Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So a friend of mine recently gifted me with a copy of the Warhammer graphic novel "Flames of Damnation" which reprints a lot of old comic strips from the Warhammer monthly/inferno days.

A few of the stories actually talked about Planetary Governor(s) who decided that they really had it with the Imperium and decided to secede from it - out of the Emperor's light so to speak.

simple question: has this line of thinking/action ever worked?!

Let me contextualize this:

1.) I'm not talking about technologically advanced human societies that may still be hiding out there and had grown up independent of the Imperium - like the Interex or Adrantis Five or those worlds populated by humans beyond the Halo Stars.

2.) i'm not talking about planet(s) that decide to sign up with another faction - becoming Daemon worlds or part of the Tau Empire.

I'm really just talking about folks who decide to split - and why they would think this is a good idea in the first place?

Cause if it has never actually worked - if every attempt at secessation eventually results in a Crusade or an Exterminatus or a buch of VindicareCallidus assassins at your door - why would anyone even think this was a plausible idea?

If it ever has worked, it's most likely because the Imperium has never noticed. There are plenty of cases of planetary governors seceding from the Imperium (and many are not at all chaos or xenos influenced) but sooner or later they have all ended in the Imperium bringing its weight to bear and drowning the offending planet in military might. No single planet's capability will match up to the immense resources at the Imperium's command, or their willingness to conduct century long wars, even at great cost.

If there was ever a successful case it is because the seceding world has gone unnoticed, not because of their military prowess.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

If there was ever a successful case it is because the seceding world has gone unnoticed, not because of their military prowess.

This is the truth of it. no planet or even hundred planets have the manpower to hold back the IoM's war machine once it gets moving.

Why would you secede. All you get by doing that is getting your people killed. Unless they all want to die. But that would be insane!

Asherian Command wrote:Why would you secede. All you get by doing that is getting your people killed. Unless they all want to die. But that would be insane!

Kind of what i was thinking when i was reading these stories

Can you just think about the conversation had by the Planetary Governor (or Governors - a whole sector might decide to toss in the towel) with the appropriate members of society who might have a vested interest in their respective planets?

"Oh yes we can do this.. We just have to survive the Navy. and the IG regiments...and the Adeptus Astartes.."

"Oh and also the Inqusition, and the Adeptus Artibutes, Eldar, Orks, Tyranids, Ponies, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Enslavers, Tau, Chaos, Daemons, Hrud, The Black Templars Redemption Crusade, Dark Holes, Chaos Storms, Warp storms, Void Whales, Invisible Bears, Invincible Dropping Bears, Space Bears, Space Wolves, and every single Renegade army that is out there! OH Did I mention the Ordo Heretics and Commissars?"

Yes that is what they would have to deal with when you secede from the Imperium. If you are attacked. Guess who ain't giving two winks about you and spending resources to save you? The Imperium. I think the imperium depending on the system will just laugh and walk away.

Yes, it is possible, at least temporarily. At one point a huge chunk of the imperium split off and remained independent for nearly a thousand years: http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Nova_Terra_Interregnum

However, I suspect most planets which 'secede' from the Imperium are actually only rebelling against local authorities or those they think are crossing a line. They probably still see themselves as loyal to the imperium, they just disagree with the sub-sector governor (or whoever) on what is actually in the imperium's best interests. The imperium is very large, complex and fragmented, so there are no shortage of ways someone could convince themselves that refusing to do what one authority tells them to is perfectly justifiable.

According to an older version of the core rules, the Imperium's bureaucracy is so slow to respond that centuries can sometimes pass before a request for aid reaches them, and by the time the aid arrives the entire planet can be wiped out, or have taken care of the problem themselves. Under these circumstances (no one you know has ever seen a representative from Terra, and no one has heard from the greater forces of the Imperium in more than a generation) its easy to see how popular pressure could bring someone to attempt secession from the Imperium.

While I'm sure that at least one world, somewhere, has quietly seceded and then been summarily forgotten about, I think it's probably pretty rare.

Seems to me that Horus successfully seceded from the Empire.

He might be dead now but his people are free!

No, he tried to over throw the government and take over. Not the same thing.

It has worked many times, the key is to:
1.) Be of minor to negligible importance
2.) Be some remote backwater
3.) Fight off the Imperial force sent to re-claim the world. Chances are it will be small, and if you beat it the Imperium is unlikely to bother to send another as they are bogged down with more important matters. A good example was Taros, which could have been retaken if they put a little more effort into it.

