Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    peasent uprising [was --I r

    Consent means voluntary allowance of what is planned or done by another. It
    does not mean active support. It does mean the absense of resistance.

    Its not a question of overturning a regent. Its a matter of lots of
    "nusiance" random events, esp rebellion and bandits, and those which suggest
    a discontented peasantry. While no single difficulty is a real problem,
    they add up and weaken the regent. Consider how in Shakespear (very period)
    unable or illegitimate kings (Richard II, Henry IV, Richard III) have alot
    of bad luck, and their throne seems shaky. Henry IV was an able man, and
    his usupation replaced an obviously inferior king (Richard II). But
    Hentry's throne was never seccure (lots of diversionary random events
    draining away his resouerces). Henry V, though decended from a usurper, was
    himself legitimate and very able, hence good fortune was his hallmark. And
    so on.

    Kenneth Gauck
    c558382@earthlink.net

    - -----Original Message-----
    From: Whalejudge@aol.com
    To: birthright@MPGN.COM
    Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 10:04 PM
    Subject: Re: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - peasent uprising [was --I recant (sort of)]


    >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.
    >************************************************* **************************
    >>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
    >

  2. #2
    Jeff Dunnett
    Guest

    peasent uprising [was --I r

    Remember that peseants, don't just have to rebel because they hate the
    ruler. They can rebel for a number of different reasons, food
    shortages, poor treatment from the nobility, and constantly fighting
    in wars that they are losing. A perfect example of this is the French
    Revolution. The people of France loved their King. Louis XVI was
    known as "Louis the Well Beloved". The revolution was lead by the
    middle class who manipulated the peseants. All the leaders of the
    revolution wanted was an end to priviledge. All I wanted to say was
    that, not all rebellions are against the King.
    Another thing I might, and it has to do with the subject of
    troops and law. The French Revolution would not have been succesfull
    if the army hadn't supported the revolution. So it makes perfect
    sense that if you have a number of troops you have an affect on the
    loyalty of a province.

    Just my two cents.

    Jeff




    - ---Kenneth Gauck wrote:
    >
    > Consent means voluntary allowance of what is planned or done by
    another. It
    > does not mean active support. It does mean the absense of resistance.
    >
    > Its not a question of overturning a regent. Its a matter of lots of
    > "nusiance" random events, esp rebellion and bandits, and those which
    suggest
    > a discontented peasantry. While no single difficulty is a real
    problem,
    > they add up and weaken the regent. Consider how in Shakespear (very
    period)
    > unable or illegitimate kings (Richard II, Henry IV, Richard III)
    have alot
    > of bad luck, and their throne seems shaky. Henry IV was an able
    man, and
    > his usupation replaced an obviously inferior king (Richard II). But
    > Hentry's throne was never seccure (lots of diversionary random events
    > draining away his resouerces). Henry V, though decended from a
    usurper, was
    > himself legitimate and very able, hence good fortune was his
    hallmark. And
    > so on.
    >
    > Kenneth Gauck
    > c558382@earthlink.net
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Whalejudge@aol.com
    > To: birthright@MPGN.COM
    > Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 10:04 PM
    > Subject: Re: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - peasent uprising [was --I recant
    (sort of)]
    >
    >
    > >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.
    >
    >************************************************* **************************
    > >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with
    the line
    > >'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
    > >
    >
    >> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with
    the line
    > 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
    >

    __________________________________________________ _______
    DO YOU YAHOO!?
    Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. peasent uprising [was --I recan
    By Kenneth Gauck in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-17-1999, 10:37 PM
  2. peasent uprising [was --I
    By Whalejudge@aol.co in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-17-1999, 03:50 AM

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.