cultural titles

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

Lets look at the cultural titles in Anuire:
Emperor
Archduke
Duke
Baron
Count
Lord

Should a baron (a title used in Germany since the 16th century for "Freiherr" meaning something as free lord) be lower than a count.

and in Brechtür:
Count
King
Duke
Baron
Baronet

Here is the problem, that the count is above the king, but this is explained with the anuirean occupation.

in Khinasi:
King
Emir
Sultan
Lord

The sultan (corresponding with the duke or king) whose resonsibilities were much greater than the ones of an emir (corresponding with count) should be above him.

in Vosgaard: O my god thats cruel :o
Tsarevic
Tsar
Tsarevos

Tsarevic means little tsar and should be under tsar.

[Osprey]

As I understand things, Baron as a title was almost definitely used by the English, and the barons were the major independant feudal lords of that realm.

Besides, Bithright never claimed to be identical to its historical sources, though it does make it even more of a confusing mess, which is pretty OK given the confused state of modern Anuire. :huh:

So has any original sourcebook ever explained why there are no kings in Anuire, yet there are Princes, and things called Royal as well as Imperial.

Here's my theory, a piece of filled-in Andu history:

The Andu were composed of a number of independent clans, and each was ruled by a King. Various wars and mutual enemies drove the the kings of the Andu to form pacts and alliances. But the early wars against the Sidhelien were fought mainly by 1 or 2 Andu kingdoms at a time, as each king tried to claim a seperate plot of Cerilian territory for himself. The onset of the great war against Azrai led the Andu to put aside their differences and unite under the banner of Haelyn and Roele (sons of the strongest of the Andu clans, Clan...?), the chosen champions of Anduiras. After Deismaar, Roele's task of uniting the Andu under a single ruler for all time was not without serious resistance from the surviving Andu kings and clans. But Roele's vision for Empire left no room for these proud kings and their eternal squabbles. To achieve unity, Roele had to crush the clans' independence and convince them that now they were Anuireans, first, last, and always. The title of King was abolished from the new Imperial strata of titles, though a son of the Emperor was still called a Prince, and the Imperial family still called royalty by many Anuireans.

[irdeggman]

Actually my theory is that the titles chosen/used (prince Avan for example) were deliberately made in order to make an attempt at giving the impression of one's higher status. For Avan it definitely is an attempt at getting to the Irone Throne. the use of the title Baron was, especially overused throughout Anuire for this effect.

It all reflects the chaos of the empire after the fall of Roele, and by doing that it works to the have the title be real fuzzy in their meaning.

[kgauck]

There are a variety of arguments that can be made here, but all of them are

attempts to save the appearances of the publish materials (not a wholey

unworthwhile excercise). At the root of things I suspect these changes are

made just to make things a little different. Annoying different one might

say. Frankly, I would prefer a wholey new system of titles to a real world

one that has been fiddled with to try and create something familiar but with

a twist.



The arguments I refered to are these.

1) We tend to look at the system of titles at the end and look backwards.

If we pick a different spot on the time line as our reference, we get

different results. If we pick the titles from the early middle ages as our

guide (pre-Charlemagne) the title of count is pretty tiny, and baron and

lord mean nothing specific applying to the great and small alike.



2) Historical events alter the meanings of titles, as mentioned above, so

that figures can have titles that are either too large or too small

depending on what happened before the game started.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Fearless_Leader]

Someone already mentioned it, but it is true that counts were generally higher than barons. However, this is not Europe, it's Cerilia. There are similarities to be certain, but they are not identical.

The Brecht for example cannot simply be called "German" or Dutch." The Brecht are their own civilization with their own history and completely different influences.

Also keep in mind that all the cultures mix and match concepts of real Earth cultures. No one culture is an exact duplicate of a real life culture.
For example, take a look at the Khinasi titles. The Khinasi are generally thought of as being Arabic or Moorish, but Sultan is a Turkish title. On Earth, a Sultan was basically the Caliph/ Emperor of the Ottoman Empire. So if we were interested in true extrapolation from Earth to Cerilia, there should be no Khinasi Sultans.

As far as I'm concerned, the similiarities between Earth and Cerilian cultures can only go so far - generally about as far as names and the sound of the language.

I'd also like to reply to the comment made by Osprey about Andu kings. The general assumption by those of us working on the Atlas is that, yes, the Andu tribes were ruled over by kings until Roele forced/ cajoled/ asked them into submission.

[Athos69]

but there is nothing that would prevent us frm saying theat "Linguisticly, XXX culture is patterned after YYY culture."

[Osprey]

I'd also like to reply to the comment made by Osprey about Andu kings. The general assumption by those of us working on the Atlas is that, yes, the Andu tribes were ruled over by kings until Roele forced/ cajoled/ asked them into submission.


Neat! It's nice when intuition leads to a good place. B) ('Cause I can't remember reading that anywhere, just pulled hints and inspirations together for a little explanatory history :).

[RaspK_FOG]

As far as I know, Counts were above Barons due to their financial supremacy most of the time; a Baron is only below the King of the realm. I could be wrong, but that's what I remember.