Keep in mind Nova Terra and most of Segmentum Pacificus seceded from the Imperium for 900 years.

Yes, for a little while. And then either your own people take you down, or the Imperium sends troops and takes the planet back. Its just that with the Imperium being so large it can take some time to the news to arrive, the administratorium to decide what to do, the ships to be send, and so on.

It has to be noted that the Imperium routine edits, re-writes, and expunges historical records. See Imperial Armour 10, for an example of how it dealt with the Badab War.

If any world or collection of worlds should succeed in seceding, and beating off any Imperial response, I suspect the same would occur. The Imperium might still never admit defeat and still vow to return "some day" even if there is no concrete plan of action. The area might be re-designated as "wilderness space" like how the Jericho Sector from the FFG RPG Deathwatch was reclassified as the Jericho Reach when Imperial control collapsed. Historical records might be edited to remove any reference to the old worlds.

The Imperium is probably more concerned about the spread of the idea of successful secession rather than any individual planet or collection of worlds breaking off. As long as they can present the propaganda image of an unstoppable Imperium, and secession being futile, some would be secessionists might at least think twice.

So yes, I think successful secession is possible, though the Imperium for ideological reasons would never admit it.

Because we get such an omniscient over-view of the Imperium, and because we have such a short comparative history and such a well connected world, it's almost impossible for us to really get in the mindset of the worlds of the Imperium.

For some worlds, asking if they could secede would be like asking if Iceland could secede from the Roman Empire.

For some worlds, the Imperium is nothing more than a half-remembered legend from thousands of years ago. Many worlds have no idea the Imperium exists on such a massive scale, or measure it by their own humane standards and assume that the Imperium will be reasonable about things.

It's very easy to understand why worlds would go rogue.

Actually, after checking, there ARE worlds that have permanently seceded from the Imperium, such as the furthest conquests of Macharius:

Some of the newly assimilated planets took the opportunity to secede from the Imperium altogether believing that with the detah of Macharius the Imperium's power had been broken...Though many of Macharius' most distant conquests were lost to the Imperium forever, the majority were pacified successfully.
p. 32, 2nd edition Imperial Guard Codex

The Imperium doesn't have unlimited military might and most of it has better things to do than attacking some backwater planets that's not answering the phone.

Iracundus wrote:

Some of the newly assimilated planets took the opportunity to secede from the Imperium altogether believing that with the detah of Macharius the Imperium's power had been broken...Though many of Macharius' most distant conquests were lost to the Imperium forever, the majority were pacified successfully.
p. 32, 2nd edition Imperial Guard Codex

'Lost to the Imperium forever' might refer to the use of Exterminatus methods, or again the worlds being lost amidst the beuracracy. It might not, and probably doesn't, refer to them fending off any and all Imperial invasions to the point where it was decided it wasn't worth it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iracundus wrote:It has to be noted that the Imperium routine edits, re-writes, and expunges historical records. See Imperial Armour 10, for an example of how it dealt with the Badab War.

If any world or collection of worlds should succeed in seceding, and beating off any Imperial response, I suspect the same would occur. The Imperium might still never admit defeat and still vow to return "some day" even if there is no concrete plan of action.

But that isn't a successful secession, that just demonstrates a willingness for the Imperium to continue century-long campaigns. Beating back the first Imperial attempt at reclaiming the world just mean the secession is successful.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
'Lost to the Imperium forever' might refer to the use of Exterminatus methods, or again the worlds being lost amidst the beuracracy. It might not, and probably doesn't, refer to them fending off any and all Imperial invasions to the point where it was decided it wasn't worth it.

Have you any evidence for this claim? Using your own personal opinion to speculate and arbitrarily deciding what is "probably" true is just that. It is just as easy and valid to say it probably DOES refer to them fending off any and all Imperial invasions to the point where it was decided it wasn't worth it.

The Imperium does not practice Exterminatus at the drop of a hat, because real estate is expensive while human lives are not. A world destroyed is forever gone, whereas a lost world can offer the opportunity of being reclaimed in the future. One only need look at all the various other examples of Imperial defeats in the background, such as Taros, to see that the Imperium doesn't just Exterminatus every world the moment they lose. When the Jericho Sector collapsed into anarchy and slipped from the Imperium's grasp, seemingly permanently, they didn't go around destroying every world in sight, and the worlds were fought over in the later Imperial crusade that hit the Jericho's Reach in the RPG Deathwatch.

