able to deduce previously-unknown details about these Federation events; such as the participants, courses and outcomes of WWIII and WWIV. It also revealed the models for new events; including a possible colonial war between WWIV and the Secession of Venus; and much later, two wars between Terra and Freya, probably during the breakup of the Federation. The following is an overview of my findings. Section 2 lists the future events and their parallels in chronological order, often with a short description. Section 3, to be released in the coming weeks and months, goes into more detail, fleshing out these events with details derived from their historical models.

2. LIST OF PIPER’S FUTURE EVENTS AND THEIR HISTORICAL MODELS
    (AE 1 = 1601 AD)

a) AE 31-183 = 1631-1783 AD. The First Terran Federation, whose end in AE 183 is related to the Secession of Venus, is modeled on the First British Empire, which ended in 1783 due to the results of the American Revolution.

b) circa AE 3-22 = 1603-1622 AD. Although not part of the THFH, the bands of Free Scientists described in “The Mercenaries”, which arise after WWII and last until at least 1965, apparently really are modeled on the condottiere bands of the Italian Renaissance, as great condottiere leaders lasted until about 1680. The Free Scientists should therefore last until around AE 80, or 2023 AD.

c) AE 28 = 1628 AD. In AE 28, the iconic first landing of Americans on the Moon, an airless ‘rock’ and the first ‘new world’ visited by Man, roughly parallels the no-less-iconic landing in ‘1628’ (actually 1620) by the Pilgrim Fathers at Plymouth Rock, in the New World.

d) AE 30 = 1630 AD. Professor Edward Chalmers, who foreknows the future, is modeled on the seer, physician, scholar and professor Michel de Nostredame, better known as Nostradamus. Both men foresee very similar events; such as rockets to the moon, cities destroyed by great fires, world wars and the sudden death of current leaders. Chalmers organizes his future knowledge in file folders by ‘century’ (such as the Twentieth Century file), and Nostradamus organized his visions into ‘The Centuries’; groups of one hundred quatrains pertaining to various future events. Nostradamus actually lived from 1503-1566, not 1603-1666; meaning that Chalmers appears “about a century late” in the Future History, as suggested by Max Pottgeiter. [14]

e) AE 31 = 1631 AD. The Thirty Days’ War (AE 31) is modeled on the Thirty Years War (1618-1648). The Wars of Religion in the Seventeenth Century, which pitted Catholics against Protestants, are paralleled by the ‘Wars of Ideology’ in the Twentieth Century, with Capitalists versus ‘Proletarians’, or Communists. The Protestant Reformation is therefore paralleled by the Communist (Proletarian) Revolution, while the Catholic Counter-Reformation has its parallel in the Anti-Communist Crusade of the capitalist nations.

f) circa AE 32-60 = 1632-1660 AD. The future years of Prof. Chalmers are modeled on the second half of Nostradamus’ life (actually 1532-1560). Queen Catherine de Medici made Nostradamus a Councilor of King Charles X of France, which means Ed Chalmers eventually becomes a close advisor to the leaders of the United States and/or Terran Federation, probably in regard to postwar recovery and planning for the future.

g) AE 53 = 1653 AD. The Cyrano Expedition to Mars is modeled on Cyrano de Bergerac’s interplanetary ‘expedition’, his ostensibly-autobiographical novel Voyage to the Moon. The real de Bergerac can be considered an early science-fiction author, whose Voyage was written around 1650, though not published until 1657, two years after his death. The midpoint between 1650 and 1657 would be the years 1653-1654, and are paralleled by AE 53-54, the years the Cyrano travels to Mars and remains in orbit around it.
     Incidentally, this parallel supports Old Mars as the birthplace of Terro-Humanity, as will be shown in the overview section.

h) circa AE 53-153 = 1653-1753 AD. In addition to Cyrano, the initial exploration of Old Martian ruins by Federation archaeologists is modeled on the 17th Century British (and other European) expeditions which began studying the ruins of Ancient Greece, and collecting its art and artifacts. These later expanded to investigate all the ancient civilizations of the Near East. And after “Omnilingual”, the Terran archaeologists will similarly expand their activities to the ancient ruins across the rest of Mars.
     This parallel also supports an Old Martian origin for Terro-Humanity. For Ancient Greece and the Near East were the sources of European civilization, meaning that in their various excavations the European archaeologists were really rediscovering the ancient precursors of their own culture. Likewise, when the Terran archaeologists excavate the ruins of Old Mars, they are really rediscovering their own history, the ancient source of Terro-Human civilization. (More in the overview section.)