[hazard]

Tsarevic in Russian is prince

Tsar + (v)ic (Son of Tsar) ic is like Mc in Scotland or O in Ireland (Son of )
So I think is wrong to Tsarevic be greater title then Tsar

[Magian]

Mc is Scott? What is Mac?

[RaspK_FOG]

The correct writing for "Mac" is actually "Mc"; as far as I know, the writing "Mac" was one of the changes wrought onto the english language and idioms by the immigrants for America...

You might be surprised with the Latin writing and proper pronounciation of most Celtic-originating words; for example, in the freely online-distributed novel "The Falcon and the Wolf", there is reference of Cwldon (!), which is pronounced "Cooldhon" as far as I can tell.

[geeman]

At 10:05 AM 5/5/2004 +0200, Magian wrote:



>Mc is Scott? What is Mac?



A once fantastically successful brand of home computer?



I`d always understood Mc to be Irish and Mac to be Scottish--at least what

my grandmother told me, and she was weirdly proud of her Scottish heritage

despite the family being American for several generations before she was

even born. British heritage lingers in a family tree for quite a while...

not unlike a genetic disorder.



Gary

[Don E]

The version I have been presented is that Mac and Mc comes from 'son of' in scotish and irish respectively, and that the prefix O' is irish for 'daughter of'.

[geeman]

At 11:23 AM 5/5/2004 +0200, Don E wrote:



>The version I have been presented is that Mac and Mc comes from `son of`

>in scotish and irish respectively, and that the prefix O` is irish for

>`daughter of`.



Well... technically, Mac and Mc are both derivative of the Gaelic "son of"

with Mc really being just the abbreviated version of Mac. The same Gaelic

origin is sometimes written as Mag or further abbreviated M`. Generally,

Mc and Mac are thought of as being Irish or Scottish (and so my grandmother

would have had everyone believe) but there are plenty of Mcs in Scotland

and lots of Macs in Ireland, and several of both on the Continent, not to

mention scads of Americans who immigrated from any of those areas and had

their names transliterated or misspelled upon arrival in the States, so

it`s hard to really give the Mc/Mac origin in Ireland/Scotland much

credence. My family kept the Mac in their name after immigrating, but lost

it a generation or so on either side of the turn of the century. I was

told they dropped it intentionally after an uncle started a brewery that

used the family name prominently on the label of his beer, much to the

embarrassment of the rest of the family. I`ve always figured that was a

colorful family myth, however, and that someone just dropped the Mac at

some point to "sound more American." After all, most of us seem to like beer.



Given the vagaries of spelling and the lack of literate people up until

more recent centuries there wasn`t a real standardization of the naming

scheme by national or cultural identity, or in

pronunciation. Phonetically, Mc and Mac would be pronounced very much the

same by most readers. Even nowadays I`ve heard both Mc and Mac pronounced

"mick," "mack" and "muck" and sometimes the same spelling of the same name

gets one or another pronunciation. It`s also pronounced sometimes without

an identifiable vowel sound at all.



O` means "grandson of" not "daughter of" and is also of Gaelic

origin. Actually, O` has more of an ancestral link IIRC. That is, if

there was some ancestral figure who founded a clan the whole family might

take his name as a sort of "of the" kind of way. That is, O`Brian means

references some particular, and possibly long-forgotten, ancestor in the

same way the Mc or Mac now references some (probably) long forgotten

parent. I`ve heard some people suggest O` has more of a noble or clan

connotation for that reason, though its such a prolific convention that

such an inference is a bit of a stretch in reality.



Gary

[Don E]

Thanks for clarifying that one Gary. It makes much more sense considering how male dominated the gaelic culture appears to have been. Only goes to show you can't even trust the native speakers to know their own language :D

E

[Osprey]

That is, O`Brian means references some particular, and possibly long-forgotten, ancestor

Maybe Brian Boru (pronounced Bree'-ahn Bor'-oo, rolling the r in each), the almost-High King of Ireland from the Dark Age era - he was mortally wounded in the battle which would have united the various tribes/petty kingdoms of Ireland. Bummer.

hah hah! Found it in my Gaelic dictionary - the surname "daughter of" in Scottish Gaelic is Nic. heh, good luck finding that one in a name.

And to round out the Celtic language lesson, in Welsh I do recall that "ap" was the surname for "son of..." (such as Pryderi ap Pwyll), while "map" was "daughter of"...and again you won't see much of the latter in the patriarchal societies of Celtic Britain.

Osprey

[Magian]

It is good to know what the Mac in my last name means now. The downside is I can't say it means king anymore. (King Arthur)

[Foundry_Dwarf]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Apr 28 2004, 10:03 AM
As far as I know, Counts were above Barons due to their financial supremacy most of the time; a Baron is only below the King of the realm. I could be wrong, but that's what I remember.
Here are some "standards" from my research:

King, Archduke, Duke, Prince, and Marquis/Margrave were the highest nobility (royal blood).

Earl, Count, Sheriff (Shire-reeve), Viscount (Vicount, vice-count), and Baron were the nobility (nobility not of royal blood).

Baronette, Knight, and Baliff were the gentry.

