Questions

[Sepsis]

At 04:36 PM 7/1/97 +0200, Morten Helles(mhelles@post6.tele.dk)wrote:
>
>First of all, does a trade route grant income to both source and
>destination guild holdings? According to normal economic trade theory,
>the main purpose of trading is that both parties gain something from
>trading (wouldn't it be called 'stealing' otherwise?). However, the
>BIRTHRIGHT rules don't seem to support this. Fx. Cardsheet 6 in the
>'Cities of the Sun' package states (under the 'Ilien' entry) that there
>exists a sea trade route FROM Ilien TO Rourven. There doesn't, however,
>exists an entry for 'Rourven' stating that there exists a sea trade
>route the other way? How come? Surely no guilder would want to sail
>either way with no cargo. But if income is generated at both ends, then
>how much? And does a guilder need to have a holding in either end
>province?
>

While I can't speak for everybody I know many of us have adopted the
following house rule for our games.

- -TR income is no longer based on the average of the levels of the Provinces
that are connected by the TR, but the average of the levels of the two
connected GHs, that make up the TR. Hence; a GH 2 and a GH 6, connected by a
trade route, would generate 4 GBs each DT, in addition (of course) to their
Holding incomes. If these Guilds were owned by two different Regents, then
the 4 GBs would be split
between the regents, based on their relative guild levels; the regent with
the GH 2, gains 1 GB per turn, the other with guild 6, 3 GBs per turn.

>
>Second, do any of you know if TSR plans to publish a "DM's secret" for
>the VERY important kingdoms of Anuire, like Avanil and Boeruine? I
>*really* would want such sourcebooks! Sadly, TSRs own product list for
>1997 doesn't seem to include them :(
>

I certainly hope they do something like this. It would be great.

>
>Third, just out a curiosity, how does the gods manipulate mortals in
>your campaigns? In a campaign, I which I played a Haelyn priest, it was
>doubted they even existed as no direct proof could confirm it (priestly
>magic might a manifestion of a beings own inner beliefs, and/or
>utilization of the highly magical lands of Cerilia). That proved quite
>interesting as many people (regents included) feared that godly words
>spoken to the faithful were in reality spoken by highly manipulative
>mages: just imagine what kind of havoc the Sword Mage could do, if he
>appeared as Haelyn in a dream dreamt by High Prefect Armiendin, sending
>him on a holy quest to wipe out all the Rournil priests in Medoere!
>*tremble*
>

The gods are very real IMC. Regents, Nobels, and common man alike do what
they can to keep at least a little faith in thier hearts. Although many
realize the gods have many of the same weaknessess as man so often they push
the limits of what they can get away with. I try to maintain an atmosphere
similar to that of the Dark Ages in Europe. Where man sided with his god,
but watched his own back just to be sure.

Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net

"War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
the province of life or death;
the road to survival or ruin.
It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
-Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-

BR Netbook: http://www.box.net.au/~hoss/birth.html

[Seb Berendse]

> Hi, I am new to this list. I have some questions upon which I want your
> opinions:
>
> First of all, does a trade route grant income to both source and
> destination guild holdings? According to normal economic trade theory,
> the main purpose of trading is that both parties gain something from
> trading (wouldn't it be called 'stealing' otherwise?). However, the
> BIRTHRIGHT rules don't seem to support this. Fx. Cardsheet 6 in the
> 'Cities of the Sun' package states (under the 'Ilien' entry) that there
> exists a sea trade route FROM Ilien TO Rourven. There doesn't, however,
> exists an entry for 'Rourven' stating that there exists a sea trade
> route the other way? How come? Surely no guilder would want to sail
> either way with no cargo. But if income is generated at both ends, then
> how much? And does a guilder need to have a holding in either end
> province?

I asked that queastion on the trade route income just some days back,
general answer was: give the regents on both provinces some of your
income, thus at the destination province wouln't get a full fledged
income but just some of it. I thought as you and still do, but my DM
probably wouldn't allow it.

As for the Ruorven- Ilien, I think it's a misprint and at the same
time it isn't. Probably the route originated in Ilien, thus all the
money goes there, but indeed goods flow to and fro Ruorven.

> Second, do any of you know if TSR plans to publish a "DM's secret" for
> the VERY important kingdoms of Anuire, like Avanil and Boeruine? I

not that anybody knows of

> Third, just out a curiosity, how does the gods manipulate mortals in
> your campaigns?

they just ARE, no devine intervention yet. For such a thing to
happen, one ought almost be the next right hand of the god and do
something very stupid.

