The Bel Riose Theory

[Kosmo]

In the book series "Foundation" Asimov creates The Trantorian Empire, a construction that its obviously based on the Roman Empire.

When the trantorian general Bel Riose attacks the Foundation his is defeated by a psihohistorical law that it's presented some thing like this: a weak general can not conquer a foe, a strong general and a weak emperor will create a situation when the general will be more interested in taking over the empire then fighting outsiders, if we have a strong general and a strong emperor the general will use his skill outside the empire, but if he is succesful he will end up in a conflict with the emperor because he becames too popular. If the strong emperor leads the conquest himself he can not spend to much time on that border because in his absence someone will try to take over the imperial center.

So, in no option the empire can use his superiority to expand during a longer conflict.

 

To you think that this law it's true for roman imperial history?

I do believe that Asimov it's spot on. The emperors had always the problem of putting to much power in the hands of one general, power that could be used against them, while the option of leading themselves the army presented other problems including less control over the rest of the empire.

This could be one of the reasons why Rome had military problems during the empire.

[Maladict]

Well, the name Bel Riose was chosen for a reason.

I remember making the connection the other way around, having read the Foundation before I'd ever heard of Belisarius. Bit embarrassing, but there you go.

[Klingan]

Asimove have very many good point throughout his books, this is probably one of them. It's a pure joy reading them finding one bright idea/theory after another.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Psihohistorical? Is that a term from Asimov?

[G-Manicus]

Psihohistorical? Is that a term from Asimov?

Yes. "Psychohistorical."

[M. Porcius Cato]

seems obvious now...

[Faustus]

seems obvious now...

 

Actually MPC, though I noted what prompted your question, if I may, I don't think the word "Psychohistorical" ever was mentioned in any of the Foundation novels, but rather the science of Psychohistory.

 

Pshychohistory was the (mathematical) underpinning for the foundation to be set up to provide for the replacement of the fallen empire. The Galactic Empire was falling over a period of time measured in many thousands of years, and the Foundation plan to be put in place was to preserve knowledge and to save mankind and thus provide for its (the Empire

[Ursus]

Asimov stated he wrote the Foundation trilogy after reading Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

 

As far as his law, I find it bollocks. It clearly ignores the fact that from Augustus to Trajan, the empire was expanding, despite the fact there were a variety of weak emperors reigning. In fact, the only real reason Britannia was invaded was to confer military legitimacy on a weak ruler - Claudius.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Maybe Asimov's law should be Asimov's trend -- there was certainly far less expansion in the 300 years after Augustus than in the 300 years prior to Augustus. Surely that calls for some explanation.

[Kosmo]

Asimov stated he wrote the Foundation trilogy after reading Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

 

As far as his law, I find it bollocks. It clearly ignores the fact that from Augustus to Trajan, the empire was expanding, despite the fact there were a variety of weak emperors reigning. In fact, the only real reason Britannia was invaded was to confer military legitimacy on a weak ruler - Claudius.

 

The law it's about significant and hard to make conquests not military walks and the only succesful campaign of this type of the empire was the conquest of Dacia.

Anyway, the reason why Rome did not conquer the entire Britain may have to do with Asimov's law.

I guess it's not supposed to be a complete explanation, but rather a description of a visible trand.

[Klingan]

Asimov stated he wrote the Foundation trilogy after reading Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

 

As far as his law, I find it bollocks. It clearly ignores the fact that from Augustus to Trajan, the empire was expanding, despite the fact there were a variety of weak emperors reigning. In fact, the only real reason Britannia was invaded was to confer military legitimacy on a weak ruler - Claudius.

 

 

Getting inspiration for a sci-fi law in a book about the decline of the Roman Empire hardly enforce you to follow that series of events by the letter. Both MPC and Kosmo have good points.

 

Oh the law itself and the idea is most likely to be total bollocks even in theory.

[G-Manicus]

a weak ruler - Claudius.

Hmmmph! Of all the ... !

[caldrail]

Psihohistorical? Is that a term from Asimov?

 

Yes. Psychohistory is another phrase for the theory of social engineering - that human behaviour as a whole can be predicted and manipulated, and that mathematical formulas can be applied to mass social situations in such a way that these predictions can be made. Thats the concept behind the Foundation novels. Such a science doesn't exist inreality nor is it likely that it ever will, since Asimov conveniently ignored human personality as a factor in decision making, as for instance the unpredictable nature of leaders whose personality is a little less than sane.

 

A psychohistorian whose maths was up to it could in theory plot the progress of a civilisation from start to end, determine when the major crises will arise, and any relevant changes in social structure that result. Its a form of statistics with complex formulae governing a dynamic quotient. In the stories psychohistorians lock themselves away and pore over huge mathematical conundrums to arrive at an answer.

 

Its easier to learn a little history and recognise the trends if you ask me, but I don't think Asimov thought that had dramatic potential