A Duke held land directly from the king (or emperor).
An archduke was either an independant, or held directly from the emperor (possibly was once a seperate kingdom, but later added to the empire and given a slightly higher title than "duke" to indicate the greater holding).
Marquis or an Earl ruled either a shire (roughly 3 counties) or a county and tended to hold directly under the king. Earl was the highest title someone not or royal blood could hold.
A Count ruled a county and may have been appointed (they generally served under higher nobles).
A Sheriff was in charge of part of a shire as was generally an appointed position. Viscount controlled part of or assisted a count and may or may not inherit.
A baron generally held land directly from the king (or at least directly from royalty).
A baronette held land under higher nobility and was generally appointed (not inherited).
Knights and Baliffs both held manors. Knights tended to inherit, baliffs were appointed. Knights were expected to provide personal military service if called upon, baliffs were more of just overseers. In either case the amount of land was often called a "knighthold" (about 10-14 hides, aka about 1200-1500 acres).

Therefore, yes a barony could conceivably be larger than a county, or a Baron could be above a count, depending on period, interpretation, etc. For example, "Earl" (from "jarl") was common in England but not in France, and therefore in France Comtes (counts) were definitely higher than barons. In other areas the term March Lord or March Baron was used for a person in charge of a march (basically a Marquis, Margrave, or Earl) but the "official" title was "Baron". In this case a Baron is clearly more powerful than a Count. In some areas Earl and Count are just different words for the same thing (ruler of a county). Things can be very confusing and what exactly is meant by each term can even vary wildly in the same country. :rolleyes:

So, a king might have a March Baron in charge of shires (instead of counts), Counts and/or Earls in charge of counties, and these in turn would have baronettes in charge of hundreds (100 hides) who would in turn have knights or baliffs for every 10-14 hides (about 3 villages, or 1 vill). A county would be about 300 knightholds (3,000 hides), and a March (or barony) about 3 counties. A single domain unit in Birthright may be a "county" by that definition.

More to come later :D

[Foundry_Dwarf]

There are a few different ways to look at things ... from the bottom up, from the top down, or starting in the middle.

First a look from the bottom up:
At the "bottom" is the serf. He is a type of peasant that has more in common with a sharecropper of post US civil war merged with the coal-miner who "owes his soul to the company store" than any other equivalent most Americans can grasp. He may or may not have had inherited rights to work the land (copyhold), but he was required to pay if he left the land, or even if he died (to preserve the copyhold). A villein was the next stage up. He had some more inherited rights, but still was not entirely free to leave. Below the serfs were the thralls (almost literally slaves). Yeomen were the stage of peasant above villein and were free to leave. This is my understanding of peasants. Some freemen almost reached the gentry in wealth and land.

Next on the "food chain" was the "middle class". Guildsmen, craftsmen, artisans, masters (crafts & guildsmen), merchants, and eventually burghers (which could mean about the equivalent of "mayor" or refer to any towns person, depending on the source you read). These are all townspeople. Common laberors were basically the equivalent of yeomen, possibly lower.

Now we "leave" the town and go back to the country where we start with the gentry (baliffs, knights, and other "lord of the manors"). Above the gentry is the nobility and the peerage.

So we have peasants, townfolk, gentry, nobility, and peerage.

Peasants lived in villages. The basic difference between a village and a town is what it's primary occupation was. A village existed almost enirely for agriculture, a town for trade. Villages tended to be anything under 300, towns well above 300. (80-300 for a village, 600-3000 for a town). Realize that what was a city in ancient times was only a town during the early middle ages, a village during the renaissance, and almost unincorporated today. The word village may have derived from "vill", a unit of land about the same as a knighthold. A parish was also similar in size.
Therefore we have three different terms refering to an area of land approximately 8-14 hides in size and able to support peasants plus a single manor and a knight residing in said residence (or baliff ... in either case, the "lord of the manor"). Anyone who has watched Cadfael (especially "the Devil's Novice"), etc, has seen how small a manor can be (basically a longhouse plus outbuildings. Three villages were typical (4 hides each village, or about 480 tilled acres, basically up to 2 square miles per village) per knighthold. [note: a hide could range from 30-260 acres, a virgate from 8-60 acres, etc, depending on quality of land and usage]. Reeves were peasant members of a village "hired" to better control/enforce the laws, collect taxes/rents, supervise harvests, and coordinate work (peasants typically owed 3 days labor per work-week to the lord of the manor). The reeve was elected or selected for a term (generally 1 year) and tended to have an assistant or two himself (a Hayward, generally carrying a horn, to watch the fields and make sure cattle, etc, didn't stray into fields they weren't supposed to go into, and a Woodward who similarly watched/patrolled the woods). So, the knight/lord would have a representative called a Reeve, watching out for his interests for a cut of the fines and use of the lord's plow, in each village. Getting ahead of myself for a minute, shires had similar appointed people (generally a knight or a baron) called shire-reeves, or "sheriffs". The Sheriff of Nottingham could well have been more powerful than a baron and actually ruled areas including being in charge of parts of Sherwood Forest (shire-wood, IIRC).
The "lord of the manor" was usually some form of armed gentry and was allowed to carry weapons, organize troops, etc (and generally was under feudal obligation to either serve themselves, or provide so many infantry or archers, or both). Their manors were not supposed to be fortifications of any real sort unless they received special dispensation (generally only the king or ruler could grant this). The baliff was basically a butler that managed the land for the overlord (Baron, baronette, vicount, sheriff, count, etc) either when he was away or on a permanent basis (although the position was generally not inheritable, but some knighthoods were ... patents of nobility was the knight's equivalent of a copyhold, and these could be revoked).
The next step up (ignoring half-steps of Banorette or Viscount) would either be baron or count in Birthright terms. This would be one domain unit. The court for a single unit could therefore be 30-300 people. At this level the nobility were generally granted rights of crenelation (able to put up walls with crenelated defenses ... aka, they were allowed to defend themselves with other than force of arms. If still in "middle mangement" they were required to provide service, plus X knights, plus Y archers, plus Z infantry OR a certain sum of money. Some kings "declared war" simple to replenish the treasury, may a show of it, then dismessed the troops as soon as possible, just to get money due out of the barons.