Base
************************************************** ***********************
Sebastiaan G.P. Berendse
148530@student.fbk.eur.nl

There is a world just around the corner of your mind
where reality is an intruder and dreams come true.
You may escape into it at will, you need no secret password,
magic wand or Alladins Lamp, all you need is your own imagination...
************************************************** ************************

[Eric Dunn]

Actually, it's 4 times per province per year... Rulebook, page 59 under the
heading "Rule", point 1. "A province can be ruled only once per domain turn."


E
(and then you can only do 1 province per domain action, you can't do a Realm
Rule Action on Provinces...so the best you could do is 12 provinces ruled in
a year, as long as they're 3 different provinces every turn.)

At 04:45 PM 12/29/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Dragon3125 wrote:
>> On a toatally unrelated note I was wondering if their is a maximum amount by
>> which you could increase the province level in a year?
>
>12 times (rule three times each domain turn) total for all provinces you
>wish to increase.
>
>--
> Nicholas Morrell a.k.a. Narek
> cricknar@ix.netcom.com
>
>http://pw1.netcom.com/~cricknar/dragon.html
> General AD&D
>
>http://pw1.netcom.com/~cricknar/mulhorand.html
> Mulhorand
>************************************************** *************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>

[Nicholas]

Dragon3125 wrote:
> On a toatally unrelated note I was wondering if their is a maximum amount by
> which you could increase the province level in a year?

12 times (rule three times each domain turn) total for all provinces you
wish to increase.

- --
Nicholas Morrell a.k.a. Narek
cricknar@ix.netcom.com

http://pw1.netcom.com/~cricknar/dragon.html
General AD&D

http://pw1.netcom.com/~cricknar/mulhorand.html
Mulhorand

[Dragon3125]

My PCs are attempting to establish provinces on the northern coast of Aduria
and I would like to know your opinions on the following subjects if you would
be so kind as to answer them.
1. How prevalent is the humanoid population there.
2. How far from the coast are the Adurian empires
3. How would the countries in Anuire, such as Avanil and Diemed, react to the
creation of these new provinces?

On a toatally unrelated note I was wondering if their is a maximum amount by
which you could increase the province level in a year?


Thank You,
Jesse James Dean

[Geniver]

You can rule a province once per domain turn (4 times a year).
You can rule a holding once per action turn (12 times a year).

Nicholas wrote:
>
> Dragon3125 wrote:
> > On a toatally unrelated note I was wondering if their is a maximum amount by
> > which you could increase the province level in a year?
>
> 12 times (rule three times each domain turn) total for all provinces you
> wish to increase.

[Geniver]

Oh yeah, you can only rule one province at a time. Multiple holdings of
the same type can be ruled together.

Geniver wrote:
>
> You can rule a province once per domain turn (4 times a year).
> You can rule a holding once per action turn (12 times a year).
>
> Nicholas wrote:
> >
> > Dragon3125 wrote:
> > > On a toatally unrelated note I was wondering if their is a maximum amount by
> > > which you could increase the province level in a year?
> >
> > 12 times (rule three times each domain turn) total for all provinces you
> > wish to increase.

[Dragon3125]

In a message dated 97-12-29 19:59:27 EST, you write:

>
Isn't it a little unrealistic for a province to get a population increase of
over 100,000 in one year?

[Robert Harper]

At 04:45 PM 12/29/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Dragon3125 wrote:
>> On a toatally unrelated note I was wondering if their is a maximum amount by
>> which you could increase the province level in a year?
>
>12 times (rule three times each domain turn) total for all provinces you
>wish to increase.
>
I'm afraid the Rulebook says otherwise. p.59, Rule Action states only once
per Domain Turn, 4 times a year. To let a province go from 1 to 10 in under
year, even with the best rolls, would be a bit silly. I do permit that the
once per Domain turn is successful Rule, a player/NPC can try to Rule more
often if they fail, but once a province has been ruled in a given domain
turn it can't be again till next Domain turn.

__________________________________________________ _________________
| |
| We ask ourselves if there is a God, how can this happen? |
| Better to ask, if there is a God, must it be sane? |
| |
| Lucien LaCroix |
|_________________________________________________ __________________|

[Tripp]

Nicholas wrote:
>
> Dragon3125 wrote:
> > On a toatally unrelated note I was wondering if their is a maximum amount by
> > which you could increase the province level in a year?
>
> 12 times (rule three times each domain turn) total for all provinces you
> wish to increase.

You're kidding right? There are two problems with this:

1) You cannot Realm Rule Province Levels

2) The rules clearly state that a Regent can only attempt to Rule a
Province once per Domain Turn.

Now, my take on these is the following:

A regent can use 12 Province Rule actions in a year if he chooses(plus 4
more for LT actions if applicable), but no Province can be "Ruled" more
than 4 times in ayear no matter what, and failed rule actions count
towards this as well.