But that isn't a successful secession, that just demonstrates a willingness for the Imperium to continue century-long campaigns. Beating back the first Imperial attempt at reclaiming the world just mean the secession is successful.

At some point it is a de facto successful secession. Simply saying "I'll be back...someday" is an empty statement if they never actually do so. It would be like for example of the UK today saying the United States had never successfully revolted because one day the UK would take it all back. The same can be said for any other country that has lost some territory in the past and lays claim to it still. Simply claiming it as your own doesn't mean the other side didn't win. At some point, it becomes more face saving statement for the Imperium than genuine threat.

Iracundus wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:
'Lost to the Imperium forever' might refer to the use of Exterminatus methods, or again the worlds being lost amidst the beuracracy. It might not, and probably doesn't, refer to them fending off any and all Imperial invasions to the point where it was decided it wasn't worth it.

Have you any evidence for this claim? Using your own personal opinion to speculate and arbitrarily deciding what is "probably" true is just that. It is just as easy and valid to say it probably DOES refer to them fending off any and all Imperial invasions to the point where it was decided it wasn't worth it.

Have you any evidence of this claim? Using your own personal opinion to speculate and arbitrarily deciding what is "probably" true is just that. It is just as easy and valid to say it probably DOES refer to them being forgotten and lost as many other worlds are, through paperwork and not warfare. And is especially true in the chaotic aftermath of the Macharian heresy.

The Imperium does not practice Exterminatus at the drop of a hat, because real estate is expensive while human lives are not. A world destroyed is forever gone, whereas a lost world can offer the opportunity of being reclaimed in the future. One only need look at all the various other examples of Imperial defeats in the background, such as Taros, to see that the Imperium doesn't just Exterminatus every world the moment they lose. When the Jerich Sector collapsed into anarchy and slipped from the Imperium's grasp, they didn't go around destroying every world in sight, and the worlds were fought over in the later Imperial crusade that hit the Jericho's Reach in the RPG Deathwatch.

I understand how reluctant the Imperium is to use Exterminatus, and the won't use it against your average seceding world. My point was more on the worlds being forgotten than anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iracundus wrote:

At some point it is a de facto successful secession. Simply saying "I'll be back...someday" is an empty statement if they never actually do so. It would be like for example of the UK today saying the United States had never successfully revolted because one day the UK would take it all back. The same can be said for any other country that has lost some territory in the past and lays claim to it still. Simply claiming it as your own doesn't mean the other side didn't win. At some point, it becomes more face saving statement for the Imperium than genuine threat.

Well, the UK did eventually recognise the US as a seperate country (rather quickly I might add).

As for the Imperium, we are talking about an Empire that has existed for over 10,000 years. A secession that only manages to last 50, 200, 500 or even 1,000 years cannot be considered a successful secession. It has be much more enduring than that before it can claim success.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
Have you any evidence of this claim? Using your own personal opinion to speculate and arbitrarily deciding what is "probably" true is just that. It is just as easy and valid to say it probably DOES refer to them being forgotten and lost as many other worlds are, through paperwork and not warfare. And is especially true in the chaotic aftermath of the Macharian heresy.

The burden of proof is on you if you are claiming something else like Exterminatus, as that is a positive claim of something absent from the relevant paragraph. There is no mention of anything else in the relevant paragraph other than secession. The burden of proof rests on the person making the positive claim. You are making the logical fallacy of demanding negative proof.

I understand how reluctant the Imperium is to use Exterminatus, and the won't use it against your average seceding world. My point was more on the worlds being forgotten than anything else.

One could also say perhaps they were eaten by invisible purple unicorns. But unless you can offer proof that this occurred, why should we assume anything other than what is stated in the paragraph, which is that some worlds seceded, and were lost forever to the Imperium. Again, the burden of proof rests on the positive claimant.

It is almost as if you are bending backwards to avoid admitting the Imperium could have suffered a genuine defeat. Again, simply because a country never relinquishes claim to territory doesn't mean they haven't well and truly lost it. You missed the point of the hypothetical UK example. To use another one, if Italy were to claim it was Rome returned and therefore all Roman territories belonged to it and it would retake them again at some point in the future, it would not change the fact that the Romans lost the territory essentially permanently over a thousand years ago. Claims like that are empty words unless something actually happens to back it up. You seem to be setting up a situation and shifting the goalposts and definition to mean no world can ever secede, even if it did so for 10,000 or a million years, since theoretically the Imperium "could" be back one day. Rome might theoretically "be back someday". It might be a vanishingly tiny chance, but by your rationale, just because it is possible then therefore Rome never lost any territory at all.