Hope that helps.

[tcharazazel]

Really cool history about titles and ranking, thnx.

So to make that a little simpler it going from lowest to highest. if im not sure i put a ? at the end of the name :) Just want to make an easy list to look and copy down.


peasants: thrall, serf, villein, yeomen, reeve (who worked for local knight/lord)

townfolk: Common laberors <= yeoman, guildsmen, craftsmen, artisans, masters (crafts & guildsmen), merchants, burghers
are these 3 equal in rank? guildsmen, craftsmen, artisans

gentry: Baliff, Knight, Viscount, Baronette (or are these last 2 inbetween gentry and nobility?)

nobility: Sheriff? (or is the title just added on to a count or baron?), Count, Baron, Earl

Peerage: Marquis/Margrave, Prince, Duke, Archduke, and King (then emperor if you take it the next level)

[Birthright-L]

tcharazazel said:

> nobility: Sheriff? (or is the title just added on to a count or baron?),

> Count, Baron, Earl

>

> Peerage: Marquis/Margrave, Prince, Duke, Archduke, and King (then emperor

> if you take it the next level)



In the British Isles a Baron *is* a Peer.

The British system is, for the most part, fairly straightforward (provided

one notes that a British `earl` is the rough equivalent of a Continental

`count`). A person can add in archdukes (persons with the dignity equal to

that of the king, but who are not the king) and what-not if he so chooses.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@kallisti.net.nz)

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[Athos69]

Guildsmen, craftsmen and artisans are a bit of a misnomer. You certainly had craftsmen and artisans, but you could also have the same peoiple as members of a guild. It all depended if there was an active guild in the region or not. A Master was a ranking within the Guild system -- and was one who took on apprentices who learned their craft from him. In a Guild there was also the Guildmaster, who may or may not have been the berst craftsperson or artisan that th region had to offer, depending on how political the Guild&#39;s internal structure was.

[Foundry_Dwarf]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 6 2004, 05:29 AM
townfolk: Common laberors <= yeoman, guildsmen, craftsmen, artisans, masters (crafts & guildsmen), merchants, burghers
are these 3 equal in rank? guildsmen, craftsmen, artisans

gentry: Baliff, Knight, Viscount, Baronette (or are these last 2 inbetween gentry and nobility?)

nobility: Sheriff? (or is the title just added on to a count or baron?), Count, Baron, Earl

Peerage: Marquis/Margrave, Prince, Duke, Archduke, and King (then emperor if you take it the next level)
Things vary. Things vary a lot.

Reeve may or may not be a yeoman (could be a serf) ... it was a temporary job position (general 1 seaon, perhaps 3) and could either be elected by the village or appointed by the lord. Very common is for a previous reeve to be hit with more/larger fines the year after he was in office (the next reeve getting even or the prior reeve gotten used to being able to somewhat ignore the laws of autumn).

I seperated guildsmen from craftsmen as some guild members were not true craftsmen. The "ranks" in a guild could be laborer, apprentice, journeyman, master and finally guildmaster. Laborers may or may not be actual members of the guild, but they were generally free townsmen about equivalent to a yeoman. Masters (guild masters or master masons) were often awarded a fur-trimmed robe per year of service on a special project. This robe marked them as members of the upper middle class. When I used the word "master" as different from guildsman I was refering to guildmasters and master masons.

Sheriff is a non-inhertable title. It could be bestowed on a knight or a baron (depending on what a baron was in that society).

Barons are peerage in some cultures. Marquis/Margrave/March Lord can be another name for Baron, depending on the society and culture.

Peerage could mean Baron, Count, Earl, Margrave, etc.

There was a difference between Royalty and other Nobility. FWIR, in England, Earl was the highest rank one could obtain if not of Royal blood. Just some clarifications on a confusing subject. :D

[graham anderson]

As some one else said things vary a lot .

There is no position that could not be obtained or inhereted. The royal lines changed more than once but meny people retained thier lands and titles threw these changes. Most knights atleast in britian were not gentry and served in groups such as the kings bodyguard, army , the templers etc.

Just because someone has a high ranking title does not meen that his lands are large or rich. Houses go through ups and downs , lands are sold or confiscated by the king as well as lost in wars. Houses if they become to poor may suffer a loss of status though.