My personal ruling would be that a "Rule" action used to end a contest
would not count against this limit, but strictly going by the rules, I'd
be wrong.

Tripp

[Samuel Weiss]

12 times or 4 times, it's still way too much. Especially at higher levels.
You would have to depopulate adjacent provinces in a major way to achieve
that sort of poulation growth in that short a period of time. That or
cloning centers with forced growth. I would suggest a minimum time of 1
year per new level before you can try and increase the level again. Also
possibly forbidding the use of regency points to influence the die roll as
well.

Samwise

[James Ray]

> Isn't it a little unrealistic for a province to get a population increase
of
> over 100,000 in one year?
It might seem unrealistic at first, but very few regents will ever have
enough Regency
Points to actually complete 12 Rule Province Actions in a single game year.
That's not even considering the ramifications of the regent probably not
being able to keep his Law and/or other Holdings' Levels at an even par
with those Province Ratings. Could be a disaster for a player to try to do
that to his realm, so you probably would never need to worry about it. If
you ever do, though, feel free to have a whole crop of NPCs sprout up,
trying to fill the vacuum left by all those empty slots.

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Mon, 29 Dec 1997, Dragon3125 wrote:

> My PCs are attempting to establish provinces on the northern coast of Aduria
> and I would like to know your opinions on the following subjects if you would
> be so kind as to answer them.
> 1. How prevalent is the humanoid population there.

Just as a guess, I would say thin, but present. Probably disorganized,
ruled in a tribal fashion that pits them against themselves and generally
keeps them from attacking Mieres _en masse_.

> 2. How far from the coast are the Adurian empires

Once again, this is only a guess, but when I was considering expanding my
campaign into Aduria (I never actually did) I considered all the land
pictured on the Cerilian map to be "free" or perhaps with ruins of the
Adurian empire that were now essentially abandoned. I was considering the
true "empire" to be mostly located further south. Incidentally, Ian
Hoskings (I believe, forgive me if I misremember) has spent quite some
effort writing up a "Domain Sourcebook" for Aduria that he sent to this
list. You can probably find it at Sepsis's webside, the Birthright
NETBOOK.

> 3. How would the countries in Anuire, such as Avanil and Diemed, react to the
> creation of these new provinces?

I suspect that it would set off a land rush. Everyone trying to get their
fingers into the pie, touching off a new age of exploration and
colonization. Swashbucklers galore!

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[David Sean Brown]

> You would have to depopulate adjacent provinces in a major way to achieve
> that sort of poulation growth in that short a period of time. That or
> cloning centers with forced growth. I would suggest a minimum time of 1
> year per new level before you can try and increase the level again. Also
> possibly forbidding the use of regency points to influence the die roll as
> well.
Don't forget how much harder it becomes to raise a province level as it
gets bigger though. you have to add the level you are trying to attain to
the difficulty roll, and it already costs 1GB and 1RP per level..it is up
to the DM to keep the players RP and GP pool at a reasonable level to
prevet massive growth.

Sean

[Dragon3125]

Thank you all for helping me by responding to the last question on my list but
I was also wondering if anyone could give me there opinions on my other
questions................................

[James Ray]

> > 3. How would the countries in Anuire, such as Avanil and Diemed, react
to the
> > creation of these new provinces?
>
> I suspect that it would set off a land rush. Everyone trying to get their
> fingers into the pie, touching off a new age of exploration and
> colonization. Swashbucklers galore!
>
> Mark VanderMeulen
> vander+@pitt.edu

nothing, really, to add, but it might upset the Empire to the South a
little bit....

[Sepsis]

At 10:59 PM 12/29/97 -0500, Samuel Weiss(SWeissBB@worldnet.att.net)wrote:
>
>12 times or 4 times, it's still way too much. Especially at higher levels.
>You would have to depopulate adjacent provinces in a major way to achieve
>that sort of poulation growth in that short a period of time. That or
>cloning centers with forced growth. I would suggest a minimum time of 1
>year per new level before you can try and increase the level again. Also
>possibly forbidding the use of regency points to influence the die roll as
>well.
>

I've always felt that the Ruling up of a Province included much more then
just mere population. Roads are built, mines are dug, grants for land are
given, irrigation canals are laid, etc. in other words the Province has its
potential risen. The actual population growth slowly occurs over time as
people are attracted to the area, and the better conditions result in a
baby boom. Although taking the extensive nature of the works involved, I
too only allow a Province to be Ruled up once per year. Just for slightly
different reasons.


Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net (ICQ:3777956)

"War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
the province of life or death;
the road to survival or ruin.
It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
-Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-

BR Netbook: http://webpages.metrolink.net/~veleda/birth.html

[Sepsis]

At 02:39 PM 12/29/97 EST, Dragon3125(Dragon3125@aol.com)wrote:
>

>
>1. How prevalent is the humanoid population there.
>

There may be a few wild tribes, but the real danger comes from the hideouts
of the Human (and Humanoid) Pirates who use the area. There is a good
chance that there already exists an informal Province or two in the area
made up of Fencers, Bootleggers, Blacksmiths, and others who serve the
needs of Brigands. Needless to say they might not like the idea of a
"lawful government" showing up.

>
>2. How far from the coast are the Adurian empires
>

Pretty far, across a vast wasteland. It should be at least 6-9+ months by
sea. The Adurian Empire is supposedly rather large, and must have a massive
military. Since they have yet to arrive and seize Anuire it must be too far
to be within logistics. BTW, you might want to give the Netbook a look; it
has quite an extensive set of entries concerning the Adurian Empire. The
URL is at the bottom of my sig.

>
>3. How would the countries in Anuire, such as Avanil and Diemed, react to the
>creation of these new provinces?
>

Unless the new Provinces constitute some kind of threat (or wealth) they
are unlikely to care. Although Mieres is sure to want a piece of the
action. If Mieres is already involved (say the PCs are Regents there), then
this is sure to get someone's attention and not all of it good. That entire
area is a hotbox of pirating, so any action that has them joining together
as one force will cause some discomfort in the countries to the north.

Anyways all of the above is IMHO, I may be way off but I leave you to make
that decision. I hope I was some help.


Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net (ICQ:3777956)

"War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
the province of life or death;
the road to survival or ruin.
It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
-Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-

BR Netbook: http://webpages.metrolink.net/~veleda/birth.html

[Dragon3125]

In a message dated 97-12-30 23:20:36 EST, you write:

>
If I didn't want your, and evryone else's opinions I wouldn't have asked =),

Oh ues I have a few more questions too.
1.Can you have somone who is both your vassal and your regeant

2. How likely would it be for an elf wizard to set up shop in human lands?

3. Can wizards claim RP form law holdings?

[Tripp]

Dragon3125 wrote:

> If I didn't want your, and evryone else's opinions I wouldn't have asked =),
>
> Oh ues I have a few more questions too.
> 1.Can you have somone who is both your vassal and your regeant

My opinions on this are based on the whole Feudal system mind you. My
opinion is that no Regent can have more than one Liege Lord, although a
Regent can have many vassals, and to answer your question, no, I'd not
permit a circuit of any length to be formed by vassalage, it just defies
the concept as far as I am concerned.

>
> 2. How likely would it be for an elf wizard to set up shop in human lands?

There are certainly examples of it.

>
> 3. Can wizards claim RP form law holdings?

Nope

[Samuel Weiss]

1. Theoretically I suppose, but you would have to give a more specific
example.
2. The #1 Wizard in Anuiure is a half-elf. I would say it depends on the
tolerance levels of both the wizard and local populace, and the wizards
ability to hide just in case.
3. Not the way I read that rule. Only land holdings and source holdings
generate RP for wizards.

Samwise

[Sepsis]

At 10:59 PM 12/29/97 -0500, Samuel Weiss(SWeissBB@worldnet.att.net)wrote:
>
>12 times or 4 times, it's still way too much. Especially at higher levels.
>You would have to depopulate adjacent provinces in a major way to achieve
>that sort of poulation growth in that short a period of time. That or
>cloning centers with forced growth. I would suggest a minimum time of 1
>year per new level before you can try and increase the level again. Also
>possibly forbidding the use of regency points to influence the die roll as
>well.
>

I've always felt that the Ruling up of a Province included much more then
just mere population. Roads are built, mines are dug, grants for land are
given, irrigation canals are laid, etc. in other words the Province has its
potential risen. The actual population growth slowly occurs over time as
people are attracted to the area, and the better conditions result in a
baby boom. Although taking the extensive nature of the works involved, I
too only allow a Province to be Ruled up once per year. Just for slightly
different reasons.


Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net (ICQ:3777956)

"War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
the province of life or death;
the road to survival or ruin.
It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
-Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-

BR Netbook: http://webpages.metrolink.net/~veleda/birth.html

[E Gray]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dragon3125
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 1997 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Questions


>In a message dated 97-12-30 23:20:36 EST, you write:
>Oh ues I have a few more questions too.
>1.Can you have somone who is both your vassal and your regeant


That defies Common Sense, so No.

>2. How likely would it be for an elf wizard to set up shop in human lands?


Unlikely to Extremely Unlikely.

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Tue, 30 Dec 1997, James Ray wrote:

> > > 3. How would the countries in Anuire, such as Avanil and Diemed, react
> to the
> > > creation of these new provinces?
> >
> > I suspect that it would set off a land rush. Everyone trying to get their
> > fingers into the pie, touching off a new age of exploration and
> > colonization. Swashbucklers galore!
> >
> nothing, really, to add, but it might upset the Empire to the South a
> little bit....

