The More You Know!: The Myth of the Ex-Hegemony

[Prodigal Moon]

Great, thorough analysis with very believable predictions. At the same time, I think it's worth noting that even though ex-Hegemony is no longer a cohesive political entity, it's still very much a social identity. Karma cleaved the political landscape pretty clearly into two, so even if there's no "Hegemony" to be a part of, there's really no alternative identity as of yet to be a part of. They'll need to be in independent groupings for a while before there's really anything to be beside SG or ex-Heg. I don't see how else to "change" that will feel genuine to the rest of the world, considering the lack of alternative identities to assume and how we now have years of history between us that prevent simply reinventing one's alliance on a whim.

[Banksy]

I don't really understand why there is such an objection to the label 'ex-hegemony,' when those same people use the label 'supergrievances' indiscriminately. Yes, hegemony means dominant and yes, they are no longer dominant (check out that 'ex' some time), but CN he always given misappropriate labels to sides and alliances, and they always will.

[Lincongrad]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='19 July 2010 - 03:25 PM' timestamp='1279578332' post='2379400']
I can see the angle you're coming from there, you were more with the NpO than NPO in that case, but the reality still stands that you were on the same overall side as the NPO, nonwithstanding the subsequent quarrel of Valhallan peace terms. You didn't decide to side with the UJP alliances and try to even the score against the WUT after the crushing GWIII loss, instead you rode to war under the greater WUT banner, rightly so since \m/ attacked ODN in that case.
[/quote]

If I remember correctly (and I'm quite possibly not), NPO attacked one alliance in that war, and that alliance was fighting on the same side as Legion. NPO was certainly not leading the WUT assault.

EDIT: Just looked it up, I was remembering wrong. NPO ended up fighting several relatively small alliances on the UjP side. However I would argue that WUT as a political entente was split and that we were led into battle primarily by BLEU. Keep in mind, NPO did not join the war until significantly after the battle had started, and that both sides had alliances which we had fought against in GWIII.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Lincongrad

[Tromp]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='20 July 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1279580626' post='2379454']
To once again haggle over the first point, if you're going to make the point that with less treaties IRON is more likely to back NSO, then it is just as likely that they are more likely to back R&R and hence SF as a whole, it can go both ways. But I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
[/quote]
Given the history of the IRON-RnR treaty, compared to that of NSO, I'd say it is way more likely IRON will defend NSO in a next war then that they will defend RnR. Not to mention the fact that in the last war, IRON actually didn't defend NSO in any way, so perhaps they will feel some guilt with regards to that in the same way TOP felt guilt for not defending IRON in Karma.

Anyway, NSO is just one example, there are more. TOOL for instance.
[quote]
Regarding the second, I'd hardly say I'm an opponent of SG, I'm a member of RIA and plan to be so for sometime as I work to actively engage myself in working for the alliance. I know that Poison Clan seems to still hold a grudge against RIA over the Tilton affair, some of our diplomats who have gone over there have been met with hostility and banned from their forums (nothing against PC, I actually hold them in fairly high regard), and thats just one of what I'm sure if several examples. I'm not saying that I want SG to fail, I just feel its likely that it is.
[/quote]
Well, I don't know if you are correct in this case - banning RIA diplomats seems kind of harsh - but from my interaction with PC (and as a former ally I have had quite the experience and relations with them) I never got the idea it was that bad.

That is not to say a scenario as you describe will or can not happen, I just think it's not likely.

[chefjoe]

Good read, would recomend

[D34th]

LIES!!1!11!

Ex-Hegemony still exists, NPO is evil and will destroy us all!! #fact

Now talking seriously, nice explanation and good read.

[SiCkO]

as insightful as ever LF, though I will mention that I'm not sure you can tie AZTEC to CnG since alliances like GLOF arnt heavily tied to either side.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Tromp' date='19 July 2010 - 04:35 PM' timestamp='1279582483' post='2379495']
Given the history of the IRON-RnR treaty, compared to that of NSO, I'd say it is way more likely IRON will defend NSO in a next war then that they will defend RnR. Not to mention the fact that in the last war, IRON actually didn't defend NSO in any way, so perhaps they will feel some guilt with regards to that in the same way TOP felt guilt for not defending IRON in Karma.

Anyway, NSO is just one example, there are more. TOOL for instance.