i) circa AE 57-105 = 1657-1705 AD. The competing national claims to the various ‘new worlds’ of the Solar System, which threaten to break up the First Federation, [15] are modeled on the competing claims by European nations to the New World (particularly North America), which threatened to cause major wars.

j) AE 106-109 = 1706-1709 AD. The Fourth World War is modeled on the War of Spanish Succession (1701-1713). Louis XIV, the “Sun King”, whose Absolutist regime tried to unite France and Spain into “one preponderating empire” able to dominate Europe and thus the world, [16] is the model for a new “Son of Heaven”, or Chinese leader, whose ‘absolute’ or totalitarian regime tries to unite China and India into a single empire able to dominate Terra, and thus the whole Federation.

k) AE 106-109 = 1706-1709 AD. WWIV is also called “the First Interplanetary War”. [17] This means that its extraterrestrial theater is modeled on Queen Anne’s War, which was the “North American theater of the War of Spanish Succession.” [18] Queen Anne’s War “produced few memorable hostilities”, [19] so the battles on colonial Venus and Mars are presumably minor compared to the major fighting taking place all over North Terra.

l) AE 106-119 = 1706-1719 AD. The end of the Fourth World War does not signal the end of hostilities on North Terra; there are “minor wars for ten years after”. [20] The thirteen years covered by WWIV and its aftermath, which causes the “Complete devastation of [the] Northern Hemisphere of Terra”, [21] could then be called the ‘Great Northern Hemispheric War’. Thus, this period also seems to parallel the Great Northern War, as AE 106-119 equates to 1706-1719, which falls within that war’s range of 1700-1721.

m) circa AE 107 = 1707 AD. The unification of Terra circa “2050 to 2070” (AE 107-127) [22] is modeled on the unification of Britain by the Acts of Union (1707 AD). The Acts politically united Scotland (northern Britain) and England (southern Britain) “into One Kingdom by the name of Great Britain”. [23] Similarly, Piper’s “abolition of all national states” is presumably by an act of the Federation Parliament, through which the Terrans of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres “made one nation out of all our people”. [24] And due to the devastating effects of WWIV, the Federation Parliament moves from the Northern to the Southern Hemisphere, becoming the first parliament to rule a unified Terra. This parallels the effects of British unification, in which the Scottish Parliament traveled south to unite with the English Parliament in London, becoming the first combined Parliament of a unified Britain.

n) AE 114 = 1714 AD. General Lanningham, who may have been a major Federation commander in WWIV, could be modeled on the British Duke of Marlborough, the greatest military commander of the War of Spanish Succession. After WWIV, and due to some sort of “debacle in the United States”, General Lanningham moves to South America in AE 114. [25] And after his achievements in the War of Spanish Succession, the Duke of Marlborough fell out of favor with the Court in London, and went south into exile on the (European) Continent, from 1712-1714. [26]

o) circa AE 156-163 = AE 1756-1763. In addition to the secession of Venus mentioned by Otto Harkaman, Professor Chalmers foresees “the revolt of the colonies on Mars and Venus.” [27] This may be the same event. However, since Harkaman does not mention the secession of Mars, it could actually refer to a separate conflict. And between Queen Anne’s War and the American Revolution, there was another major colonial war in North America. This was the French and Indian War (1756-1763), which could therefore be paralleled by a ‘Sino-Colonial’ war on Venus and Mars (circa AE 156-163). If so, this would be the Second Interplanetary War, and one of the “Wars of colonial pacification and consolidation” mentioned by Piper. [28] The effects of the French and Indian War led to the American Revolution, so the effects of the deduced ‘Sino-Colonial War’ may similarly lead to the Secession of Venus.