You seem to be confusing Imperial propaganda with 40K reality. The Imperium can claim it is supreme and owns every single star and planet in the galaxy. The reality is very different. The Imperium saying something doesn't make it true or fact.

Iracundus wrote:

The burden of proof is on you if you are claiming something else like Exterminatus, as that is a positive claim of something absent from the relevant paragraph. There is no mention of anything else in the relevant paragraph other than secession. The burden of proof rests on the person making the positive claim. You are making the logical fallacy of demanding negative proof.

It only mentions that the worlds were lost to the Imperium during the upheaval. It is up to interpretation as to whether that means secession or administrative errors. Both claims would require proof.

I understand how reluctant the Imperium is to use Exterminatus, and the won't use it against your average seceding world. My point was more on the worlds being forgotten than anything else.

One could also say perhaps they were eaten by invisible purple unicorns. But unless you can offer proof that this occurred, why should we assume anything other than what is stated in the paragraph, which is that some worlds seceded, and were lost forever to the Imperium. Again, the burden of proof rests on the positive claimant.

Excuse me? You yourself are claiming something here as well. We know the worlds were lost, but each of us are positing different reasons behind it.

It is almost as if you are bending backwards to avoid admitting the Imperium could have suffered a genuine defeat. Again, simply because a country never relinquishes claim to territory doesn't mean they haven't well and truly lost it. You missed the point of the hypothetical UK example. If Italy were to claim it was Rome returned and therefore all Roman territories belonged to it and it would retake them again at some point in the future, it would not change the fact that the Romans lost the territory essentially permanently over a thousand years ago. Claims like that are empty words unless something actually happens to back it up. You seem to be setting up a situation and shifting the goalposts to a situation where you will not admit any world can secede, even if it did so for 10,000 or a million years, since theoretically the Imperium "could" be back one day.

Let's set some ground rules for what exactly a 'successful' secession is. Because there is a huge difference between the Imperium (temperorarily) losing territory and a successful secession.

What is your requirement for a secession to be successful? Does the seceding planet have to maintain independance for 100 years? Does it have to have beaten back at least one attempt to reconquer it?

Hazardous Harry wrote:
It only mentions that the worlds were lost to the Imperium during the upheaval. It is up to interpretation as to whether that means secession or administrative errors. Both claims would require proof.

The method of loss by secession is already mentioned in the paragraph and follows logically on from the statement of what some worlds attempted. The existence of any other method of loss has not been established, and therefore the burden of proof rests on the one trying to claim there are other methods of loss.

Excuse me? You yourself are claiming something here as well. We know the worlds were lost, but each of us are positing different reasons behind it.

I am not making a positive claim of the existence of new methods of loss. The method of loss by secession is already mentioned in the text itself.

What is your requirement for a secession to be successful? Does the seceding planet have to maintain independance for 100 years? Does it have to have beaten back at least one attempt to reconquer it?

Any planet that has thrown off the Imperium's control has successfully seceded. If they are still out of the control of the Imperium and independent at the "current time" of the observer within 40K then they have successfully seceded. If they have been subsequently been reclaimed by the Imperium by the time frame of the observer then they have failed. If a story were set during the Nova Terra Interregnum, then the Segmentum Pacificus would have successfully seceded from the perspective of any observer at that point in time. It is only because we as outside readers know the timeline extends beyond that we can say it did not succeed. As outside observers to the universe, our view of the timeline extends up to the "current time", which is the furthest extent of knowledge in the 40K universe as revealed by GW.

Yes this is a retrospective evaluation but then that is the nature of history. The loss of Roman territories might have been judged or claimed to be a temporary setback by people at the time. It only became judged a permanent loss because observers further in the future know that they were never reclaimed.

Iracundus wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:
It only mentions that the worlds were lost to the Imperium during the upheaval. It is up to interpretation as to whether that means secession or administrative errors. Both claims would require proof.

The method of loss by secession is already mentioned in the paragraph and follows logically on. The existence of any other method of loss has not been established, and therefore the burden of proof rests on the one trying to claim there are other methods of loss.

Excuse me? You yourself are claiming something here as well. We know the worlds were lost, but each of us are positing different reasons behind it.

I am not making a positive claim of the existence of new methods of loss. The method of loss by secession is already mentioned in the text itself.

