Belisarius Group

G

Greywolf

Rear Admiral
Tolwyn and his dealings with the Belisarius Group could be gone into with more detail, as could the backgound of the BL. There's definately more story there.
Click to expand...

This is something that has confused me for a while. It seems to me that in False Colors, Tolwyn was afraid of the Belsarius Group. However, isn't the Black Lance a product of said group? Could someone shed some light on this?
 
They *were* a real conspiracy -- but Tolwyn wasn't the innocent he pretended to be to Jason and company... he was *using* Belisarus to further his own conspiracy (which we all know about <G>). He explains that in FC...
 
It's been a while since I have read the novel, but doesn't he also mention that "someone would have to make sure such things [i.e. war probably, or Confed getting caught unprepared] never happened again"?

A hint for the following "the Price of Freedom is eternal vigilance" idea...

[Edited by mpanty on 06-11-2001 at 18:51]
 
Yeah... my memory's fading... I remember he even mentions Seether! :)

Though, if I'm not mistaken, I think False Colors was written *after* The Price of Freedom (though in the time-line, it obviously takes place before), because I saw the ad for the upcoming "Wing Commander movie" on the cover of False Colors...

Hence it was easy for the author to "hint" at the Belisarius project (and the Black Lance), knowing how the story would develop... :)
 
More or less -- it was pretty much written at the same time... and then re-written and published much later.
 
Hmmm, the way I saw the Belisarius Group ordeal was that the Belisarius Group was developing the GE stuff, but somehow Tolwyn defeated this group and took the GE project for himself. Am I way off? :)
 
Yes, way, way off...

Bel. was a group of military officers planning to start a war so they could launch a coup and take power over the government... a purely personal thing, very different from Tolwyn's project.
 
Sorry, but I always thought that the name Belisarius was kinda silly. It sounds like something from the Mesazoic era or something...extinct. :D
 
Or maybe it sounds something like a Byzantine general who served under Emperor Justinian I and led campaigns against the barbarians in North Africa and Italy?:)

Seems like a good name to me.
 
The real irony is that Belisarius' campaigns eventually brought about the end of the Byzantine Empire, by draining its treasury. Not quite the right symbol for a group who believe they're acting for Confed's own good :).
 
Aaargh!!

LeHah: How dare you insult the name of one of the finest generals in history!? :mad: Also there were two Byzantine emperors by name of Justin and neither of them were particularly admirable.

Earthworm: Damn straight!

Quarto: Belisarius was by no means the cause of the end of the Byzantine Empire. If you're going to blame someone you should blame Justinian I. He's the one who went and ordered the invasion of North Africa and Italy. It was his dream to recreate the old Roman Empire. Belisarius was a general who temporarily earned the emperor's trust. In one year he more or less conquered the old Roman province in modern day Tunisia. Over the next couple of years he made plenty of progress in Italy.
The reason these campaigns drained the empire's fiscal reserves include the following:
A) Justinian overspent on massive building programmes, including the Hagia Sophia Church. Obviously Belisarius had no say in this.
B) Justinian insisted on invading people who were not an immediate threat to the Byzantine Empire. When it came to dealing with people who were a threat to the empire he preferred to bribe them to go away. Again Belisarius had nothing to do with that.
C) Justinian was no general. He didn't have a problem with fighting on multiple fronts. Multiple wars obviously place a burden on the treasury.
D) Justinian didn't trust Belisarius. Resultantly he shuttled that general between Italy and Syria, thus preventing Belisarius from getting anything done.
E) Justinian insisted on constantly dividing the military commands between different generals. Consequentially no other general was able to achieve lasting success. Hence the wars dragged on.

Finally the Byzantine Empire lasted to the year 1453. Justinian and Belisarius died in 565. That's an 888 year difference. Neither man is truly too blame for the empire's final collapse. However Justinian's policies definitely contributed to the disasters of the seventh century. Again though the incompetence of certain emperors that succeeded Justinian had a greater impact on those disasters than Justinian.
 
Yes, Penguin, I was aware of the fact that generals as a rule do not decide what they're going to do :). I was not trying to blame Belisarius. I was merely pointing out the irony in choosing a man (as a symbol) for his victories, without considering that those victories were defeats in the long-term (through no fault of Belisarius, yes). Unless of course they actually chose the name because his successes were always limited by the civilian government.
 
Yeah... they chose Belisarius because they believed he *should* have taken power from the incompetent emperor...
 
Well this makes sense. Tolwyn prevent a coup by trying to causing a war. Anyone else see a problem with this?
 
Originally posted by Penguin
Aaargh!!

LeHah: How dare you insult the name of one of the finest generals in history!?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I need to brush up on my ancient history.
Don't pop a blood vessel, though I understand your
anger. I'd get the same way if someone treated MacArthur
the same way. :mad:

[Edited by LeHah on 06-12-2001 at 09:17]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top