A number of titles such as sheriff were inheritable and were passed down through familys usualy for some service to the king. Saving his life in a battle etc. Some of these titles still exist in britain and are still passed down in familys.

[Foundry_Dwarf]

Originally posted by graham anderson@May 7 2004, 07:27 PM
Most knights atleast in britian were not gentry and served in groups such as the kings bodyguard, army , the templers etc.
I thought that was the difference between gentry and landed gentry.
A.k.a. a knight, squire, or even an elevated commoner could be gentry, patents of nobility, abnd such, but some controlled/ran manors and were l"landed gentry" whereas others held offices or positions and were ust considered gentry (or "knights", etc, depending if they had earned their spurs or not).

Just asking (I admit, there is still a lot I don&#39;t know and one way I learn is by asking :D )

-Dwarf

[graham anderson]

The whole problem is how much things vary from country to country and on when in history you look at things. There is too much variation with things becoming especially muddled during the larger wars. In some cases they were gentry especially towards the end of the period when knights were used. Its a bit of a cliché but the first son inherits the second becomes a priest and the third a soldier (knight if pos). There is so much variation that people should just choose what they want the titles to represent and go with it.

[irdeggman]

And all of this just backs up the state of confusion in Cerilia (especially Anuire) since the fall of the empire - everyone is trying to jockey themselves into a better position to claim or be in the &#39;in crowd&#39; for the Iron Throne. Titles have been inflated and renamed to give the impression of higher position, etc.

[Osprey]

And all of this just backs up the state of confusion in Cerilia (especially Anuire) since the fall of the empire - everyone is trying to jockey themselves into a better position to claim or be in the &#39;in crowd&#39; for the Iron Throne. Titles have been inflated and renamed to give the impression of higher position, etc.

In contrast, I&#39;m surpised Gavin Tael hasn&#39;t named himself the Archduke of Ghoere, and what the heck is Aaron Vaumel&#39;s noble title anyways? If it&#39;s Count, he&#39;s got a rather large domain for such a small title...if I were him, I&#39;d rename myself Baron or even Duke. Not hard to justify when a pitiful little realm like Brosengae has a Duchess...

[Fearless_Leader]

Originally posted by Osprey@May 8 2004, 10:09 AM
In contrast, I&#39;m surpised Gavin Tael hasn&#39;t named himself the Archduke of Ghoere, and what the heck is Aaron Vaumel&#39;s noble title anyways? If it&#39;s Count, he&#39;s got a rather large domain for such a small title...if I were him, I&#39;d rename myself Baron or even Duke. Not hard to justify when a pitiful little realm like Brosengae has a Duchess...
Gavin Tael is a cautious man. He doesn&#39;t believe in simply claiming a higher title simply for the glory of it. He wants to be emperor, but declaring himself an Archduke would draw too much attention and outrage to himself. Perhaps later, when the situation is more favorable.

As for Arron Vaumel, he only rules a colony, and one that&#39;s technically a vassal of Avanil. As a governor, it is likely that he can be hired and fired as the Prince of Avanil chooses. Brosengae, as I&#39;ve always seen it, was one of the original twelve, and thus is properly accorded the title of duke/ duchess. I&#39;ve also imagined that at one point in time, Brosengae was larger, claiming some territory up in Taeghas.

[Athos69]

I believe that Gavin Tael was either pressured into maintaining the title of Baron, or the title of Duke was denied him by the Chamberlain.

Either that, or he maintained the title of Baron to both mock the self-styled &#39;Prince&#39; of Avanil and to make people think that he is a lesser threat than he is.

[Magian]

Vaumel is a Govenor appointed by and vassal of the Prince of Avanil. This position does not require him to be noble nor do we have an indication that he is otherwise the higher rank of nobility would precede his govenorship.

Also the Count of Taeghas, only owning law in one province but rules over many others is still just a count regardless of his land size. Apparently title does not necessarily reflect realm or domain size post-empire. This would explain why even the Baron of Ghoere with a realm the size of a Pincipality remains just a baron.

[Fearless_Leader]

Originally posted by Magian@May 8 2004, 11:24 AM
Also the Count of Taeghas, only owning law in one province but rules over many others is still just a count regardless of his land size. Apparently title does not necessarily reflect realm or domain size post-empire. This would explain why even the Baron of Ghoere with a realm the size of a Pincipality remains just a baron.
Indeed.

Back on the matter of Ghoere, I&#39;ve always portrayed Imperial Law as a complicated and muddled thing. Because the the Law pretty much required the Roele Emperors to set precedent and no other mechanism was developed to change it, all manner of problems have arisen. One of these is the question of whether or not a realm can claim the title of duke if it aquires the lands of former duchies. Because Ghoere is such a large and powerful realm, the pressure from other realms and from the Chamberlain would have been to say &#39;no, it cannot elevate itself to a duchy.&#39;

[Osprey]

All of this does leave open some potential changes from 551 onward, however.