I would hope so! There's nothing like an Implacable Foe to set heroes'
hearts ablaze! And its so much more interesting when its at least partly
their own fault. :)

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Wed, 31 Dec 1997, Dragon3125 wrote:

> Oh ues I have a few more questions too.
> 1.Can you have somone who is both your vassal and your regeant
>

Not quite sure what you mean here. You can certainly have a vassal who is
another regent, that's the whole point. If your question was meant to be
"bath vassal and lieutennant" then I think that the answer is no. When you
make someone a vassal, you are setting her up as the regent of a certain
amount of real estate (etc.) and she is quickly going to become too busy
to do your dirty work. You can certainly still work together, and she will
still owe her loyalty and fealty to you, but she now has enough dirty work
of her own without having to do some of yours each month. Not that this is
bad! Now, instead of having an ally that can do one domain action a
season, you have an ally that can do three domain actions a season. The
trade-off, however, is that the character is now a DM character, and the
DM can feel free to make her turn of you if that is in her character or if
you treat her poorly. (As a DM, I usually allow 2 of a vassal's actions to
be decided by the vassal's PC lord, but sometimes more or less. And I
allow Diplomacy actions to be have a chance of turning the vassal against
his lord.)

> 2. How likely would it be for an elf wizard to set up shop in human lands?
>

Rare but not impossible. You may wish to give it some sort of a back
story. For example, one of my players plays an elven wizard in Roesone.
His story was that his family was charged centuries ago with combating the
Spider and keeping him from ravaging the land. His family is still here
combatting the minions of the Spiderfell, even after virtually all of the
elves of the Erebannien have disappeared, because they intend to remain
true to their oath.

> 3. Can wizards claim RP form law holdings?

No. The best way around this for wizard regents is to set up a "warlord"
vassal from some trusted member of the fighter class. The warlord collects
the regency from the law holdings and heads the armies. Of course, since
vassals are DM characters, you better get one that you trust...

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[Samuel Weiss]

1.Can you have somone who is both your vassal and your regeant


That defies Common Sense, so No.>

Just as a note, it may defy modern common sense, but it never stopped them
in the middle ages. It would usually occur when someone was fostered by
someone of lower rank, then became that persons liege later on. They would
be beholden to the person who knighted them, even though that person was
their man when the knight became the king. Also the habit of giving lands
to people to tie them to you more slosely or a s agift or as a show of
wealth caused all sorts of tangled lines of fealty. Common sense? Made
sense to them.

Samwise

[Jim Cooper]

Samuel Weiss wrote:
>
> 1.Can you have somone who is both your vassal and your regeant
>
> That defies Common Sense, so No.>
>
> Just as a note, it may defy modern common sense, but it never stopped them
> in the middle ages. It would usually occur when someone was fostered by
> someone of lower rank, then became that persons liege later on. They would
> be beholden to the person who knighted them, even though that person was
> their man when the knight became the king. Also the habit of giving lands
> to people to tie them to you more slosely or a s agift or as a show of
> wealth caused all sorts of tangled lines of fealty. Common sense? Made
> sense to them.
>
> Samwise
>
Uh, if I may just step in here (there's gotta be some use for this
History Degree I've achieved ...):

