Border Worlds Conflict

Aeronautico

Rear Admiral
How long did the Border Worlds Conflict last? I know it reached its climax in 2673 and ultimately its end, but didn't go on since 2670 or 2671? According to the CIC Encyclopedia, the Black Lance were wreaking havoc long before 2673. I don't know if this is true, considering I do not have the novelization. Can someone clear this up for me?
 
Wing Commander IV takes place over two weeks in 2673, but the 'Border Worlds' attacks began earlier (I think 2671 is the earliest mentioned?) and became more serious as time went on.
 
I agree with you. The encyclopedia indicates that ship incidents like the Amadeus incident were occurring as early as 2671, a mere two years after the war ended. I know not everything in the encyclopedia is considered totally accurate, but that served as my only credible indication.

Since we're on the topic, do we know when Tolwyn officially activated the Black Lance?
 
Since we're on the topic, do we know when Tolwyn officially activated the Black Lance?

My read, from False Colors, is that it begins in early-2669, in the days after the Battle of Earth. Tolwyn explains that he learned about a planned coup from an alliance of powerful military officers called the Belisarius Group. This was what inspired him to launch Behemoth early, to win the war as quickly as possible. He then claims to have learned that the conspiracy is still going on, plotting against the civilian government even in peacetime.

At the end of the book we learn, of course, that there's another layer to all this. Belisarius was a convenient cover for Tolwyn's own conspiracy - he used "fighting" the coup as a means to organize the Black Lance elements, to build power in various places and to shift personnel around (he moves his nephew and Bear to the safety of the Landreich in preparation for what is going to happen). (Belisarius *did* exist; we see its various members and their plans in False Colors, none of whom seem to know they're being used as a cover for the Black Lance).
 
Yes, I heard of the Belisarius Group. So, they were ultimately used as an excuse to initiate the Black Lance and eventually that culminated in the Border Worlds conspiracy (Along with ending a losing war). Well played, Tolwyn.

Who are the main commanders of Belisarius, what was their fate, and where does "Belisarius" come from?
 
I have an additional question: There technically is no official name for this conflict. What would be an appropriate name for it? I am preparing to write an article on WCPedia.
 
I have an additional question: There technically is no official name for this conflict. What would be an appropriate name for it? I am preparing to write an article on WCPedia.

There are two incomplete articles on it already, Border Worlds Conflict and Border Worlds Crisis. Both conflict and crisis are apt terms, I'm not sure which to side with, but it should probably be one of those.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Border Worlds Conflict article is a newly-written article of my making. It is still in the works so I may not have all facts straight. I shall amend any inaccuracies that arise. I may change the name later if I deem it necessary.

But seriously, where did the name Belisarius come from?
 
Who are the main commanders of Belisarius, what was their fate, and where does "Belisarius" come from?

Tolwyn says his initial contact claimed that "important officers, men like DuVall and Murasaki" were behind the conspiracy; of course, that's the only time we ever hear those names...

I have an additional question: There technically is no official name for this conflict. What would be an appropriate name for it? I am preparing to write an article on WCPedia.

The Wing Commander Prophecy guide calls it the Border Worlds Conflict and notes that it is 'also known as' the Black Lance Affair. (I think it's rare for conflicts to have "official" names; different sides call them different things.)

IIRC, it's mentioned in false Colours that it was the name of a Roman General who had support of the troops and Senate but was executed before he could take power.

Not quite; he was an enormously successful General who had that support... but who chose *not* to march on Rome and take the Empire for himself. The conspiracy group is supposedly reminding themselves of his 'failure' with the name.
 
The Wing Commander Prophecy guide calls it the Border Worlds Conflict and notes that it is 'also known as' the Black Lance Affair. (I think it's rare for conflicts to have "official" names; different sides call them different things.).

~~~, as evidenced by the American Civil War - imagine if the North had lost, it would have been the War of Confederation Independence!
 
~~~, as evidenced by the American Civil War - imagine if the North had lost, it would have been the War of Confederation Independence!

Does anyone else ever explain Wing Commander to people and get a weird look when they first mention Confed or the Confederation, out of curiosity?
 
Does anyone else ever explain Wing Commander to people and get a weird look when they first mention Confed or the Confederation, out of curiosity?

I've never met anyone who will talk to me or let me talk about Wing Commander.

You guys on the 'pedia project need to talk seriously about how to label battles. The Battle for Kilrah, for example, is listed as the battle of Kilrah, but it should really be labeled as the First Battle of Kilrah because the Second Battle of Kilrah would be the Temblor bomb incident, unless that's an engagement instead. BUT on top of that you have to decide if it's the Battle of Kilrah and all of the lead up battles at the various nav points count as individual battles or simply smaller engagements over the course of a battle...