Well, I don't know if you are correct in this case - banning RIA diplomats seems kind of harsh - but from my interaction with PC (and as a former ally I have had quite the experience and relations with them) I never got the idea it was that bad.

That is not to say a scenario as you describe will or can not happen, I just think it's not likely.
[/quote]

I've always liked PC but now apparently they don't like us. It's true what Lord Fingolfin said we sent a diplomat there and he got banned lol.

[Believland]

NV has a MDoAP with MK thought. I've always considered Aztecs on CnG's side.

[Heft]

One thing that people tend to forget about the hegemony is that it wasn't some oppressive minority ruling by fiat. It was a passive majority enjoying the benefits of peace and stability for most. It was a web so deeply tangled that no one could really work it out or work their way out of it. Even those at the top were often limited and constrained by behemoth system that had been created. Continuum and One Vision may have been the clear leaders of that period, but almost every alliance of any size participated and was part of the "hegemony" at some point or another, including most of SF. The only important exception is CnG. Or else it wouldn't have ever worked. The "hegemony" didn't rule by fear, it ruled by peace.

Ex-hegemony is nonsense not just because it doesn't reflect any modern identity, but because "hegemony" itself never reflected any identity. It was a pejorative term created during war. No one ever decided to be a member of the hegemony. It became a convenient label for the group of alliances centered around the remnants of Continuum and One Vision that didn't move to the other side, and it worked fairly well up through the BiPolar war (or whatever it's called). It worked precisely because there was no clear identity for most of those alliances after the old structures were all destroyed (Q, One Vision, and Citadel was defunct long before it officially disbanded).

It seems to be a fairly common charge that after Karma the ex-hegemony "chose" to stay together and organize in opposition to the Karma victors. This of course ignores all the ex-hegemony alliances that participated in that Karma victory or did in fact move over or at least make attempts at getting closer, and more importantly ignores why those that remained distant did so. In some cases, they simply didn't like or get along with the "other side" and thus had no motivation to cooperate. There was also a constant sense of defensiveness, an awareness that all these alliances that used to be leaders of the world were now suddenly very vulnerable and that CnG or SF or both might very easily come back to "finish the job" as it were - a feeling that the actions and rhetoric of the time only encouraged and accentuated. Is it really any wonder that so many alliances were willing to come back together one month after the completely nonsense attack on TPF? The actions may have been offensive, but they were born out of (severely misguided) feelings of survival.

If that war accomplished anything, it was finally relieving that tension (or, less charitably, paranoia). The realignment of the old "hegemony" core started years ago, pretty much when the Ordinance of the Orders was dropped, and was effectively stalled by the Karma war all the way through the BiPolar war, as many of those alliances suddenly felt compelled to huddle together awhile longer.

This all makes more sense when you realize that many of the leaders of the "hegemony" didn't actually like each other or trust each other even when they had treaties and were joined in leviathan blocs.

[Auctor]

[quote name='Believland' date='19 July 2010 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1279586569' post='2379579']
NV has a MDoAP with MK thought. I've always considered Aztecs on CnG's side.
[/quote]
If you're judging AZTEC's side based on NV's MDoAP's, we're on the entire world's side!

[Omniscient1]

I like your breakdown LF.

Is there a reason we switched from 2D webs to the 3d one? I guess maybe because it was too hard to do a 2d one with all of these treaties?

[KainIIIC]

I think some of the categorizations of the ex-hegemony are 'fair', but if a war were to break out between SF and C&G, i'd still wager that they'd be fighting on the C&G side or sitting out completely. For many of them, especially the Duckroll crowd, they're still licking their wounds of the past war. For that reason, much of the Remnant alliances will be hesitant (with a few exceptions... *cough*) to cause disputes to engage in war, which therein increases the likelihood of a dispute between an SF-oriented and C&G-oriented alliance breaking into war. The dynamic of relative power from the last war basically stands as: SF - emerged from the war as the most powerful, but relative to C&G, much more isolated. Conversely, C&G has become the most powerful political bloc, thanks to its good connections with 'BLEU 2.0'/GATO-IAA-LoSS group/Checkmate, and retains common links with SF either officially or through connector alliances like Sparta/FOK/Umbrella/UJP2.0. C&G however emerged from last war with a heavy beating, sans Vanguard and an exodus of FoBers to PC - leaving them materially in a weaker position vis-à-vis SF. Obviously, SF and C&G prefer to remain together, and they very well could take advantage of a 'Remnant' mishap, or create a bogus CB for a curbstomp à la TPF War.