It says that the secession lead to the upheaval. It doesn't say whether the seceding worlds actually managed to beat of all Imperial attempts at reconquering them (as you claim) or were lost in the confusion.

What is your requirement for a secession to be successful? Does the seceding planet have to maintain independance for 100 years? Does it have to have beaten back at least one attempt to reconquer it?

Any planet that has thrown off the Imperium's control has successfully seceded. If they are still out of the control of the Imperium and independent at the "current time" of the observer within 40K then they have successfully seceded.

So Vraks had a successful Secession?

This is a poor definition, that means that if a planet declared independence even 5 years before the current date (way before the Imperium even hears or readies an assault, then its a successful secession.

If they have been subsequently been reclaimed by the Imperium by the time frame of the observer then they have failed. If a story were set during the Nova Terra Interregnum, then the Segmentum Pacificus would have successfully seceded from that perspective. It is only because we as outside readers know the timeline extends beyond that we can say it did not succeed.

Again, it fails on the grounds that even the most recent secession will count as 'successful' no matter how recent it was.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
It says that the secession lead to the upheaval. It doesn't say whether the seceding worlds actually managed to beat of all Imperial attempts at reconquering them (as you claim) or were lost in the confusion.

"Lost in the confusion" is a new method of loss you are proposing, hence the burden of proof is on you to prove it. It is also possible to claim it doesn't say whether the seceding worlds succeeded in beating off Imperial attempts at reconquering them or whether they were eaten by unicorns. Loss by unicorn has to be proven for that to be accepted. The existence of a method of loss is already shown by the act of secession. The existence of any other method of loss is not.

So Vraks had a successful Secession?

No, because by 999.M41 it is back under Imperial control. Read the definition I used in the previous post. Vraks was finished by 830.M41

This is a poor definition, that means that if a planet declared independence even 5 years before the current date (way before the Imperium even hears or readies an assault, then its a successful secession.

That's right. It has been successful if it is still independent as of 999.M41. If the time moves forward, that status could change, but as of the current time, it is successful.

Again, it fails on the grounds that even the most recent secession will count as 'successful' no matter how recent it was.

And why should that make it fail on such grounds? The Imperium has lost control of the world and as of the present still has no control of the world. Recent secessions that are still independent at 999.M41 are successful. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that. A breakaway region can declare independence from a country, such as South Sudan. As of right now South Sudan is an independent country with diplomatic recognition and has successfully broken off from Sudan, and is less than 10 years old. If in 10 years to come, it were re-absorbed, then it would be a failed attempt but as of right now, it would be ridiculous to say that South Sudan is not an independent country. Age has nothing to do with whether a state is sovereign or not. The only grounds to really judge whether something was successful or not is retrospectively, and that only holds true up to the current point in time of the observer, even in real life.

Iracundus wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:
It says that the secession lead to the upheaval. It doesn't say whether the seceding worlds actually managed to beat of all Imperial attempts at reconquering them (as you claim) or were lost in the confusion.

"Lost in the confusion" is a new method of loss you are proposing, hence the burden of proof is on you to prove it. It is also possible to claim it doesn't say whether the seceding worlds succeeded in beating off Imperial attempts at reconquering them or whether they were eaten by unicorns. Loss by unicorn has to be proven for that to be accepted. The existence of a method of loss is already shown by the act of secession. The existence of any other method of loss is not.

If I have to prove that they were simply lost in the confusion, or eaten by unicorns, then you have to prove that they in fact managed to beat off every Imperial attempt to reclaim them. It works both ways.

This is a poor definition, that means that if a planet declared independence even 5 years before the current date (way before the Imperium even hears or readies an assault, then its a successful secession.

That's right. It has been successful if it is still independent as of 999.M41. If the time moves forward, that status could change, but as of the current time, it is successful.

That is ridiculous, an Imperial planet could declare itself independent in the year 998.M41. That does not mean the secession is (or is going to be) successful in the year 999M41.

Again, it fails on the grounds that even the most recent secession will count as 'successful' no matter how recent it was.

And why should that make it fail on such grounds? The Imperium has lost control of the world and as of the present still has no control of the world. Recent secessions that are still independent at 999.M41 are successful. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that. A breakaway region can declare independence from a country, such as South Sudan. As of right now South Sudan is an independent country with diplomatic recognition and has successfully broken off from Sudan, and is less than 10 years old. If in 10 years to come, it were re-absorbed, then it would be a failed attempt but as of right now, it would be ridiculous to say that South Sudan is not an independent country. Age has nothing to do with whether a state is sovereign or not.