Vaumel, for instance, need only rule up Seaward high enough (L7 I&#39;d say) so that he can upgrade his shipyards and start cranking out a few galleons. As he isn&#39;t lacking for money nor the ability to decieve Avan, the only real obstacle is his ability to actually rule a province that high. Once he did all of this, well...then it would be high time to declare independence from the oppression of Avanil&#33; And at that point he could style himself just about whatever he darn well pleased. Mieres is all about naval supremacy, so it really requires him to get that navy into a position of dominating the straits and defending against anything Avan might launch against him. Not to mention the overall power Vaumel could wield by dominating trade (and piracy) in the Straits...Mieres has some awesome potential to be a dominant power in the south, though the only real lacking quality is probably Vaumel&#39;s incompetence as a landed regent and his short-sighted greed blinding him to the big picture. Nevertheless, as a PC realm where a better regent comes into power, it has some great potential.

Hah, knowing Vaumel he&#39;d probably name himself King of Mieres, Lord of the Straits of Aerele. :lol:

And for a different version of things:

In my own campaign a PC (Blaede) does play the regent of Mieres, and having a great bloodline, I decided to rewrite its more recent history such that in the latter days of Empire, a scion with a major bloodline became governor of the colony and ruled it so well and prosperously that the Emperor awarded him with the title of Baron of Mieres, making the position hereditary. The regent renamed his family name Mieres as well to reflect his elevated status, and so did the Mieres family remain in power for the next century or so until the fall of the Empire.

More recently, another Baron (Blaede&#39;s grandfather) married the High Priestess of the STN (Southern Temple of Neserie), who had a Great bloodline of Masela (the only one in Anuire, and that only if you count Mieres as part of Anuire). Their son, who became the next Baron, ruled wisely well in his younger days, raising the bloodline and Mieres itself to even greater prominence and power. He married a Dhossiere to solidify his status on the mainland, and it was soon after that he named himself Duke of Mieres. His wife bore him twin children, a boy and a girl, both carrying the Great bloodline of Masela that has become the trademark of Mieres&#39; ruling power. The boy, Blaede, was raised as heir to the Duchey, while his twin sister, Jetana, was groomed to take over the Southern Temple from her grandmother.
At their coming of age (20 years), the pair set out on a great voyage of discovery, as was the tradition of the ruling family and its heirs (and more than one heir had died in this rite of initiation, but the proud seafarers of Mieres demanded each new generation set forth and chart a new land, extending the boundaries of the known world in honor of their Masetian ancestors).
Boarding a sleek and fast caravel, the Silver Dolphin, they sailed south to explore the Adurian continent beyond the blighted Wastelands that bordered Mieres. After many adventures, some friendly contacts (though these were the exception in a mostly-xenophobic Aduria), and several harrowing escapes from death, the pair eventually set sail for home. They had been gone over 3 months, and in the meantime Aeron Vaumel, the Guildmaster of Mieres [he&#39;s too good of a villain to erase from the story, so I relegated him to Guildmaster status, tho scheming to become Duke himself], had secretly murdered the Duke and proclaimed himself Duke of Mieres. As the twins had been gone longer than expected, he convinced the people of Mieres that they had certainly died at sea or in some mishap in the evil lands of the south.

While Vaumel hoped this was the truth, he contracted the pirate captains of Albiele to make certain that if the Silver Dolphin was spotted, she would never make it to Mieres. And so, after many a trial, Blaede and Jetana are sailing home, with the first land in sight, when a number of pirate ships close in and attack&#33; So close to home, only to be boarded and overwhelmed by too many pirates. Blaede, Jetana, and 2 of their friends are saved by jumping into the sea, where the twins become dolphins and tow their two friends beneath the water to a nearby tiny deserted isle. The once-proud Silver Dolphin is burning, its crew and marines being put to the sword, its Adurian treasures looted and hauled onto the pirates&#39; caravels. A dark day for our would-be heroes...

So ends the first chapter of the Chronicles of Mieres. If someone is curious, I&#39;ll tell more, but for those uninterested I&#39;ll stop rambling. See ya&#33;

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Osprey,

That is why I have my players write up character histories so things like this can be flushed out. It provides the basis for a &#39;hisory&#39; and gives the players a stronger tie to their characters with something to base their role-playing on.

Good creativity there. :D

[Don E]

Originally posted by Osprey@May 5 2004, 05:46 PM
hah hah&#33; Found it in my Gaelic dictionary - the surname "daughter of" in Scottish Gaelic is Nic. heh, good luck finding that one in a name.

While I have not heard of Nic as a prefix to a surname, there are some girls here in Ireland who use the Nic title as part of their name. But you&#39;re right, it is not very common at all.

Cheers,
E

[Benjamin]

Originally posted by Fearless_Leader@May 8 2004, 02:17 PM
I&#39;ve also imagined that at one point in time, Brosengae was larger, claiming some territory up in Taeghas.
Ah, but it didn&#39;t. I have an file by Diesel from 1995 that shows the original 12 duchies and the lands they had. Brosengae was exactly the size it is now. So why did it become a Duchy? Perhaps through marriages or something, or perhaps it was the first realm to support Roele in founding the Empire.

[ConjurerDragon]

Benjamin schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2522

>

> Benjamin wrote:

>
Originally posted by Fearless_Leader@May 8 2004, 02:17 PM
[b] I`ve also imagined that at one point in time, Brosengae was larger, claiming some territory up in Taeghas.