p) circa AE 174-181 = 1774-1781 AD. The Secession of Venus, possibly the Third Interplanetary War, is modeled on the American Revolution. The Thirteen Colonies banded together against the tyrant King George, and declared their united independence, almost exactly sixty years after Great Britain itself was unified. Similarly, the formerly-loyal colonies on Venus unite, roughly sixty years after Terra is completely unified, and secede from a First Federation which has become ‘tyrannical’. The fledgling American Republic is paralleled by a ‘Venusian Republic’, while the Martian colonies parallel the Canadian colonies (Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, St. John and Quebec) which did not revolt against the British. (This parallel suggests that Piper’s Future History was heavily influenced by Robert Heinlein’s ‘juvenile’ novel Between Planets. More in the overview section.)

q) AE 183 = 1783 AD. The First Terran Federation ends in AE 183, and the Second Terran Federation begins; this parallels the end of the First British Empire in 1783, and the beginning of the Second. The historical Treaty of Paris is presumably paralleled by a ‘Treaty of Venus’. The Treaty of Paris recognized American independence, making the US an ‘equal’ but separate nation from Britain. Thus, the deduced ‘Treaty of Venus’ should recognize Venus as an equal of Terra. However, since Venus does not become an independent planet, it must become equal within the Federation. That would seem to make this the point at which Federation Member Republics begin, with the Venusian Republic becoming the first one.

r) AE 192 into the Third Century = 1792 into the Nineteenth Century AD. The end of the First Federation in AE 183 coincides with the development of the Dillingham hyperdrive, which leads the Second Federation in a new direction—out to the stars, beginning in AE 192. [29] This is modeled on the ‘swing to the east’ of the Second British Empire, which, after the First Empire lost Britain’s western colonies in 1783, embarked on a new direction of colonization in the Eastern Hemisphere. [30] The Second Terran Federation’s new direction could therefore be called a ‘swing to the stars’.

s) AE 192 into the early Third Century = 1792 into the early Nineteenth Century AD. The Second Federation’s early extraterrestrial colonies, particularly those with native sapient races like Thor, Loki and Yggdrasil, parallel the Second British Empire’s early overseas possessions in Africa, India, the East Indies and Australia.

t) circa AE 206-234 = 1806-1834 AD. One of the earliest acquisitions of the Second British Empire was the Cape Colony, formerly a Dutch possession populated by the non-British Boers. And one of the earliest acquisitions of the Second Terran Federation is Freya, populated by a group of non-Terran humans. Piper mentions the Freyans in relation to the Boers, so although he did not reveal the date of “When in the Course—”, the Terran annexation of Freya presumably occurs sometime in the early Third Century AE, and is modeled on the British annexation of the Dutch Cape Colony in the early Nineteenth Century AD (1806).

u) circa AE 235 = 1835 AD. The Great Trek, beginning in 1835, is paralleled by a ‘great trek’ on Freya, presumably beginning circa AE 235. This results from Roger Barron’s decision “to collect a lot of free-companies and use them in colonizing the other continents.” [31] Taking these mercenaries great distances across the sea, and settling them on the two uninhabited continents of Freya, is therefore modeled on the Great Trek; during which many Boers left the Cape Colony, traveled a long distance and founded two new Boer nations in South Africa, the Orange Free State and Transvaal. This explains why Freya has three continents but only one is inhabited when the Terrans first arrive. For when the British took over the Cape, the Orange Free State and Transvaal did not yet exist.

v) circa AE 235 = 1835 AD. The Freyan kholphs, who are sub-sapient and yet “are smart…They use tools”, [32] would then be modeled on the primitive black tribes of South Africa. The kholphs do not appear in “When in the Course—”, probably meaning they are discovered when the Freyan mercenaries colonize the other two continents. This would parallel the black tribes encountered by the Boers during the Great Trek; such as the Xhosa and Zulus. Piper might then have derived the name kholph (kolf) from ‘kaffir’, the collective (and derogatory) name for black Africans used by white South Africans.

w) AE 250 = 1850 AD. Lone Star Planet roughly parallels the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). Although like “The Mercenaries” it does not belong in the THFH, the Piper-McGuire novel takes place in “Anno Domini 2193”. [33] This equates to Atomic Era 250, which when ‘translated’ by the equation (add 1600) becomes 1850 AD. Though the exact date is not quite right, the novel’s historical model is revealed to be in the correct era; the mid-Nineteenth Century.