No, South Sudan's secession was successful because Sudan recognised it. If in 10 years it was re-absorbed (violently or otherwise) the initial secession was still successful.

If you are comparing a secession from the Imperium to South Sudan, the Imperium would have to recognise the success of the secesion, either official (unlikely) or pragmatically (admitting that it's not worth the expense in resources).

Hazardous Harry wrote:
If I have to prove that they were simply lost in the confusion, or eaten by unicorns, then you have to prove that they in fact managed to beat off every Imperial attempt to reclaim them. It works both ways.

It doesn't because I have not made a positive claim. The text has already mentioned the existence of secession which is in itself a method of loss. I have not needed to propose its existence.

That is ridiculous,

Not in the least. It is perfectly reasonable. Simply dismissing something as "ridiculous" is not a valid argument. Someone dismissing the Earth being round as "ridiculous" has not made any valid argument. Personal opinion alone is no basis to prove any point and it is no basis to dismiss any point.

No, South Sudan's secession was successful because Sudan recognised it. If in 10 years it was re-absorbed (violently or otherwise) the initial secession was still successful.

If you are comparing a secession from the Imperium to South Sudan, the Imperium would have to recognise the success of the secesion, either official (unlikely) or pragmatically (admitting that it's not worth the expense in resources).

If in 10 years time it is re-absorbed, the secession was unsuccessful. We are looking at the final state, and since time moves forward, that state is always subject to change.

You seem hung on the idea of recognition. Recognition is not necessary for something to be de facto independent as of the present. Taiwan is not recognized by most states and least of all by mainland China, yet it is still governing itself in every way as an independent state other than name. Whether or not a state is recognized as independent by its enemies has no bearing on whether it is actually so. If Taiwan were to be absorbed in 10 years, then from that point in time 10 years on, we would be saying that Taiwan had not succeeded in independence.

You are again trying to set up a definition whereby it is ALWAYS and FOREVER impossible to secede. The Imperium does not recognize the existence of any other states ever. By ideological definition, it claims to be the sole government of all humanity and the entire galaxy. According to such a definition and if you set the totally impossible criteria of the Imperium actually recognizing any other state as an equal sovereign state, there is never a successful secession even if the planet has thrown off the Imperium for a billion years. You are claiming the equivalence that if Argentina never recognizes giving up the Falklands then they will never have lost the war.

The standard that nobody has ever lost a conflict unless they admit they lost is an untenable position. Japan has never recognized the loss of the Kuril Islands. Does that fact change anything and make them still Japan's? They "only" lost it less than 70 years ago. Does such a short loss still make it Japanese? No, it is still in Russian hands and is shown as such on all maps during the present day except in Japan.

To bring the analogy to a 40K game, you are trying to claim for example that so long as a player refuses to recognize they lost, the other side will never win a game.

Iracundus wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:
If I have to prove that they were simply lost in the confusion, or eaten by unicorns, then you have to prove that they in fact managed to beat off every Imperial attempt to reclaim them. It works both ways.

It doesn't because I have not made a positive claim. The text has already mentioned the existence of secession which is in itself a method of loss. I have not needed to propose its existence.

Yes, you have made a positive claim. Your claim is that the secession was successful because the Imperium gave up on trying to reconquer them. You need to prove that.

That is ridiculous,

Not in the least. It is perfectly reasonable. Simply dismissing something as "ridiculous" is not a valid argument. Someone dismissing the Earth being round as "ridiculous" has not made any valid argument. Personal opinion is no basis to prove any point.

Please address my argument.

No, South Sudan's secession was successful because Sudan recognised it. If in 10 years it was re-absorbed (violently or otherwise) the initial secession was still successful.

If you are comparing a secession from the Imperium to South Sudan, the Imperium would have to recognise the success of the secesion, either official (unlikely) or pragmatically (admitting that it's not worth the expense in resources).

If in 10 years time it is re-absorbed, the secession was unsuccessful. We are looking at the final state.

You seem hung on the idea of recognition. Recognition is not necessary for something to be de facto independent as of the present. Taiwan is not recognized by most states and least of all by mainland China, yet it is still governing itself in every way as an independent state other than name. Whether or not a state is recognized as independent by its enemies has no bearing on whether it is actually so. If Taiwan were to be absorbed in 10 years, then from that point in time 10 years on, we would be saying that Taiwan had not succeeded in independence.