However, all the indications of where the 'ex-hegem' would go in the case of a SuperComplaints split are pretty hazy, NEW's MDoAP with PC and Valhalla's MDoAP with Kronos are seemingly the closest ties to SF.. IRON's basically out of commission atm for the MDP with R&R to really matter. C&G on the other hand would be the likely beneficiary, as there are actual links, although few, remaining on the treaty web for this to happen. Places like P&L to BLEU 2.0, NSO-GATO, GLOF with AZTEC/their other allies, FEAR to UPN to ODN.. heck, the NSO could end up defending GR via Carpe Diem! That being said, I would acknowledge that at this point, much of the Ex-hegem would PREFER fighting for SF over C&G, as only 2 years ago SF was solidly a part of the Hegemony, and are thus a little closer cut in cloth, so it's reasonable to suggest new ties opening up on this avenue. As of now though, SF remains pretty well unconnected to LF's 4 subgroups. Funny enough, while it would be best for SF to remain with C&G, they would probably prefer a SuperComplaints civil war sooner than later, as they still have the numerical advantage to boot. Decisions, decisions, oh the ever plotful Xiphosis, no?

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='KainIIIC' date='19 July 2010 - 09:37 PM' timestamp='1279589856' post='2379661']
That being said, I would acknowledge that at this point, much of the Ex-hegem would PREFER fighting for SF over C&G, as only 2 years ago [b]SF was solidly a part of the Hegemony[/b], and are thus a little closer cut in cloth, so it's reasonable to suggest new ties opening up on this avenue.
[/quote]

[i]Some[/i] of SF was. Two years ago a certain SuperFriend alliance was paying reparations to IRON and voting for an MCXA maroon senator.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='20 July 2010 - 02:53 AM' timestamp='1279590795' post='2379687']
[i]Some[/i] of SF was. Two years ago a certain SuperFriend alliance was paying reparations to IRON and voting for an MCXA maroon senator.
[/quote]

Its almost like this certain SF alliance wasn't part of SF at that time.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='19 July 2010 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1279591027' post='2379695']
Its almost like this certain SF alliance wasn't part of SF at that time.
[/quote]

Your point? He was saying that in a way ex-Heg was closer to SF since they (we) used to be aligned. I was pointing out that that doesn't hold true for all of us.

It's an interesting theory though.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[maicke]

Very well thought out analysis. I agree on most points, and the ones I don't are very minor. Quality work here.

Though I would dread a SuperGrievances split, as I like alliances on both sides, it is sadly inevitable. (Unless of course admin pulled the plug on planet Kevin tomorrow. xD) It isn't a matter of if, but when. Though as of right now, that when seems very far off.

[ChairmanHal]

Lord Fingolfin, an excellent piece of writing even if I don't necessarily come to all the conclusions that you do.

[DonVox]

You've clearly illustrated the non-cohesiveness of "ex-Heg". I agree with your conclusions that if CnG/SF become the bi-polars in several months, that they should attract ex-Heg alliances. But with recent treaties showing that CnG/SF are moving closer to create one power sphere, it would take a huge amount of time for another large war to break out. It is smart of all of the "ex-Heg" alliances to splinter and not group together cohesively, otherwise any seeming threat will be quashed swiftly by the CnG/SG side of the web.

[Banksy]

If C&G and SF split, it wont happen tomorrow. And I doubt it will be intentional. SF and C&G will always try to damper out any conflict between periphery alliances that could lead to a C&G v SF war. Unless the situation changes significantly (such as a series of would-be conflicts that cause tensions between potential sides, as we saw with KoN and WWE before Bi-Polar) then there will simply be a rather long period of peace.

And until there is a SF-C&G split, the label 'ex-hege' will still be used, because for the so called 'supergrievances' coalition to exist, there must be another group that, in some way, opposes them.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

[quote name='James Dahl' date='19 July 2010 - 07:41 PM' timestamp='1279586480' post='2379578']
I've always liked PC but now apparently they don't like us. It's true what Lord Fingolfin said we sent a diplomat there and he got banned lol.
[/quote]

I think it was actually a joke we forgot about. We gave him a one year suspension because he joked about being 12. idk. I fixed it, but it is true that most of our members really don't care for you. You're more than welcome to come back if you really desire having that embassy.