     At about this point in the Terro-Human Future History, the AE 1 = 1601 AD equation no longer applies, as the close numerical parallels seem to end. (It could actually end with “When in the Course—”, as the story’s date is not certain. My current best estimate is AE 234.) Piper’s next tale, Four-Day Planet, contains references to Moby-Dick and illegal off-planet slavery; the latter strongly opposed by the Terran Federation, which sends a Space Navy destroyer to transport the captured ringleader. This places the story in a parallel of the first half of the Nineteenth Century—the era of Moby-Dick, when whaling was widespread but the slave trade was slowly being stamped out, mainly by the Royal Navy of Great Britain.
     Four-Day Planet should therefore occur not long after “When in the Course—”; sometime around AE 240, paralleling 1840. (Parenthetically, this date explains the appearance of Lt. Ranjit Singh, whose model is the real Ranjit Singh, maharaja of the Punjab from 1801-1839. If the Fenrisian mob of monster-hunters had decided to attack, Lt. Singh would therefore have died around AE 240, paralleling the death of Maharaja Singh just before 1840.) However, internal evidence reveals that the story actually takes place circa AE 495, and adding 1600 to this date results in 2095 AD. That means Four-Day Planet occurs about two and a half centuries later than it should in Piper’s Future History.
     Also, the Uller Uprising is known to be modeled on the Sepoy Mutiny in India, [34] which occurred in 1857-58. Using the AE 1 = 1601 AD formula, 1857 should parallel AE 257, but the Uprising actually occurs in AE 526. Beam apparently just flipped the first two numbers and subtracted one from the last (257 became 527 then 526), yet this means Uller Uprising occurs about three centuries late.
     Furthermore, the System States War is modeled on the US Civil War, but the Civil War began in 1861, which using the equation should parallel AE 261. The System States War actually begins almost six centuries later; in AE 842. (A number which may have been purposely chosen to evoke ‘1842’; again, the mid-Nineteenth Century.) In addition, the Sepoy Mutiny broke out only four years before the Civil War began, so the Uller Uprising should happen only four years before the System States War begins. But in fact, 315 years separate the two events.

     Thus, Piper appears to have ‘stretched out’ his timeline for the later Federation events. Why would he do that? Because he was not just modeling British history for the Federation, but Roman history as well. A two-tiered system, or creative combination, of historical models. The British Empire lasted about 350 years, but the Terran Federation lasts for over a thousand; clearly a much closer parallel with the millennium-spanning Roman Republic and Empire. The Roman layer will be discussed elsewhere; for the rest of the current paper, let’s take a look at each of the early Federation events in more detail, based on their British and/or European models.

ENDNOTES

1. THE FIRST KEY

[1] H. Beam Piper, Empire (New York, NY: Ace Books, 1981), p. 30

[2] H. Beam Piper, Uller Uprising (New York, NY: Ace Books, 1983), p. 169

[3] Ibid., p. 150

[4] John F. Carr, H. Beam Piper: A Biography (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2008), p. 212

[5] H. Beam Piper, Four-Day Planet/Lone Star Planet (New York, NY: Ace Books, 1961), p. 193;
     John F. Carr, Introduction to Federation (New York, NY: Ace Books, 1981), p. xxix; and
     Piper, Empire, p. 28

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiograp..._the_British_Empire

[7] Jerry Pournelle, Preface: Piper’s Foundation, Federation, p. vii

[8] Dr. Christopher Bayly, general editor, Atlas of the British Empire (London, England: The Hamlyn Publishing Group, 1989), pp. 65, 66

[9] H. Beam Piper, Space Viking (New York, NY: Ace Books, 1963), p. 13

[10] Ibid., p. 32

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiograp..._the_British_Empire

[12] Carr, Piper Biography, p. 212

[13] Ibid. “The Future History” places Four-Day Planet in the “Mid-IV Century”. This is incorrect, as internal evidence indicates the story occurs in the late Fifth Century (circa AE 495), meaning that when Beam wrote the summary, he was wrong about his own Future History by about a century and a half. Even if we grant that he was simply confused about the century in which Four-Day Planet occurs (his “Mid-IV Century” possibly intended to mean ‘mid-400s AE’ rather than mid-300s), he was still almost a half century off.
     The other errors are admittedly minor. The date for the first moon landing is given as AE 27, or 1970. But in “The Edge of the Knife”, Professor Chalmers says that the first unmanned rocket to Luna “would be launched some time in 1971”, making the correct date AE 28. (Piper, Empire, p. 22) Similarly, “The Future History” says that WWIII occurs in AE 32, or 1975; but in “Edge”, Chalmers twice mentions that the current year is 1973, and the Third World War will happen in the next year, or 1974. (ibid, pp. 13, 17, 36, 55)