Actually, Taiwan is not really an example of a secession. But in any case, if it was, the secession is successful.

You are again trying to set up a definition whereby it is ALWAYS and FOREVER impossible to secede. The Imperium does not recognize the existence of any other states ever. By ideological definition, it claims to be the sole government of all humanity and the entire galaxy. According to such a definition and if you set the totally impossible criteria of the Imperium actually recognizing any other state as an equal sovereign state, there is never a successful secession even if the planet has thrown off the Imperium for a billion years.

I said the Imperium has to either recognise it officially (again unlikely) or pragmaticially. If you are going to argue with me, at least have the decency to argue with my actual points.

You are claiming the equivalence that if Argentina never recognizes giving up the Falklands then they will never have lost the war.

The Falkland are, and have always been, the British Empire's. Not Argentina's.

The standard that nobody has ever lost a conflict unless they admit they lost is an untenable position. Japan has never recognized the loss of the Kuril Islands. Does that fact change anything? No, it is still in Russian hands and is shown as such on all maps during the present day.

And? Pragmatically Japan has decided they cannot challenge the secession (seeing as they don't really have a military). And again, this isn't an example of secession anyway (if the Islands were independent then it would be).

According to your standards, if the US was ever reconquered by the UK that would mean the initial US secession wasn't successful.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Yes, you have made a positive claim. Your claim is that the secession was successful because the Imperium gave up on trying to reconquer them. You need to prove that.

Iracundus wrote:
I have not made such a claim. The text says the worlds are lost. The only method of loss given is secession. The existence of any other method is not mentioned, and therefore any claim that there were other such methods has to be proven.

I am not disputing that these worlds may have seceded from the Imperium, I am disputing your claim (and you have made this claim) that they successfully resisted Imperial attempts to reclaim them.

Please address my argument.

There is no argument to address because you have none there. Simply dismissing something as "ridciulous" is not an argument. I can dismiss someone's existence as ridiculous but that is no argument whatsoever about whether or not they exist.

That is ridiculous, an Imperial planet could declare itself independent in the year 998.M41. That does not mean the secession is (or is going to be) successful in the year 999M41.

*the rest*

This is rich. I ask you to provide me with what your definition of successful is. I say why you are mistaken with this definition. You accuse me of shifting goal posts, of dodging questions and basically go out of your way to ignore my assertions and try to retaliate with strawmen (and poor ones at that).

Your definition of a successful secession is one that is still ongoing in the present, no matter how old the secession is. This would mean that the oldest secession, one that has been ongoing for millenia and the Imperium has essentially given up on reconquering, is looked at with the exact same amount of success as a 1 year old fledgling-secession unaware of the Imperial Fleet moving into orbit above them.

My definition is the Imperium either officially acknowledging the secessionists independence (which, as you have pointed out is most unlikely) or pragmatically acknowledging that they don't have the resources to reconquer the secessionists, or that the resources are better spent elsewhere. So yes, if the Imperium laid claim to a secession of a dozen or so worlds and never recognised their independence, but also took no steps (or their steps were never successful) to reconquer them, then that secession would be successful.

Have the decency to address the topic at hand, rather than dodging the matter. It is an online discussion about a make-believe world, not a comparison of your e-penis

Hazardous Harry wrote:
I am not disputing that these worlds may have seceded from the Imperium, I am disputing your claim (and you have made this claim) that they successfully resisted Imperial attempts to reclaim them.

The Imperium lost worlds forever. They were shown to have seceded. No other possible method of loss is shown. If you propose a new method, prove it.

Take a situation where a film is shown of person is shown falling off a high building, but it cuts out while he is still falling. We are told afterwards he died. In the absence of any new method of death, the method would be concluded to have been by falling. If someone then claims well he could have died by a heart attack before he finished falling, they have to prove that. That is the analogous situation

That is ridiculous, an Imperial planet could declare itself independent in the year 998.M41. That does not mean the secession is (or is going to be) successful in the year 999M41.

Did you read my definition accurately?

If a planet declares itself independent, and is STILL independent by the end of the year 999.M41 which is the latest current time for a 40K observer, then it has been successful. If it is back under the control of the Imperium by the end of 999.M41, then it has not been. Our knowledge of the 40K time extends only up to that point.