> Ah, but it didn`t. I have an file by Diesel from 1995 that shows the original 12 duchies and the lands they had. Brosengae was exactly the size it is now. So why did it become a Duchy? Perhaps through marriages or something, or perhaps it was the first realm to support Roele in founding the Empire.

>

It holds the only way south of Rhuobhe to pass from

Heartlands/Southcoast on land to the Western Coast.

Considering that the Andu settled first east of the Stonecrown

mountains, it might have been an important fortress against whatever was

at the West coast before. Perhaps those annihilated Trautha from Talinie

had a much larger realm?

bye

Michael

[Athos69]

Here&#39;s a possibility Benjamin...

What is the family name of the Brosengae house? Mierelien.

What is the Mieres colony was at one time awarded to Brosengae as a reward. If the Mierelien family explored and colonized the land, that could explain the name of Mieres. Changing political landscapes could have forced Avanil to absorb the region and have a governor assigned to it.

Further, I&#39;ve always assumed that Brosien and Seasdeep and Islien were all part of Brosengae, but were stripped in the past for some indiscretion or another.

[Osprey]

What is the family name of the Brosengae house? Mierelien.

What is the Mieres colony was at one time awarded to Brosengae as a reward. If the Mierelien family explored and colonized the land, that could explain the name of Mieres. Changing political landscapes could have forced Avanil to absorb the region and have a governor assigned to it.


Interesting...I never made that connection, but you may very well be right. This might also explain why Erilen Mierlien has guild holdings in Mieres, as either leftovers from a bygone age, or an attempt to re-establish power in a place she considers rightfully hers. By the Duchess&#39; description, it doesn&#39;t seem she needs much of an excuse to make that sort of claim.

[Athos69]

it would also serve to explain why she is not very enamoured with Avan eithere....

[The Jew]

Vaumel, for instance, need only rule up Seaward high enough (L7 I&#39;d say) so that he can upgrade his shipyards and start cranking out a few galleons. As he isn&#39;t lacking for money nor the ability to decieve Avan, the only real obstacle is his ability to actually rule a province that high. Once he did all of this, well...then it would be high time to declare independence from the oppression of Avanil&#33; And at that point he could style himself just about whatever he darn well pleased. Mieres is all about naval supremacy, so it really requires him to get that navy into a position of dominating the straits and defending against anything Avan might launch against him. Not to mention the overall power Vaumel could wield by dominating trade (and piracy) in the Straits...Mieres has some awesome potential to be a dominant power in the south, though the only real lacking quality is probably Vaumel&#39;s incompetence as a landed regent and his short-sighted greed blinding him to the big picture. Nevertheless, as a PC realm where a better regent comes into power, it has some great potential.

And isn&#39;t this exactly why Darien Avan would never let any ruler of Mieres develop a level 7 province or a shipyard of that size. The threat to Avanil could be catastophic. Their is no real way a province or shipyard of that size could be developed without it coming to Avanils attention. If I was Darien I would have put out a decree a while back setting a cap on the development of any single province within Mieres beyond 5 and would inforce it with brute force if neccessary. I would also forbid Mieres from buying to strong of a navy, building a fleet to be rented out to Mieres if neccesary, but making sure that the admiral was a trusted lieutenant if not a close relation.

[Osprey]

And isn&#39;t this exactly why Darien Avan would never let any ruler of Mieres develop a level 7 province or a shipyard of that size. The threat to Avanil could be catastophic. Their is no real way a province or shipyard of that size could be developed without it coming to Avanils attention. If I was Darien I would have put out a decree a while back setting a cap on the development of any single province within Mieres beyond 5 and would inforce it with brute force if neccessary. I would also forbid Mieres from buying to strong of a navy, building a fleet to be rented out to Mieres if neccesary, but making sure that the admiral was a trusted lieutenant if not a close relation.


Wow - you redefine the meaning of "oppression." That&#39;s one viscious version of Avan you&#39;ve got there - I have a hard time imagining Avan would be so carefully protective of Mieres. Somehow I&#39;ve always imagined him scoffing at the notion that Aaron Vaumel could be any kind of real threat, and dismissing such notions as foolishness. "Mieres? The colony? I seriously doubt it."

Or something to that effect. I&#39;ve always imagined Avan sees the colony more like the British viewed the Americas - a source of revenue and production, but a backwater incapable of real prosperity and the kind of far-sighted ambition capable of challenging his power. On the other hand, the Brits did levy such severe kinds of trade and economic restrictions backed by martial force on the 13 colonies. Lucky for Vaumel he owns the guilds...also, it was those restrictions that eventually chafed the colonists into open, and ultimately successfuly, rebellion.

As Avan is an NPC with all the advantages, I think it&#39;s important as a DM to definitely be aware of and play out his faults. Otherwise he&#39;ll simply win - period.

Osprey

[The Jew]

Not at all. As you mentioned in previous posts its important that the powerful NPC&#39;s battle it out, so that they do not completely dominate the PC&#39;s. The Americans would not have had a chance against the British if it wasn&#39;t for support from the French, most importantly being naval support. Bouriene and any other seapower on the southern coast could gain from Mieries breaking off from Avanil, and so with the proper roleplaying and strategizing those navies could be used to keep the Avanil navy at bay.

