Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    peasent uprising [was --I recan

    This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

    - ------=_NextPart_000_005D_01BE418A.D0C02C20
    Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    Memnoch wrote:

    "Remember, the peasantry in the middle ages did not have the freedom of =
    self-determination. The lived, did as they were told, and died, for the =
    most part, unless influenced by another (See Great Captain)... "

    I very much disagree. All government is based on consent. Medieval =
    government was based more on consent than modern governemnt because of =
    the interwovenness of community and leader. Leaders had to remain close =
    to their subjects, or risk frequent rebbellion. Minor problems like the =
    BR random action "rebellion" might happen one year in three. Major =
    rebellions, where lands the size of Ghoere might take up arms in some =
    common grievance might happen once or twice in a normal man's life. =
    Well administered lands governed by a legitimate regent were less =
    suceptable.

    A lord bent on innovation might spend a consioderable amount of time in =
    court defending against suits brought by his peasants. =20

    Call it the William Tell phenomena.

    Kenneth Gauck
    c558382@earthlink.net

    - ------=_NextPart_000_005D_01BE418A.D0C02C20
    Content-Type: text/html;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable









    Memnoch =
    wrote:
     
    "Remember, the peasantry in the middle ages did not have the =
    freedom=20
    of self-determination.  The lived, did as they were told, and died, =
    for the=20
    most part, unless influenced by another (See Great Captain)... =
    "
     
    I very much disagree.  All government is based on =
    consent. =20
    Medieval government was based more on consent than modern governemnt =
    because of=20
    the interwovenness of community and leader.  Leaders had to remain =
    close to=20
    their subjects, or risk frequent rebbellion.  Minor problems like =
    the BR=20
    random action "rebellion" might happen one year in =
    three.  Major=20
    rebellions, where lands the size of Ghoere might take up arms in some =
    common=20
    grievance might happen once or twice in a normal man's life.  Well=20
    administered lands governed by a legitimate regent were less =
    suceptable.
     
    A lord bent on innovation might spend a consioderable amount of =
    time in=20
    court defending against suits brought by his peasants. 
     
    Call it the William Tell phenomena.
     
    Kenneth Gauck
    c558382@earthlink.net

    - ------=_NextPart_000_005D_01BE418A.D0C02C20--

  2. #2
    Olesens
    Guest

    peasent uprising [was --I recan

    Whalejudge@aol.com wrote:

    > I disagree with the notion BR deals with governments based on consent. The
    > rule of a BR regent is based on blooded power--consent and support of the
    > peasantry is useful but not necessary. Ghoere's peasantry lack the power to
    > take the land away from the Baron. While they might very well support a new
    > ruler, a regent does not need their consent.

    Well perhaps in some cases, but not all. I wouldn't dare say the same of
    Dauren, whose levies act as Mercenary Infanty (IIRCC). Same story in other
    domains whose levies are improved.

  3. #3
    Trizt
    Guest

    peasent uprising [was --I recan

    > Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    > I very much disagree. All government is based on consent. Medieval
    > government was based more on consent than modern governemnt because of
    > the interwovenness of community and leader. Leaders had to remain
    > close to their subjects, or risk frequent rebbellion. Minor problems
    > like the BR random action "rebellion" might happen one year in three.
    > Major rebellions, where lands the size of Ghoere might take up arms in
    > some common grievance might happen once or twice in a normal man's
    > life. Well administered lands governed by a legitimate regent were
    > less suceptable.

    I would disagree with you Kenneth, the medieval "folk uprise" is quite
    uncommon, it was more commmon with a lord making rebellion against a
    leade which he disliked. It may sometimes seem that it was an "folk
    uprise" but if you examine those happening you will find a noble who
    undermined another lord and pumped in money to people who too disliked
    the noble in power, a good example of this is how councler Karl managed
    to steal part of the crown from King Sigismund of Finalnd, Poland and
    Sweden. Karl paid anormous amounts of money to make a "folk uprise"
    against Vice Ruler Flemming.

    //Trizt

  4. #4
    Craig Dalrymple
    Guest

    peasent uprising [was --I recan

    This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

    - ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01BE421E.D926BFC0
    Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


    - ----- Original Message -----=20
    From: Kenneth Gauck=20


    Memnoch wrote:

    "Remember, the peasantry in the middle ages did not have the freedom of =
    self-determination. The lived, did as they were told, and died, for the =
    most part, unless influenced by another (See Great Captain)... "

    Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    I very much disagree. All government is based on consent. Medieval =
    government was based more on consent than modern governemnt because of =
    the interwovenness of community and leader. Leaders had to remain close =
    to their subjects, or risk frequent rebbellion. Minor problems like the =
    BR random action "rebellion" might happen one year in three. Major =
    rebellions, where lands the size of Ghoere might take up arms in some =
    common grievance might happen once or twice in a normal man's life. =
    Well administered lands governed by a legitimate regent were less =
    suceptable.


    And now I say:

    I would have to agree more with Memnoch than Kenneth, In the Medieval =
    form of government, the people had no
    political power at all. The nobility held it all. The problem I have =
    with Kenneth's assertion that all government is
    based upon consent (which in theory is true) is that the rule he is =
    appearing to measure this assertion with is
    held in the hands of a man of the 1990's. We cannot judge the medieval =
    period under the moral truths and political
    belief's of the modern man to understand the plight of the peasants of =
    that time, instead we must get into the
    flesh and ideals of a man of that day.

    To have a government based upon consent you must have an educated =
    populace who knows that there are
    differing forms of government available and that they have a choice who =
    governs them. Noting the lack of
    education in those times, the average peasant did not really know that =
    government could be done in any
    other way. They may have had ideas that this king might be better than =
    that one, or that by knocking off
    a king and replacing him with another that their lot in life might =
    improve; but I cannot belive that they would
    ever get the notion of forcing a change in their form of government due =
    to a lack of their consent.

