Birthright-L
12-27-2002, 11:20 PM
There has been a lot of use of the term Renaissance lately. I`d like to
define how I think of this term.
When I think of the renaissance and what defines it versus the late medieval
time, it is mostly a matter of organization and philosophy. The individual
is ascendant over the group. This allows princes (I`m amiss for the right
title here - a translation of the Swedish "Furste", meaning the first man of
the state.) to reign with much greater freedom than before. This allows
domain actions like those of Birthright, which I would argue would not be
possible in medieval times.
One change that this has led to is the ascendancy of money. Princes try to
collect income in coin (not in feudal obligations), and this allows them to
recruit professional armies (as is done in Birthright). I know that others
see this differently - that these troops are feudal - but for me paying gold
to raise troops is very much a renaissance thing.
The renaissance did not bring firearms. It had early cannon (more on those
later), but the main change was the revival of the infantry as a viable
combat arm.
As has been said, cannon are the first gunpowder weapons. I think Birthright
has cannon. How else can you explain the ease of the siege rules? If you
lack artillery units or a skilled siege engineer, it takes months or even
years to reduce a castle - which is very much the way it was before cannon.
And missile fire at sea did not see much use until the advent of cannon
(with the possible exception of late ancient galley fighting). How could
those cumbersome Brecht Round ships get so high missile values without
cannon?
Handguns, international mercenaries, profitable over-seas colonies,
religious wars, nation-states - all these are not things of the renaissance
but of the next era, the baroque. I say these things should be left alone in
Birthright, except for some exceptional instances. Thus, I agree there
should be no firearms (except possibly for the royal marines of Müden).
From: "Kenneth Gauck" <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>
> Which pretty much gives us a free hand to associate what ever we want with
a
> glorious past. In places like Khinasi, that can be a new interest in
things
> Masetian, in Brechtur it can be pre-imperial Brecht culture, in Anuire a
new
> interest in imperial institutions, literature, art, aesthetics,
philosophy, and
> whatever.
We should not over-emphasize the "rebirth" theme of the renaissance. True,
it begun as a search for roots, but emerging humanism and natural philosophy
soon overshadowed that. What the ancient revival really did was allow people
to think in non-religious terms, and that brought on the rest.
So, it really does not matter what old culture you are reaching back to - or
even if there really is such a culture. The "Gothicism" movement of Northern
Europe reached back to the days of the Goths - a mythical age, and barbaric
even by mythical accounts. Not really a good model for the society that was
being build - but rather a myth to excuse the claims to power that northern
princes made at the time.
From: "Arsulon" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
> The Renaissace was the first great age of exploration. Consider the
economic and social ramifications
> of the expeditions of Colombus, Cabot and Drake.
These expeditions might have had a social impact, but their economic impact
wasn`t really felt until much later - the influx of Spanish gold belongs to
the Baroque, not the renaissance. The exception is Portugal - in many ways
an exceptional nation at this time.
/Carl
__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet pċ www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
define how I think of this term.
When I think of the renaissance and what defines it versus the late medieval
time, it is mostly a matter of organization and philosophy. The individual
is ascendant over the group. This allows princes (I`m amiss for the right
title here - a translation of the Swedish "Furste", meaning the first man of
the state.) to reign with much greater freedom than before. This allows
domain actions like those of Birthright, which I would argue would not be
possible in medieval times.
One change that this has led to is the ascendancy of money. Princes try to
collect income in coin (not in feudal obligations), and this allows them to
recruit professional armies (as is done in Birthright). I know that others
see this differently - that these troops are feudal - but for me paying gold
to raise troops is very much a renaissance thing.
The renaissance did not bring firearms. It had early cannon (more on those
later), but the main change was the revival of the infantry as a viable
combat arm.
As has been said, cannon are the first gunpowder weapons. I think Birthright
has cannon. How else can you explain the ease of the siege rules? If you
lack artillery units or a skilled siege engineer, it takes months or even
years to reduce a castle - which is very much the way it was before cannon.
And missile fire at sea did not see much use until the advent of cannon
(with the possible exception of late ancient galley fighting). How could
those cumbersome Brecht Round ships get so high missile values without
cannon?
Handguns, international mercenaries, profitable over-seas colonies,
religious wars, nation-states - all these are not things of the renaissance
but of the next era, the baroque. I say these things should be left alone in
Birthright, except for some exceptional instances. Thus, I agree there
should be no firearms (except possibly for the royal marines of Müden).
From: "Kenneth Gauck" <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>
> Which pretty much gives us a free hand to associate what ever we want with
a
> glorious past. In places like Khinasi, that can be a new interest in
things
> Masetian, in Brechtur it can be pre-imperial Brecht culture, in Anuire a
new
> interest in imperial institutions, literature, art, aesthetics,
philosophy, and
> whatever.
We should not over-emphasize the "rebirth" theme of the renaissance. True,
it begun as a search for roots, but emerging humanism and natural philosophy
soon overshadowed that. What the ancient revival really did was allow people
to think in non-religious terms, and that brought on the rest.
So, it really does not matter what old culture you are reaching back to - or
even if there really is such a culture. The "Gothicism" movement of Northern
Europe reached back to the days of the Goths - a mythical age, and barbaric
even by mythical accounts. Not really a good model for the society that was
being build - but rather a myth to excuse the claims to power that northern
princes made at the time.
From: "Arsulon" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
> The Renaissace was the first great age of exploration. Consider the
economic and social ramifications
> of the expeditions of Colombus, Cabot and Drake.
These expeditions might have had a social impact, but their economic impact
wasn`t really felt until much later - the influx of Spanish gold belongs to
the Baroque, not the renaissance. The exception is Portugal - in many ways
an exceptional nation at this time.
/Carl
__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet pċ www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.