The other key component of Americas independence was that they George III was either politically inept or insane, neither attribute I would proscribe to Darien.


but a backwater incapable of real prosperity and the kind of far-sighted ambition capable of challenging his power.

If mieres Actually looked like it could become only the 4th fourth realm to have a level 7 city and therefore capable of producing Galleons even a bad ruler would have to re-evaluate such an opinion.

[Osprey]

If mieres Actually looked like it could become only the 4th fourth realm to have a level 7 city and therefore capable of producing Galleons even a bad ruler would have to re-evaluate such an opinion.

Heh heh heh, so a cunning Vaumel sneaks over to Ilien, strikes a deal with Aglondier, and funds the building and support of Ilien&#39;s shipyards, so long as he can quietly make some of those galleons for himself. Likely Vaumel would slip in a Law holding for security reasons (protecting his investments), butoverall this could be a great example of successful diplomacy, a win-win deal at least in the short run. Ilien gets some big shipyards, maybe even insists that Vaumel pay some extra tribute (and/or rental fees?) for their use and allowing the galleons to anchor in the harbor as the fleet takes shape.

If Avan were smart, he&#39;d be keeping an eye on Ilien, too, but the big problem for Avan is this: he&#39;s still just ONE regent, with 3 domain actions a turn. Since Ilien itself is no threat, would he really use one of those precious domain actions for Espionage there? Not to mention El-Hadid would make it very difficult and expensive, even to set up a Spy Network.

[Don E]

Originally posted by Osprey@May 12 2004, 03:02 PM
If Avan were smart, he&#39;d be keeping an eye on Ilien, too, but the big problem for Avan is this: he&#39;s still just ONE regent, with 3 domain actions a turn. Since Ilien itself is no threat, would he really use one of those precious domain actions for Espionage there? Not to mention El-Hadid would make it very difficult and expensive, even to set up a Spy Network.
Perhaps El-Hadid is just what Avan needs. It would be of great benefit to the prince if he could solicit the guilders help to ensure Ilien and Mieres does not get too cozy. And how could El-hadid say no in return for some help in getting a share in the Mieran market?

[The Jew]

The first thing he does though is send an emissary over to Bouriene and give Aeric a chance to hurt Darien significantly. When the Illien/mieres fleet goes into action it is supported by the Bouriene fleet. Mieres covers the upkeep cost and promises trade routes, but mostly does is it just to fuck over Darien. With some diplomacy Vamuel gets the powerful NPC&#39;s to cancel each other out. The DM maybe allows things to run a little bit more smoothly then they might in real life, say ignore the possibilities of Bouriene invading Mieres, so that the PC&#39;s have a chance.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by Don E+May 12 2004, 09:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Don E @ May 12 2004, 09:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Osprey@May 12 2004, 03:02 PM
If Avan were smart, he&#39;d be keeping an eye on Ilien, too, but the big problem for Avan is this: he&#39;s still just ONE regent, with 3 domain actions a turn. Since Ilien itself is no threat, would he really use one of those precious domain actions for Espionage there? Not to mention El-Hadid would make it very difficult and expensive, even to set up a Spy Network.
Perhaps El-Hadid is just what Avan needs. It would be of great benefit to the prince if he could solicit the guilders help to ensure Ilien and Mieres does not get too cozy. And how could El-hadid say no in return for some help in getting a share in the Mieran market? [/b][/quote]
El-hadid though of course has to consider that if Illien aids in the independence of Mieres from Avanil it is already in a situation to pick a nice slice of trade from Mieres. This of course is what makes Birthright to enjoyable, the endless possibilities for different coalitions to play out to reshape the map of Cerilie, the political map at least.

[Osprey]

Perhaps El-Hadid is just what Avan needs. It would be of great benefit to the prince if he could solicit the guilders help to ensure Ilien and Mieres does not get too cozy. And how could El-hadid say no in return for some help in getting a share in the Mieran market?

The thing is, we&#39;re assuming that Avan is on to Vaumel&#39;s ambitions, and is taking steps to counter him. Vaumel&#39;s inherent nature is sneaky, so one of his real advantages inthis is doing it all without Avan picking up on it. Since Avan has a bunch of other things to worry about, like Boeruine and the Manslayer, plus maintaining or expanding his power in Tuornen and Diemed, it&#39;s hard to imagine he&#39;s going to take a break and go court El-Hadid against Mieres. This is only believable if he already has a very good idea of what Vaumel is up to, and somehow I doubt that, since Vaumel&#39;s guilds and secretive nature describe him as being very good at hiding the bulk of his illicit activities from Avan.

Besides, if Avan does catch on, it must be time to distract him with some "problem," like pirates in the Arienbae or raiders hitting the coasts of Avanil, or smugglers stealing from Daulton&#39;s trade routes. Hit him close to home, and he won&#39;t cast his gaze so far abroad, where the real threat exists.

One of the greatest uses of Espionage, which sadly my players haven&#39;t really exploited yet, is the ability to create Events in a domain. Get 2 or 3 allied regents doing this at once, and you can easily keep even big guys like Avan or Ghoere runnning around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to keep theri realm from splintering apart. The effect on lesser realms is with few competent lieutenants, of course, even more devestating.