    Kings ruled with absolute power. Divine Right as a phrase was not coined =
    for the Birthright game, it was
    a cold hard reality in Europe (and many other places, such as the =
    Emperor of Japan) during these times.
    You could replace a King with another one, but you could not change the =
    form of government. A medieval
    man would have felt that as sure as there is a God in Heaven, there must =
    be a King or Queen on the throne
    somewhere. It was just how things were done.

    I use this as a basis for how Anuire is in my campaigns; and how most of =
    the other lands are at the core.
    The Blooded have Divine and Unquestionable Right to rule. You might want =
    a different King, Queen, or
    whomever to lead your lands, but you would NEVER in your lifetime think =
    of having a government that
    did not have a King or Queen, especially without a Blooded regent at =
    that.

    Of all the TSR campaign worlds, Birthright seems most built to accept =
    this reality of our history. The
    other worlds all incorporate a more modern ideal of how things are done =
    and who really holds the
    power, I'm not knocking that but I don't think it fits into the BR game, =
    it's why I bought into BR long
    before the first product hit the shelf.

    Craig Dalrymple
    craigd@mediaone.net

    - ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01BE421E.D926BFC0
    Content-Type: text/html;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








    ----- Original Message ----- From: Kenneth Gauck
     
    Memnoch wrote:
     
    "Remember, the peasantry in the middle ages did not have the =
    freedom=20
    of self-determination. The lived, did as they were told, and died, for =
    the most=20
    part, unless influenced by another (See Great Captain)... "
     
    Kenneth Gauck wrote:
     
    I very much disagree. All government is based on consent. =
    Medieval=20
    government was based more on consent than modern governemnt because of =
    the=20
    interwovenness of community and leader. Leaders had to remain close to =
    their=20
    subjects, or risk frequent rebbellion. Minor problems like the BR =
    random action=20
    "rebellion" might happen one year in three. Major rebellions, =
    where=20
    lands the size of Ghoere might take up arms in some common grievance =
    might=20
    happen once or twice in a normal man's life. Well administered lands =
    governed=20
    by a legitimate regent were less suceptable.
     
     
    And now I say:
     
    I would have to agree more with Memnoch than Kenneth, In the =
    Medieval form=20
    of government, the people had no
    political power at all. The nobility held it all. The problem I =
    have with=20
    Kenneth's assertion that all government is
    based upon consent (which in theory is true) is that the rule he is =

    appearing to measure this assertion with is
    held in the hands of a man of the 1990's. We cannot judge the =
    medieval=20
    period under the moral truths and political
    belief's of the modern man to understand the plight of the peasants =
    of that=20
    time, instead we must get into the
    flesh and ideals of a man of that day.
     
    To have a government based upon consent you must have an educated =
    populace=20
    who knows that there are
    differing forms of government available and that they have a choice =
    who=20
    governs them. Noting the lack of
    education in those times, the average peasant did not really know =
    that=20
    government could be done in any
    other way. They may have had ideas that this king might be better =
    than that=20
    one, or that by knocking off
    a king and replacing him with another that their lot in life might =
    improve;=20
    but I cannot belive that they would
    ever get the notion of forcing a change in their form of government =
    due to=20
    a lack of their consent.
     
    Kings ruled with absolute power. Divine Right as a phrase was not =
    coined=20
    for the Birthright game, it was
    a cold hard reality in Europe (and many other places, such as the =
    Emperor=20
    of Japan) during these times.
    You could replace a King with another one, but you could not change =
    the=20
    form of government. A medieval
    man would have felt that as sure as there is a God in Heaven, there =
    must be=20
    a King or Queen on the throne
    somewhere. It was just how things were done.
     
    I use this as a basis for how Anuire is in my campaigns; and how =
    most of=20
    the other lands are at the core.
    The Blooded have Divine and Unquestionable Right to rule. You might =
    want a=20
    different King, Queen, or
    whomever to lead your lands, but you would NEVER in your lifetime =
    think of=20
    having a government that
    did not have a King or Queen, especially without a Blooded regent =
    at=20
    that.
     
    Of all the TSR campaign worlds, Birthright seems most built to =
    accept this=20
    reality of our history. The
    other worlds all incorporate a more modern ideal of how things are =
    done and=20
    who really holds the
    power, I'm not knocking that but I don't think it fits into the BR =
    game,=20
    it's why I bought into BR long
    before the first product hit the shelf.
     
    Craig Dalrymple
    craigd@mediaone.net

    - ------=_NextPart_000_0027_01BE421E.D926BFC0--

  5. #5
    Pieter Sleijpen
    Guest

    peasent uprising [was --I recan

    Olesens wrote:
    >
    > Whalejudge@aol.com wrote:
    >
    > > I disagree with the notion BR deals with governments based on consent. The
    > > rule of a BR regent is based on blooded power--consent and support of the
    > > peasantry is useful but not necessary. Ghoere's peasantry lack the power to
    > > take the land away from the Baron. While they might very well support a new
    > > ruler, a regent does not need their consent.
    >
    > Well perhaps in some cases, but not all. I wouldn't dare say the same of
    > Dauren, whose levies act as Mercenary Infanty (IIRCC). Same story in other
    > domains whose levies are improved.

    Several of the Brechtur nations are very simular to democracies. Dauren
    for example has got a council of five people, who are chosen by the
    people of Dauren. I got the feeling from the description that the
    influence of the council on Colier Caernson is rather big. Muden also
    has got a council, who elects from several families the ruler of Muden.
    They also elect mayors and the like.

    The Vos rule by might, so a Vos ruler should have to concent of his
    subjects. Else he will be faced by one challenge after the other.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.