[Uralica]

Like I said in zzzptm's thread, I'm honestly not sure which side TOOL would end up on in any given scenario.

Even though I personally like a lot of the alliances on both sides of the CnG/SF cluster (on the larger scale, it tends to be people I end up disliking, not necessarily alliances, although there are some alliances whose policies I can't abide), TOOL's general opinion on each individual alliance varies. But if you go simply by treaty chaining, we'd be a little more likely to go in "on SF's side," since we are only two treaties of separation from them (RnR > IRON > us ) and four from CnG (MK > Polaris > UPN > FEAR > us).

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='19 July 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1279571071' post='2379264']
Call it far-fetched or insane, only time will tell the truth.
[/quote]

Ok, your post was far-fetched and insane.

to the OP, an excellent analysis. Thank you for taking the time to post.

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Banksy' date='19 July 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1279595284' post='2379795']
And until there is a SF-C&G split, the label 'ex-hege' will still be used, because for the so called 'supergrievances' coalition to exist, [b]there must be another group that, in some way, opposes them.[/b]
[/quote]

I believe the point Lord Fingolfin is trying to make is such a group does not exist. It hasn't for quite some time. Even in the past war, the alliances some choose to label as such a group were only a viable counter-power only in the early stages of the war when sides were far messier. Once the NpO flop occurred, there was no contest.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Wad of Lint

[Olaf Styke]

Interesting analysis, Fingolfin. I tend to agree with you in the broader strokes.

Since my comments were apparently part of the inspiration for this little dissertation, I should probably clarify something about what I meant when I referred to 'Ex Heg'. 'Ex Heg', to me, does not signify any particular cohesive entity, rather I use it as a cover-all term for alliances in opposition to SuperGrievances, who contain the greater part of the remaining anti-NPO coalition from Karma. Obviously TOP was on the Karma side, but IRON, Legion, UPN, TPF, Invicta, BAPS, TORN and other supporting alliances, the core of NPO's allies during Karma, alligned with TIDTT. The alliances split virtually the same way in to similar factions to fight UJW2 as they did in Karma, with TOP taking the place of NPO.

Don't read much further than that in to my comparison, or my somewhat erroneous use of the term 'Ex Heg', it's a misnomer. I'm a crotchety old CN veteran, and I harken back to the days of GWII, when The Initiative set out to form the first true Hegemony in Cybernations. Looking back to relative antiquity, in that first true Bloc (I discount NDF, the actual first bloc), you can see, aligned alongside NPO, alot of the same alliances that still cluster together on the opposite side of the web, operating in that same aggressive way that characterized the NPO-dominated coalition, and I see that same relaxed casual attitude that once defined the League and Aegis in SuperGrievances. Sure, many of the old Initiative alliances have disbanded or merged, or been destroyed since, but it's telling that the ones who survived remained largely on the same side; MCXA, TOP, TPF, GGA... Old Viridia, Old \m/, and Old Goons were with them essentially up to their demise, though the new ones generally aren't.

I'm rambling, I suppose my point is that this 'Ex Heg' camp is nebulous, but I use the term to denote one of two sides that have essentially persisted since GWI. One side tends toward an aggressive opportunism, and seems best characterized as tenacious and opportunistic, while the other is generally passive and fairly complacent, electing to respond to rather than initiate conflict. Obviously it's an over-simplification, but it's how I tend to classify things subconsciously, and not without reason. If you look at the two camps histories, especially how they elected to use their unchecked powers during inter-war periods while there was no significant resistance, you'll find that after GWI, Legion, GATO, ODN, LUE etc. essentially laid back and let the world go by, essentially how SuperGrievances is laying back and enjoying a largely threat-free existence now. On the flip side, you have the reign of the Hegemony or Initiative, where they used the brief lack of resistance to crush potential threats, be it from within or without; TI's destruction of FAN, VE, and ONOS.

'Ex Heg' is as much a doctrine or a philosophy as anything.

None the less, I agree with your analysis, I came to much the same conclusions myself. It only remains for either Ex Heg to re-constitute it's self and begin the game anew, or to absorb in to C&G or SF, in which case one will become the new Heg, and one the new... well, whatever you want to call them, really, and the game begins all over again.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Olaf Styke