About your response, Sam, I think you misunderstand some medieval
terms like vassalage, fosterage, and lordship. While your quite right
that fosterage was prevalent during the so-called Middle Ages, fosterage
implies family bondage and not feudal service. Therefore, fosterage was
used by families in order that their children could learn different
skills that the natural family couldn't teach them and/or to broaden a
family's influence in society (remember that family blood ties were VERY
important during the Middle Ages).
Fosterage was also used as a sort of 'peace agreement guarantee'
where two factions would exchange a child in 'fosterage' to ensure the
goodwill of the other family and their kin. What this did was make each
family related to each other, and was based/relied on the belief that
attacking your kin was considered unthinkable to the medieval mind
(Christian or otherwise).
Incidently, (as I adopt my scholarly professor mode) this type of
action was quite prominent in Ireland and a little less so in most
Scandinavian cultures. Can't tell you why - I suspect this happened
much the same way in other cultures, but other places that we North
Americans think of knights more commonly of (like England, France, etc.)
practiced a different technique: these societies 'turfed off' young
adults into what was called being a 'page' (boys) or 'maid-servant'
(girls) when they were old enough (in the noble class at least; and
remember children weren't considered children anymore when they reached
an age where they could meaningfully work in society (probably around 9
or 10 years old, even less in peasant society). Here the child would
learn everything that would be needed as an adult that befit their
proper station.
When the young adult reached about age 15 or so, (again I'm talking
nobles here now) most boys would enter 'squirehood', girls still
continued as maid-servants. 'Squire' is basically just a fancy word for
a 'knight-in-training' (although this didn't necessarily mean a squire
would become a knight, and no shame was lost for being a squire for
life!). Here squires would continue more detailed learning of all the
necessary skills a gentleman needed to function in society.
Anyway, to get back to your response, when a squire was knighted, the
new knight owed loyalty to that person he was knighted by (a later
development came into practice called liege lordship, whereby a knight
(who was also a *landed* vassal - never any other rank in feudalism)
swore primary fealty to one person (usually the lord who knighted him -
this being considered very proper).
Strictly speaking, a person became a vassal when he received a
grant/gift of land or a special responsiblity. But, in every case, liege
lordship came about because of the practice of sub-infeudination, where
a knight owned land (and was thereby a vassal to the person he received
it from) from many different lords (said lord owning the land from
ANOTHER lord, and so on up to the King (who, of course, really owned all
the land in his kingdom - everyone else kinda 'just' owned titles to the
land they had lordship over (not quite true, but fair enough for this
post).
Now since this vassal technically owed approximately 2 or 3 months
military service/council to each lord, I think you can see that having
more than 3 or 4 lords would be impossible without swearing primary
lordship to one person (and paying off the others in a practice called
*scutage* (a monetary fee) in lieu of military service).
Okay.
Just before I say this, I can see what your trying to get at with
this first question, but its ... not ... quite right. Yes, someone
could have grown up under a person and then *eventually* (maybe remotely
is a better word) become a lord over that person (usually by right of
birth, but sometimes through hard work ... well, hard as anyone of the
noble class had to work at any rate). But the hard fact is: once you
become a lord over someone, that person stops being your lord and starts
being your vassal!!!!!!!!!!! Its funny how that works! If it worked
the way you suggested, than the whole feudal system would have been a
sham! It wouldn't have worked! Then medieval people would've really
been stupid, huh? I mean, practicing a economic/political/social system
for hundreds of years ... sheesh!
Putting aside the notion that you would have grown up under many
people you would have called lord in your (young) adult life, the feudal
system is based on a very rigid and defined 'chain of command', one
where a person owes loyalty to everyone above him (except the king, of
course); not the other way around.
Seriously though, I think you got confused by those weird medieval
terms of 'fosterage' and 'vassalage/oath & fealty'. Fosterage is
unrelated to vassalage/lordship. Yes, a person would most likely be
beholdened to those he held in respect when they were his lords, but
they aren't his lords anymore when that person becomes a lord over
them. Therefore, a king never is a vassal of anyone else, no matter
who they grew up under or were knighted by before they became kings
(unless, of course, they swore vassalage to another king, but then at
that point they would cease to be 'kings' - even though their subjects
mights still call them one).

Sorry this was kinda long, but I hope it helps. And, really, it *is*
just common sense. Medieval people were actually quite logical and not
'dark and backwards' as many 20th century people would like to believe
(I personally think humanity's 'Dark Ages' were the 1960's to mid
1980's). Of course, this all depends on your point of view, doesn't
it? At any rate, what you were saying would be like saying my boss is
also my employee ... Or, my DM is also my player character ...

Now, THAT would be a neat trick to see ... (not to mention being
quite handy: Yea, I think mister boss-man you are going to give me a
raise this week ... yea, that's the ticket! Oh, by the way, I think I'll
dock my raise from your pay! MWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!!!!!!)

Darren Cooper

[JD Lail]

What you are really asking is this; if a lord who is a vassal suddenly
became King what happened to his previous vassal relationship. Simply put
it was dissolved and the vassal title became a crown title. When the title
was brought out of being welded to the throne and reissued (usually to a
younger son of the king) the old vassal relationship was ignored.

On the changing of dynasties;

Generally speaking Princesses were shipped out of the country to
be married. (That's why every new house in the history of England
was foreign.)

Cadet branches of the Royal House hold directly from the throne in
every case I have ever heard of.

Germany did not exist until the mid 1800's. What you are thinking of was the
Holy Roman Empire (HRE) which covered the 4 duchies of the medieval Germans,
(Bavaria, Saxony, Swabia, & (IIRC) Lorraine. It also included the Kingdom of
Bohemia (the Modern Czech Republic), Austria, the Baltic provinces, parts of
southern Denmark, Holland, and theoretically Northern Italy (South to the
Papal States). Also it included Switzerland for a while.

I could go on the with the history lesson but the point is this; the feudal
system as most of us think about it did not exist except in post 1066 England,
and whatever it conquered, France, and partially in Germany & Spain.

