Thrakkath and Revenge

[Stefano-M]

It really doesn't matter who really deserves the credit for the victory. Gilkarg planed and commanded the attack. The glory was his to take.

Ahh but it surely does matter. Remember, we're discussing why he got executed, and what effect that "great victory" would have had.

Thinking as the Emperor, if you feel that Gilkarg got lucky one time thanks to a new development and the enemy's stupidity/lack of preparation, and then proceeded to screw up finishing said enemy off for 20 years, would you keep him around? Also keep in mind that even with that one bright spot, Gilkarg still failed. He promised a swift knockout punch. He delivered a costly and prolonged war.

What post war cats could say about the war in hindsight woudn't weight on a decision taken 20 years into the war...

Perhaps; but given that they're still at war 20 years later with no end in sight, it can't have been that great of a victory.

Then, the blame should go to the Emperor. It was the Emperor who ordered Gilkarg to stand down and not press the advantage in McAuliffe's aftermath. That was exactly what Confed needed to get back on its feet.

There was 20 years between McAuliffe and Gilkarg getting executed. Certainly you don't think that the decision to stand down after getting bloodied badly at McAuliffe is the only reason that the Kilrathi were locked in a stalemate?

 

[Bandit LOAF]

The bitter irony is that it was the Emperor's own decision, after being intimidated by the fierceness of the Confed counter-attack, to not follow up that initial attack with the push to Earth that would win them the war in 2634.

And even without that, Gilkarg's plan was considered the greatest victory in the history of the Empire. I find it difficult for it to be viewed in a bad light by the Kilrathi, even after 20 years of stalemate.

The question isn't whether or not it was a great victory, though - the question is whether or not it was a great victory to *The Emperor*. He's the one who was promised that the war would be won in a swift blow... and he's the one who was so horrified by losses that he ordered the withdraw. He clearly wasn't happy with the job Gilkarg was doing... and twenty years of failed offensives can't have improved his opinion of his son.

(I would also question the greatest victory quote, too... after all, we know from Voices of War that the Kilrathi court historians consider everything from Firekka to their failure to retake Ghorah Khar to be great victories. Some immediate territorial gain is eventually going to be couterbalanced by seven trillion Kils who end up dying as a result...)

It really doesn't matter who really deserves the credit for the victory. Gilkarg planed and commanded the attack. The glory was his to take.

And I would agree that the Emperor did not have the clout to execute Gilkarg for his failures in 2634... but I can think of half a dozen debacles since that time that we know about - and it's a period of WC history that isn't very well explored. There's the Enyo/McAuliffe Engagement, the Epsilon Campaign, the attack on Earth, pushes against Vega in 2644 and 2654 which ultimately ended with a complete withdraw from the sector... losing the Sivar wasn't the whole story.

Then, the blame should go to the Emperor. It was the Emperor who ordered Gilkarg to stand down and not press the advantage in McAuliffe's aftermath. That was exactly what Confed needed to get back on its feet.

We're talking about who the Emperor should blame, though - and I'm fairly sure he's not about to execute himself. Even in our society we don't have Presidents resigning for military failures... we have them replacing their head generals.

 

[Sycrusian]

Ahh but it surely does matter. Remember, we're discussing why he got executed, and what effect that "great victory" would have had.

Thinking as the Emperor, if you feel that Gilkarg got lucky one time thanks to a new development and the enemy's stupidity/lack of preparation, and then proceeded to screw up finishing said enemy off for 20 years, would you keep him around? Also keep in mind that even with that one bright spot, Gilkarg still failed. He promised a swift knockout punch. He delivered a costly and prolonged war.

Promises at the start of a war are thrown to the winds as soon as the enemies have their say about it. The Emperor understood that. He himself had fought a war (against the Varni) that had been way more difficult than anticipated. And, as I said, he himself took the decision of not following with the knockout punch.

Perhaps; but given that they're still at war 20 years later with no end in sight, it can't have been that great of a victory.

Why not? The nazis had many devastating victories at the start of WW2, and even so, they lost the war. Gilkarg's strike had obliterated the core of Confed's Navy and gained the Kilrathi more territory than they had ever gained in a single engagement. It's a fantastic victory by any standards. Unless, for you, the only definition of "great victory" is "defeating the enemy outright".

There was 20 years between McAuliffe and Gilkarg getting executed. Certainly you don't think that the decision to stand down after getting bloodied badly at McAuliffe is the only reason that the Kilrathi were locked in a stalemate?

No, I'm certain that the only reason the Kilrathi got locked in that stalemate was because Confed was more than a match for them!

 

[Sycrusian]

Oh, dang it! Sorry, people, I got carried away in the argument... I started questioning why Thrakhath wasn't executed, and ended up questioning why Gilkarg was executed...

Well, to clear things up, you all are right when you say that 20 years of failure merited Gilkarg's execution, and I'm sorry I said anything in contrary.

But then, does that mean that Thrak wasn't executed because he only failed miserably for 10 years? He still had 10 more years of "clearance" before it came due and gramps brought him the execution squad?

Or was Thrak spared just because he was the only one the Emperor could trust wouldn't subscribe to those novel ideas of "removal of unconvenient people" some cats were getting from their foes?

 

[Stefano-M]

Do we really have that much information of what happened between WC1 and 2, which would be most of those years Thrakhath was in control? Can't really say how many failures there were.

Beyond that, he inherited a relatively poor situation. The empire spent a heck of a lot of resources in 20 years of warfare. Its not like he could just turn it around in six months.

He implemented a plan (Hakaga), but it took time. Ultimately, had Blair not dropped the bomb, he would have succeeded.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Well, I'd make a few points:

* Thrakhath's 14 years in charge of the war weren't marked by failure in the same manner as Gilkarg's 21 years. He did lose at Firekka and then suffered major reversals starting in 2667... but he also retook territory in the Vega Sector, he captured all of Deneb in a spectacular offensive, he stayed on the offensive at Enigma for nine years and after losing at K'Tithrak Mang he launched a succesful campaign that re-established the Empire there.

* As noted already, Thrakhath wasn't responsible for setting up the pieces in the same manner as Gilkarg (and The Emperor). That's an important consideration when you're deciding how lenient to be regarding military failures (especially at Firekka, mere months after taking over the war effort). There's not the same 'you got us into this mess and you're not getting any better' stigma.

* By the time Thrakhath was having serious problems it may have been too late to groom anyone to replace him. The Emperor expected to die (of old age) within the year in 2669. It was probably also preferable to have a direct heir rather than selecting a cousin and risking intercene conflict regarding the choice. Thrakhath had also proved himself unfailingly loyal. One of Thrakhath's first initiatives was to consolidate power for the Kiranka clan... and when support fell away towards the end, Thrakhath stayed completely loyal to his grandfather.