2. LIST OF PIPER’S FUTURE EVENTS AND THEIR HISTORICAL MODELS

[14] Piper, Empire, p. 59

[15] Carr, Piper Biography, p. 212

[16] Edward S. Creasy, Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World (1851), sourced from
       https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4061/4061-...-h.htm#link2HCH0011

[17] Carr, Piper Biography, p. 212

[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Anne’s_War

[19] Colin McEvedy, The Penguin Atlas of North American History (London, England: Penguin Books, 1988), p. 50

[20] Carr, Piper Biography, p. 212

[21] Ibid.

[22] Piper, Empire, p. 21

[23] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707

[24] Piper, Uller Uprising, p. 64

[25] Ibid., p. 169

[26] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Churchi...Duke_of_Marlborough

[27] Piper, Empire, p. 47

[28] Carr, Piper Biography, p. 213

[29] Ibid.

[30] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiograp..._the_British_Empire

[31] H. Beam Piper, Federation (New York, NY: Ace Books, 1981), p. 275

[32] H. Beam Piper, Little Fuzzy (New York, NY: Ace Books, 1962), p. 36

[33] Piper, Four-Day/Lone Star, p. 269

[34] Piper, Empire, p. 28
1959
Jon CrockerPerson was signed in when posted
02-25-2019
05:26 UT
I meant to post a reply to message #1954 earlier - "Ministry of Disturbance" was always a favourite of mine. I agree it shows interesting looks at the past of the timeline, but it didn't get self-referential, if that's a word.
1958
Jon CrockerPerson was signed in when posted
02-11-2019
01:11 UT
Best of luck getting that resolved, John!
1957
jimmyjoejanglesPerson was signed in when posted
02-10-2019
03:25 UT
I think you should try to get them on the phone. I had issues with Audible and the email system they had in place but was able to get them on the phone and easily resolved the issue. Audible is owned by Amazon. Are there any plans for an audio version?
1956
Lord KalvanPerson was signed in when posted
02-09-2019
20:44 UT
PARATIME POLICE CHRONICLES UPDATE

A case of bureaucratic idiocy: I’ve had a run in with the powers that be at Amazon over my latest book, The Paratime Police Chronicles, Volume I. You wanna talk about a Kafkaesque nightmare…

Because there’s a PDF book listed on Amazon with the title The Paratime Police, the Amazon digital police are convinced that I’m ripping it off, even though my book contains 4 brand new stories that have never appeared anywhere. The problem is when I tried to explain all this, all I got was a computer generated reply. I don’t believe a real persona every gets involved with Amazon; in fact, I read an article in "Fortune" magazine about a vendor who was attacked by a competitor. What the attack amounted to, was this other seller (who sells the same product) bought a bunch of phony reviews from the Five Dollar Funnel Review, which set-off one of Amazon’s alarms and they shut the poor bastard down, almost putting him out of business!

The problem he ran into the same problem that I did; he was unable to get a hold of a real person to resolve his problem. He did some research and found a woman who knows some “real” Amazon management people and paid her a few hundred dollars to put him in touch with one so he could explain his problem and get it resolved. So after about 6 iterations of dealing with the automated system—-as I tried to explain that my work was not the same as the Paratime Police title-—I was told if I didn’t take down the offending (still unpublished) Kindle book my account would be frozen.

Since Amazon Kindle provides a big part of my book income, I took it right down. I don’t have time to find the negotiator he used or the extra bucks to pay what amounts to extortion! I had my graphics person retitle it and do the same with the interior PDF file. The new title is Paratime Parasites, which is the title of one of my original stories and has more zing as well. Sigh. Not to bore all of you with my problems, but this is the kind of idiocy independent authors have to go through these days….

I just finished re-submitting the book to my publisher under the title, "Paratime Parasites," and after it shows up on Amazon in a week or so. Then, I'll try to put up the e-book -- if they'll let me? Copies under the original title are still available at Hostigos.com in hardcover and in both e-book formats.