It never really existed in Scotland or Scandinavia, and failed
in Ireland.

The Slavic Kingdoms and Russia were IIRC, somewhat different in
their approach to Feudalism but I can't remember how they differed
for sure.

The reason for this may probably related to the fact that the Kingdoms that
were raided the most often by the Vikings seemingly had the greatest degree
of serfdom. For that matter remember that William the Conqueror, Duke of
Normandy was a direct descendant from a Viking who conquered Normandy ca.
900 AD. One
predecessor was IIRC known by the name Richard the Devil. The French throne was
happy to be rid of them . :)

L8R

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Jim Cooper


>Therefore, a king never is a vassal of anyone else, no matter
>who they grew up under or were knighted by before they became kings
>(unless, of course, they swore vassalage to another king, but then at
>that point they would cease to be 'kings' - even though their subjects
>mights still call them one).
>
Actually, there were Kings of England who were vassals, to the Kings of
France. This was after the Norman invasion, so they new Kings still had
lands back in Normandy, and were technically vassals, though I think
Normandy was in fact pretty independant from the French crown.

Daniel McSorley
mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Geniver]

I think we have strayed from the original question: can CIRCULAR
vassalage relations exist?

I think the answer is NO, and I haven't seen anyone come up with a
historical example yet!

Geniver


Jim Cooper wrote:
>
> Daniel McSorley wrote:
> >
> > From: Jim Cooper
> >
> > >Therefore, a king never is a vassal of anyone else...
> > >
> > Actually, there were Kings of England who were vassals...
> >
> You are correct; I should have said...

[James Ruhland]

>
> I think we have strayed from the original question: can CIRCULAR
> vassalage relations exist?

If by "circular" you mean can a lord enfief someone, then recieve a fief
from that same person, thus beconing their "vassal" as well as their lord?
Yes, I think that happened in the lands of the Franks; one of the reasons
the place was such a mess for most of the midieval period.
.

[Jim Cooper]

Geniver wrote:
>
> I think we have strayed from the original question: can CIRCULAR
> vassalage relations exist?
>
> I think the answer is NO, and I haven't seen anyone come up with a
> historical example yet!
>
> Geniver
>
No. There is no way that someone can be the lord over you if you are
his lord. It can't happen. Period. There are no historical examples
to prove that it can (unless someone has one .... please post it if you
do.) Have my posts been that unclear? If they were, I apologize.

Darren

[James Ruhland]

>
> As far as I recall Russia was founded by vikings who migrated up
> river before they became such a bloodthirsty bunch.
>
Half right: Russia was founded by noric (viking) Rus (Varangians)
simoultaniously with their other reaving/raiding et al. I.E. while they
were "such a bloodthirsty bunch" (which is why we hired 'em as Mercs. .
.that is, after we convinced them it was not in their best interests to
raid the City, by burning their skiffs [longships] with Greek Fire.)

[Neil Barnes]

On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Bearcat wrote:
> >The reason for this may probably related to the fact that the Kingdoms that
> >were raided the most often by the Vikings seemingly had the greatest degree
> >of serfdom.
>
> As far as I recall Russia was founded by vikings who migrated up
> river before they became such a bloodthirsty bunch.

Are you implying that before they settled Russia the Vikings weren't
Bloodthirsty? That seems a little optimistic.

Actually pre-1066 Serfdom didn't really exist in England. Anglo-saxon
peasants weren't legally bound to the land in the same way. William
introduced the Feudal system based upon that established by Charlemagne
on the Continent, which as a vassal of the King of France he had quite a
bit of experience of of.

This was despite the heavy Viking raids on the whole of the British
Isles, including the settlement of large chunks of both islands by the
Scandanavians with their flat packed pine furniture :) In fact one of
the major reasons Harold lost to William was that he just fought off an
invading Viking army at the battle of Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire,
while William was landing. Thus half his army was still marching down
south when he committed to battle at Hastings.

Scotland, not being conquored by the Normans, never had the Feudal
system imposed on it, which is why it's political system remained much
more clan based (until the scottish landowners cleared most of their
lands in the Highland clearances).

neil

[Neil Barnes]

On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Trizt wrote:
>
> It's only a myth that "vikings" where bloodthirsty created by the catholic
> church so they could frighten people to seek "protection" under the church.

Hmm. Actually at one point the Anglo-saxon kings of England paid the
Vikings protection money (the Danegeld) to try and stop them invading.
It worked as well as could be expected. Alfred the Great (famous for
burning cakes) spent most of his reign fighting the Danes, who settled
in the Danelaw - roughly modern Yorkshire & East Anglia.

