Avanil

[kgauck]

The Imperial arms that Roele wears on the DM screen and other original material is parti-per pale Gules and Argent, an Imperial eagle Or, a serpent proper in its talons.

The arms of Anuire from the map of Anuire show Or, an Imperial eagle Gules, a serpent proper in its talons. There is no crown of honor. The difference in Micheal Roele's arms may have been his personal arms, Anuire differenced as so.

Anuire is Or, an Imperial eagle Gules, a serpent proper in its talons.

Avanil is Gules, an Imperial eagle, Or.

[Jaleela]

C'est vrais. There are definitely inconsistencies in armory.

Other examples:

Rule Book from the boxed set parti-per pale gules and argent, an imperial eagle or (this is the same image of the Roele from the DM screen and the Novel the Iron Throne).

Same cover: the banner is an argent and imperial eagle gules, holding a snake it its talons, a gold border over all.

The Conspectus: Or, and imperial eagle gules, a serpent proper.

The only other representation I've noticed is in the Sword and the Crown Adventure. It's a black and white drawing with shows crowns on the fields of the shields, but not above as they are on the conspectus. Given that the adventure deals with two major NPCs, it is probably supposed to represent Avan since the other is Boeruine.

Observation:

Typically, the banner of the Sovereign matchs the CoA. If he had personal arms, they would most likely be quartered.

Just a thought. But in the end, folks will keep to the Armory that they like.

[ShadowMoon]

The problem there is what land did the Roele's hold during the 1,000-year empire? Without a solid power-base they could not have held the throne against a rebellious duke or even paid for the throne. A king (or emperor) needs land to raise troops, provide him with gravitas (who respects an unlanded noble?) and simply to earn money to pay for the realm - and an empire does not come cheap.

Well Roeles were still Emperors, and Anuireans are traditionalists well enough, so I guess the old vassalages were still valid, plus they could have some profitable colonies across Miere Rhuan. No need to mention the Patron of Anuire, Haelyn, beeing a Roele. Besides, maybe the lack of lands and material presentation of personal might, created a fertile soil for Archduke of Boeruine to try to kill young Michael Roele in the first place (Iron Thorne - Birthright Novel) and to claim the Iron Throne.

[Bren]

The problem there is what land did the Roele's hold during the 1,000-year empire? Without a solid power-base they could not have held the throne against a rebellious duke or even paid for the throne. A king (or emperor) needs land to raise troops, provide him with gravitas (who respects an unlanded noble?) and simply to earn money to pay for the realm - and an empire does not come cheap.

The thing with being the emporer is that all of Anuire is his land. The
various noble families hold it in stead for him which he can take away at a
moments notice. His "job" is to keep the empire going, not worry about
land.

A portion of each family would have to provide troops to the imperial
barracks.

Imperial taxes are levied from the populace. Either in addition to "Ducal"
taxes or a portion of the tax taken from the duchies is taken as imperial
tax. This would be more than enough to maintain the empire.

You'll probably find that during the 1000 year empire, most of the land of
the nobility was quite a bit smaller. When the empire fell, each family
expanded.

[Dcolby]

"The problem there is what land did the Roele's hold during the 1,000-year empire?"

Fuedal systems are based on the concept that theoreticly all the other "Dukes" (Or whatever the highest non royal strata of nobility exists) "hold" not "own" their lands from the King. So the Imperial family would not have truely needed lands of their own as in practice it was all theirs and only being managed by their nobility.

To not support the Monarch is to not support the "rules" under which you were granted your lands. To rebel against the King is to rebel against the very system that sustains you in the social order and invite rebellion against your own authority. Thus the King or Emperor remains powerful by virtue of needing the royal family to maintain the social bonds and strata.

This is at least the English model, and English royalty remained very very politically powerful into the 18th and even some might say socially into the 19th century as other monarchies around the world crumbled.

If your Anuirean social order is based on the French model...well all bets are off as the French royal family was very often in the middle ages weaker than the most powerful "High" nobles of the realm.

[kgauck]

Oh does the King of France for nearly all the Capetians wish it were so, likewise the later Holy Roman Emperors.

Assuming that the age of the Empire didn't operate under some fundamentally different ruleset, the Emperor needs RP and GP to function, and he needs enough to keep his dukes in line. If several dukes in a faction, let alone one duke, had enough RP or GB to match the Emperor, they would act independently and give lip service to the Emperor.

Thus the King or Emperor remains powerful by virtue of needing the royal family to maintain the social bonds and strata. This is at least the English model.