John
1955
David "PiperFan" JohnsonPerson was signed in when posted
02-09-2019
18:56 UT
~
The Paratime Police Chronicles, Volume II

Finished John's new anthology and have posted a review here:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3V1CRS0PIMGEF

Get your copy now!

David
--
"In my 'teens, which would have been the early '20's, I decided that what I really wanted to do was write; I wasn't quite sure what, but I was going to write something. About the same time, I became aware of science fiction, such as it was then, mostly H.G. Wells, and fantasy, Bram Stoker, H. Rider Haggard, and then I began reading newer science (more or less) fiction--Burroughs, Merritt, Ralph Milne Farley, Ray Cummings, _et_al_. This was the Neolithic, or Hugo Gernsback Period of science fiction, and by this time I was a real 200-proof fan." - H. Beam Piper, "Double: Bill Symposium" interview
~
1954
David "PiperFan" JohnsonPerson was signed in when posted
02-09-2019
03:48 UT
~
"But we Sword-Worlders got around the galaxy, for a while. In fact, I seem to remember reading that some of our brethren from Morglay or Flamberge even occupied Aditya for a couple of centuries. Not that you'd guess it to look at Aditya now."


That's Lord Marshall Koreff, the power behind the Durendal throne, speaking to Paul XXII in "Ministry of Disturbance." He's taking a not-so-veiled shot at the Adityan representatives competing with him and his puppet-King for the Emperor's attention.

Koreff might not know, but we recognize this is an ironic statement, for though it's true that Aditya was "occupied" by Space Vikings at an earlier period in its history, in between that point and Koreff's attempted barb the Adityans managed to overthrow their Viking overlords, who had become decadent and weak, as recounted in Beam's "A Slave is a Slave." Sword-Worlders may have conquered Aditya but _these_ Adityans are the descendants of those who massacred the descendants of the Space Vikings and supplanted their rule.

This is Beam at his best, showing us with his own future history that yesterday's victors are tomorrow's vanquished, and that this cycle will repeat itself again and again (to the point where both Koreff and the Adityan rulers both find themselves to be subjects of the Galactic Empire).

"Save Your Majesty!"

David
--
"Good things in the long run are often tough while they're happening." - Otto Harkaman (H. Beam Piper), ~Space Viking~
~
1953
David "PiperFan" JohnsonPerson was signed in when posted
01-27-2019
23:35 UT
~
Dave Eden wrote:

> But outside the Fuzzies in the Terro-Human future, my
> favourite is probably Four-Day Planet.

Yeah, that's a good one. Being a "juvenile" it's a good entry point for younger readers too.

> I think I've read all the Paratime stories except Kalvan,
> which I'm in the middle of. I really liked Gunpowder God, so
> I imagine I'll feel the same way about Kalvan after I finish
> reading the complete, extended dance mix version of
> Gunpowder God.

How cool that the ~Lord Kalvan~ experience is so new for you! It's one of Beam's best novels.

> Among the others: Murder in the Gunroom. It is so vivid, I
> feel like I'm there in the countryside and towns, getting
> rained on and following Jeff Rand around.

There are some wonderful yarns among Beam's non-Paratime and non-Terro-human Future History work . . . and there are some real clunkers. Thing is many of us come down in very different places here.

> I only know one other Piper fan, through Twitter, and I
> think he's older than me.

Well now you know many others! ;)

> I'm thinking more of the mundane details of maintenance
> shops, etc. The nature of the tools and equipment would
> change, but Piper is projecting an imagined future where
> industrial workshops have a similar feel.

Yep. Seems Beam put all that time spent wandering around the rail-yards at night to good use!

Cheers,

David
--
"Ideas for science fiction stories like ideas for anything else, are where you find them, usually in the most unlikely places. The only reliable source is a mind which asks itself a question like, 'What would happen if--?' or, 'Now what would this develop into, in a few centuries?' Or, 'How would so-and-so happen?' Anything at all, can trigger such a question, in your field if not in mine." - H. Beam Piper, "Double: Bill Symposium" interview
~
^     All messages            1953-1968 of 1968  1937-1952 >>

Print | RSS Views: 26782 (Unique: 6488 ) / Subscribers: 23 | What's this?