Vikings also invaded Ireland (don't remember the details - wasn't Ulster
a Viking kingdom, pre-Cromwell?) and Normandy (the Norman dukes were
descended from Viking settlers). As I mentioned before, Harald fought
off a Norwegian invasion just prior to the Battle of Hastings.

> Usually the "vikings" did make trade, but it happen that they did make war on
> other people, but it was as common between the none "vikings" to make war
> upon themselves.

I think that ignoring the fact the Vikings were a pretty violent people
is being a bit naive. Raiding & Trading were pretty much of a muchness
for them. It just depended how well defended the people you'd reached
were.

I mean they sailed across Russia & via Gibralter to raid Byzantium.
They were pretty impressive at that stuff.

> The Finns who are those closest living to the "vikings" had
> litle to fear from them, many runestones tells the story why the Finns didn't
> fear those "bloodthirsty" men from the west.

Also the Viking were looking for quality agricultural land to soak up
their exploding population, which had quickly exceeded the capacity of
their homeland to support. Finland, being pretty much like the rest of
Scancanavia, would be a much less inviting prospect than Britain,
Ireland or Northern France.

neil

[Trizt]

On 09-Jan-98, Neil Barnes (nb4769@bristol.ac.uk) wrote about Re: [BIRTHRIGHT]
- - Questions:

- ->I think that ignoring the fact the Vikings were a pretty violent people
- ->is being a bit naive. Raiding & Trading were pretty much of a muchness
- ->for them. It just depended how well defended the people you'd reached
- ->were.

Vikings werent any more violent than any other european peoples, I read a
quite nice scientific article about Vikings a year ago. I twas about the myths
that the "english" church made about the Vikings to scare the serfs and lords
to obedians (spl?). One of the most spread of the myths is the plunder of the
monestary of Lindifarne. The monks did have all the treasures with them when
they founded their new monastary some years later, they had been protected by
the Vikings who did plunder the settlement not far from the monastry. Later on
the monks was amongst them who did choose a dane (viking) to become the king
of England as a thank for been protected that evening 793.


- ->I mean they sailed across Russia & via Gibralter to raid Byzantium.
- ->They were pretty impressive at that stuff.

- ->Also the Viking were looking for quality agricultural land to soak up
- ->their exploding population, which had quickly exceeded the capacity of
- ->their homeland to support.
I have to agree that the number of the germanic peoples grow rapidly, but that
did most of the other peoples too, only exceptions would be the basks (in
spain) and the Finnic peoples.

- ->Finland, being pretty much like the rest of
- ->Scancanavia, would be a much less inviting prospect than Britain,
- ->Ireland or Northern France.
Yes, it's quite the same as most of sweden, norway is more rocky... but Finnic
fure was wanted in many parts of europe, most of all maybe in Byzan. In
differnce to the rest of the scandinavians the Finnic peoples didn't travel
far for trading, the "new come" slavic peoples became a sort of stopper of the
long tradeways which the Finnic peoples had had since the stoneage.
The east faring vikings had the problem that they could be taxed by the
Cweans, Bejormans and Tavast (all three are Finnic peoples) and this was the
main reason to the aggression toward "Finland". Later on the agression got a
bit of religous reasons, but it was still that the Finnics could taxe the
swedes and novogrodians. Thanks to the xian religion the Finns was divided
into three main groups "Finns" allied with the swedes and the catholic church,
Bejormas allied with novogrod and the ortodox church while the Tavast was in
the middle with a mix of Kalevala and xianty. As the Tavasts xianity was
closer to the catholic they choose to allie with the swedes and "Finns"
1361-1362 with the supposed death of the last king of Tavastland (1360 was the
last year when any text tells anything about an independent Tavastland).

Oki, sorry about the long historical stuff here which don't really have much
to do with BR, but I think people may understand my dislike to have a "viking"
background in those areas of Rjuvik which has Finnic names.


//Trizt of Ward^RITE

-

[Trizt]

On 09-Jan-98, James Ruhland (jruhlconob@sprynet.com) wrote about Re:
[BIRTHRIGHT] - Questions:

- ->Also, while it's prolly true that the Vikings were no more violent than
- ->other europeans, during their hayday they were a lot more efficient at it.
- ->I mean, it wasn't just Anglo-Saxon propaganda. The norse helped wreck the

Yes they had much to do with things with things that happened all over europe,
but the catholic church did add alot of lies to those things which happened,
which has lived on into our time. The real bloodthirsty people did expand a
long time before the vikings, this during the days of early Rome (I hope I
didn't missremeber the age), the Celts flooded europe, but there isn't much
stories about them left how they spead all over western europe.
I just have tried to say is that the stories about "bloodthirsty vikings" are
mostly lies added to historical happenings. They did respect others and most
of all "holy" people as munks and priests.


//Trizt of Ward^RITE

-