Someone get word to Kings John, Henry III, Edward II, Richard II, and make no mention of Magna Carta, the de Spencers, baronial government, the War of the Roses, or Parliament making war on its own king, deposing him, and executing him. Even England's strongest kings were always dependent on their barons cooperation.

[Dcolby]

"Someone get word to Kings John, Henry III, Edward II, Richard II, and make no mention of Magna Carta, the de Spencers, baronial government, the War of the Roses, or Parliament making war on its own king, deposing him, and executing him. Even England's strongest kings were always dependent on their barons cooperation."

Notice I did point out the "Theory" of Fuedalism not the actual practice. And as for Gold bars and Regency infuediation and vassalage supplies an Emperor with such things. Likewise examples of Henry I, Longshanks, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and to some extant Victoria (More of a social direction setter than ruler really) are examples of the very powerful English Monarchs.

The English fuedal system was "Typically" more stable than its continental cousins and yes even the most powerful English Monarchs needed their Barons, so to would the Anuirean Emperor. All systems of Monarchy wax and wane with respect to the rulers ability and the power of his/her underlings to guide and control them. Even Roman emperors became subject to the whims of the Praetorian Guard.

My central point is/was that to a fuedal system the King/Emperor often represents more of an example of The Social Order,and maintenace of allegiance to that order is central to preserving a "dukes" own status.

All the periods you pointed out in English History are excellent examples of Weak English Kings. It should also be pointed out that those would be called "Interesting" times and it was bloody and Dangerous to be a Noble in those periods, for once the bonds and loyalties were openly disregarded very few were safe, from each other most of all.

I think Oliver Cromwell gave those same members of Parliment that killed a King enough pause to wish they had not...

On a side note Kgauck I really enjoy your posts, they are very well researched and informed and I suspect that if your are not a professor of History you are at the least a major in that or a related field.

Keep calling me on my posts, I enjoy the discourse!

[Bren]

The thing with being the emporer is that all of Anuire is his land. The
various noble families hold it in stead for him which he can take away at a
moments notice. His "job" is to keep the empire going, not worry about
land.

A portion of each family would have to provide troops to the imperial
barracks.

Imperial taxes are levied from the populace. Either in addition to "Ducal"
taxes or a portion of the tax taken from the duchies is taken as imperial
tax. This would be more than enough to maintain the empire.

You`ll probably find that during the 1000 year empire, most of the land of
the nobility was quite a bit smaller. When the empire fell, each family
expanded.

[AndrewTall]

A note on imperial taxes. Although Anuire does not of course equal England, it is to a degree based on it, a common belief is that medieval monarchs in England levied taxes on income. They did not. The monarch did control duties and imports (which is why until recently when their powers were increased a Customs inspector could kick your door in at 3 in the morning to say hi if they felt like it but the Inland Revenue had to give 2 weeks notice to see records and ask if that was convenient.) The church received a tithe of 10% of all income - and charged punitive penalties if people did not attend church (!) regardless of their faith - but the king had no such right of general taxation. France (another inspiration for Anuire) may be different - the concept of the state having rights is stronger in Europe.

William Pitt who introduced income tax was initially seriously opposed to introducing so unfair and immoral (as it was non-"voluntary" unlike duties) a tax as income tax until the Napoleonic war forced him to do so as a temporary measure.

I've read that a number of English kings died poorer than they started because they had to pay for the government out of their own pocket, and only had very limited taxing rights (ship tax, import/export duties and the like) to pay for it. Parliament could theoretically have permitted a tax but the the kings only summoned it to get permission to raise taxes for war and so parliament refused to grant general permission to raise taxes in order to ensure that it could not simply be ignored.

A kings main income generally came from their estates only, or from gifts/kick-backs (i.e. if the emperor appointed someone as archbishop of Diemed, he would have received a kickback from the new archbishop).


The point (apologies for the tax rant - its my other hobby) is that an emperor who is the strongest duke and has all the powers of emperor is a lot stronger and therefore has a more stable rule than just someone with the powers of emperor - over a thousand years the emperors would either get the land or lose the crown.

The idea of land outside Anuire is very valid though - being 'foreign' such land is much more within the emperors power than local lands lawfully held by a duke. I expect that a lot of the roele wealth came from such holdings - but they do need to have had their own land near the Imperial city so Avanil remains the best bet - at least hefty chunks of it.

[Thelandrin]

What with "Anuire" being a province in Avanil and Darien Avan claiming the title of Prince, I think it's a fairly safe bet that the Roeles owned a large chunk of what is now Avanil and the Avans claimed it after the death of Michael Roele, leading to the independent City of Anuire and Darien Avan's entirely too arrogant attitude