Your definition of a successful secession is one that is still ongoing in the present, no matter how old the secession is. This would mean that the oldest secession, one that has been ongoing for millenia and the Imperium has essentially given up on reconquering, is looked at with the exact same amount of success as a 1 year old fledgling-secession unaware of the Imperial Fleet moving into orbit above them.

Correct. As of at the end of 999.M41, so long as the Imperium has not reclaimed it then it has been successful. It does not matter one whit that the Imperium might have ships in orbit at the end of 999.M41, because the outcome of their actions is unknown and undecided as of 999.M41. You cannot conclude that the secession has failed because of a "maybe" event in the future, because it is also possible the Imperium might be repulsed if the clock were to tick over into M42. What matters is who is in control at the moment the observer makes the observation. Nothing about the future beyond the point of observation can be concluded with absolute certainty. In the absence of a conclusion, you cannot therefore conclude any particular rebellion or secession successful or not.

You cannot apply arbitrary decisions of the unknown future as a means of judging the past. Such is flawed reasoning because it is inherently subjective and allows for no conclusions. The example of Cadia at the end of 999.M41 is a point. Chaos controls the ground (or most of it anyway). For the purposes of this analogy, define Cadia as Chaos controlled due to the majority hold. The Imperium has more ships in space. It doesn't matter that the Imperium might have ships in orbit. The Imperium cannot be stated to own Cadia so long as they do not actually control the territory itself or govern it. Saying "Oh but they will win it" is a completely unprovable claim about the future

My definition is the Imperium either officially acknowledging the secessionists independence (which, as you have point out is most unlikely) or pragmatically acknowledging that they don't have the resources to reconquer the secessionists, or that the resources are better spent elsewhere. So yes, if the Imperium laid claim to a secession of a dozen or so worlds and never recognised their independence, but also took not steps (or their steps were never successful) to reconquer them, then that secession would be successful.

That reasoning is totally flawed because it can equally be applied for example to Taiwan or Japan. Taiwan still claims the mainland of China as its own. Japan claims the Kuril islands. They all say they will take it back "some day". There is no definition to work with of what constitutes "pragmatically acknowledging". Those are just weasel words that any person can shift. They can always claim they are still taking steps to reclaim those territories, just very slow very long steps but still pragmatic steps. You cannot conclude their efforts are unsuccessful because you don't know whether they have finished their efforts. It is always possible to claim someone just taking very slow steps to reclaim the territory say in a hundred years or more. Again by such a definition, they will have not pragmatically acknowledged anything and so therefore they have never lost the territory.

Also your definition fails to account for the flow of time. By your definition then in that quote above, then a world that secedes near the end of 999.M41 is STILL successful because the Imperium has not taken any steps to reconquer them. And before you claim "But they will," you cannot claim that with certainty since the knowledge of what happens after 999.M41 is unknown and unrevealed by GW.

Incidentally resorting to ad hominem is failing to debate a topic and by doing so it is showing you don't have any real argument if you are having to resort to personal attacks. It is the last refuge of those that cannot defend their argument. You have also again simply tried to arbitrarily dismiss the other side's arguments through various dismissal tactics of calling things "ridiculous" or "strawmen", when these are in fact the logical end results of applying the paradigm you are proposing: that nobody wins or holds anything unless the other side admits formally losing. You have failed completely to address such results of your flawed reasoning. Your tossing off of the phrase "pragmatically acknowledging" is a pointless and meaningless phrase as it is an inherently subjective judgement of what constitutes "pragmatically". Just because YOU think certain actions are "pragmatic acknowledgement" of loss of territory (such as Taiwan having lost mainland China) doesn't mean the politician of that country has to. And if they don't think so, and think their plans are completely reasonable albeit perhaps long term plans to retake the territory then what? You have just run into a situation where your model cannot produce a conclusion that is not reliant purely on your own personal opinion.

My model does not produce such situations or have to rely on such subjective arbitrary decisions whereas yours does. It relies only on one simple situation: Who has control of the world at the time of the observer's observation. What might happen after that point in time is irrelevant for the purposes of rendering a decision at that specific moment about whether a world has seceded or not. No subjective judgments about "pragmatically acknowledging" are needed whatsoever.

Address the actual points. Simply claiming "Oh that's ridiculous" or just labeling anything you dislike as "strawmen" is not a valid counterargument. You do not have the arbitrary right to simply dismiss the other side's points simply based on your personal opinion of them as ridiculous. The examples given of real geopolitical issues current today are not strawmen, by virtue of the fact they are relevant current issues and the stances claimed are real stances held by some people in those countries.