..and yeah. See, this is why I don't work on 'pedia projects. But seriously, you should give some thoughts as to how to name battles/incidents.
 
~~~, as evidenced by the American Civil War - imagine if the North had lost, it would have been the War of Confederation Independence!

Does anyone else ever explain Wing Commander to people and get a weird look when they first mention Confed or the Confederation, out of curiosity?

That's *Confederate* (from Confederate States of American, or the Confederacy); Wing Commander would be more likely confused with the United States' first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. (Wing Commander does use Confederate as the noun very, very rarely...)

You guys on the 'pedia project need to talk seriously about how to label battles. The Battle for Kilrah, for example, is listed as the battle of Kilrah, but it should really be labeled as the First Battle of Kilrah because the Second Battle of Kilrah would be the Temblor bomb incident, unless that's an engagement instead. BUT on top of that you have to decide if it's the Battle of Kilrah and all of the lead up battles at the various nav points count as individual battles or simply smaller engagements over the course of a battle...

Both defining and naming battles is something done by the participants, and something that will often be contradictory (staying close to the above Civil War discussion, the Confederacy usually named battles after the nearest town while the Union tended to name them after nearby bodies of water... we still use both, frequently -- Antietam/Sharpsburg, Bull Run/Manassas, etc.)

We know that there's a "Second Battle of Kilrah" because the Secret Ops fiction says so... beyond that, it's harder to say what's what. A "battle" is usually something that involves a significant force and an amount of applied strategy; one fighter wing encountering another on patrol is a skirmish and not a battle.

The 'Battle of Kilrah' can probably be called either thing; historians do attach a 'first' to things later on with general impunity (First World War, First Battle of Manassas, etc.)... but no one would have been calling it /First/ Kilrah in 2669*.

* - Unless, of course, the first one is the Tarawa's attack and the second one is the Temblor run... in which case...
 
That's *Confederate* (from Confederate States of American, or the Confederacy); Wing Commander would be more likely confused with the United States' first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. (Wing Commander does use Confederate as the noun very, very rarely...)

It still causes confusion for a moment when you first say it, oftentimes...
 
The 'Battle of Kilrah' can probably be called either thing; historians do attach a 'first' to things later on with general impunity (First World War, First Battle of Manassas, etc.)... but no one would have been calling it /First/ Kilrah in 2669*.

* - Unless, of course, the first one is the Tarawa's attack and the second one is the Temblor run... in which case...

The article in question is in regards to the Tarawa raid. I do not think the T-bomb run/raid qualifies itself as a major battle, but certainly a pivotal event that needs to be inserted and labeled correctly. That article is also from a while back when I had devoted myself to trying to hammer out some of the major battles (see my TEMP battles page). We can easily add the year/date to the end of these type of articles if it will help clear things up. Just a matter of figuring out what we all believe works best.

Jason, you need to remember that we are still very much a work in progress and that we can change things as we move along. Article names are not permanent (just look at the number changed already, it's pretty large).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jason, you need to remember that we are still very much a work in progress and that we can change things as we move along. Article names are not permanent (just look at the number changed already, it's pretty large).

I know, I'm as torn on the issue as anyone else, as evidenced by my post. I'm inclined to say it should be the second battle, but that's just my opinion.

The 'Battle of Kilrah' can probably be called either thing; historians do attach a 'first' to things later on with general impunity (First World War, First Battle of Manassas, etc.)... but no one would have been calling it /First/ Kilrah in 2669*.

Hmmm, well that's interesting. I was rather under the impression that the wiki was being worked on from a 2701 perspective (Don't ask me why, I actually read the rules yesterday and it clearly states it's the 29th century). At any rate, by the 29th century it certainly wouldn't still be the first battle.

I am curious now if that Battle of Kilrah reference is to the Temblor bomb...this is all a bit to heady for me, which is why, as I stated, I don't work on 'pedia projects.
 
I know, I'm as torn on the issue as anyone else, as evidenced by my post. I'm inclined to say it should be the second battle, but that's just my opinion.

The T-bomb run isn't really a battle though. It's a single strike wing entering the system to deliver one bomb. We don't call it the Battle of Hiroshima or Nagasaki when the a-bombs were dropped.


I am curious now if that Battle of Kilrah reference is to the Temblor bomb...this is all a bit to heady for me, which is why, as I stated, I don't work on 'pedia projects.

The Battle of Kilrah entry is specifically talking about the first major Confed penetration to the Kilrah system.

I would think of the T-bomb run as more of a raid/bombing run and not an outright battle. The ending sequences in WCP can certainly (and rightly) be considered the Second Battle of Kilrah. There we have two major forces engaging in a prolonged struggle for control of the system.

And I don't see why you wouldn't work on the project, you've got some technical knowhow that would come in handy on fleshing out ship entries and other aspects that I know I certainly could not handle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top