Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Origins

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I`ve recently been speculating on the origins of the BR world (not to be
    confused with the origins of Cerilia - Cerilian origins are completely
    ficticious).

    The world wasn`t made of whole cloth. The authors had to draw from
    various sources in history and literature as well as their imaginations.
    The whole is a sometimes confusing collage of many sources. Elements of
    the game mechanics are wound into the Cerilian history as well.

    First the general historical time equivalent. The game mechanics deal
    with provinces and kingdoms of a certain size (or scale as I prefer).
    The cultures of the various races are given to be the "equivalent" of
    dark age, middle age, and renaissance culture depending - note
    "equivalent", they aren`t dark age or renaissance but the equivalent of.
    (a significant distinction) There is only one time in real history where
    such a mix of cultural equivalents makes sense: the early middle ages.
    Note, I don`t expect to get a perfect fit - everything gets jumbled
    together in most peoples minds and even talking about the medieval
    period we`re talking about 500 AD to 1500 AD !

    The great difficulty with understanding the true nature of the early
    medieval is that it wasn`t written about until 500 years later - and
    then it was described in what was then modern terms - i.e. everything
    had been modernized.

    Still, the Romans were, culturally at least, the equivalent of the
    renaissance. (but of course different) A warrior society with an
    Imperial history, which by 500 AD was in decline and disintegration with
    many areas now operating independently. Which Cerilian race does this
    most resemble ? -- the Anuireans, even the history of the Andu is
    similar. Even "Anduirean society is semi-feudal and based on a system of
    free farmers and craftsmen.", and "Anuireans respect nobility and look
    to their leaders to protect them from barbarians and savages that
    surround the states of the old Empire." - rulebook p 9. The time period
    of 400 to 500 AD saw frequent and multiple Emperors, none ever truly a
    powerful central figure much the same as the squabble of the Anuireans
    over the Iron Crown.

    What does that make the Khinasi ? My answer, the Ottomons, the Turks -
    they have their own Eastern Empire (but fallen in Cerilia), once also
    part of Anuire, have no fear of magic, a very high culture, we`ve got
    curved swords , lots of traders and merchants - what we don`t have is
    Islam - but that doesn`t come until later than 500 AD anyway. We do have
    the deserts of the middle east and Egypt with it`s history of worship of
    a sun god - not unlike Avani.

    The traditional Rjurik are described as tribal and nomadic. They are
    stubborn individualists who don`t swear fealty to anyone but their own
    kin. Ignore the word "tribal", the anthropological connection of tribes
    is different - later okay. Accept nomadic, and the stubborn kin-loving
    society. Add in the following of druidical powers and place them in
    highlands and forests. The description is of a clannish race of Celtic
    origin. Clans are nomadic in nature and follow an (often elected) leader
    from place to place - although they may settle from time to time - they
    do not have the territorial boundaries of tribal groups.

    I think the Vos were probably modeled on the Mongols, but the Mongols
    are not right for the time frame.Could there be confusion here between
    the barbaric huns and goths ? The cold northeast and the features given
    the Vos are more Mongol but the historic actions of Attila the Hun and
    Ghengis Khan are similar. The Vos never achieved the victories of the
    Mongols and their achievements are more in line with that of the Huns. I
    think the Vos are a composite.

    The Brechts are the hardest, even though their germanic names and
    history point to them being northmen - saxons, danes, angles etc. The
    involvement (in theory at least) of a love of commerce is at first a
    contradiction. But what if it is a love of plunder and booty - the
    northmen were surely very rich from all their plunder, but they were
    very warlike unlike the Brechts (although they did have a period of
    Brecht unity).

    The overall scale of Cerilia is very small compared to the areas
    inhabited by these historical groups - only in Great Britain do you see
    all of these cultures represented in an area of similar scale. Great
    Britain is no continent though - but neither is Cerilia measured out by
    standard province size.

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,562
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Peter Lubke wrote:
    > I`ve recently been speculating on the origins of the BR world (not to be
    > confused with the origins of Cerilia - Cerilian origins are completely
    > ficticious).
    >
    > The world wasn`t made of whole cloth. The authors had to draw from
    > various sources in history and literature as well as their imaginations.
    > The whole is a sometimes confusing collage of many sources. Elements of
    > the game mechanics are wound into the Cerilian history as well.
    >
    > First the general historical time equivalent. The game mechanics deal
    > with provinces and kingdoms of a certain size (or scale as I prefer).
    > The cultures of the various races are given to be the "equivalent" of
    > dark age, middle age, and renaissance culture depending - note
    > "equivalent", they aren`t dark age or renaissance but the equivalent of.
    > (a significant distinction) There is only one time in real history where
    > such a mix of cultural equivalents makes sense: the early middle ages.
    > Note, I don`t expect to get a perfect fit - everything gets jumbled
    > together in most peoples minds and even talking about the medieval
    > period we`re talking about 500 AD to 1500 AD !
    >
    > The great difficulty with understanding the true nature of the early
    > medieval is that it wasn`t written about until 500 years later - and
    > then it was described in what was then modern terms - i.e. everything
    > had been modernized.
    >
    > Still, the Romans were, culturally at least, the equivalent of the
    > renaissance. (but of course different) A warrior society with an
    > Imperial history, which by 500 AD was in decline and disintegration with
    > many areas now operating independently. Which Cerilian race does this
    > most resemble ? -- the Anuireans, even the history of the Andu is
    > similar. Even "Anduirean society is semi-feudal and based on a system of
    > free farmers and craftsmen.", and "Anuireans respect nobility and look
    > to their leaders to protect them from barbarians and savages that
    > surround the states of the old Empire." - rulebook p 9. The time period
    > of 400 to 500 AD saw frequent and multiple Emperors, none ever truly a
    > powerful central figure much the same as the squabble of the Anuireans
    > over the Iron Crown.
    >
    > What does that make the Khinasi ? My answer, the Ottomons, the Turks -
    > they have their own Eastern Empire (but fallen in Cerilia), once also
    > part of Anuire, have no fear of magic, a very high culture, we`ve got
    > curved swords , lots of traders and merchants - what we don`t have is
    > Islam - but that doesn`t come until later than 500 AD anyway. We do have
    > the deserts of the middle east and Egypt with it`s history of worship of
    > a sun god - not unlike Avani.
    >
    > The traditional Rjurik are described as tribal and nomadic. They are
    > stubborn individualists who don`t swear fealty to anyone but their own
    > kin. Ignore the word "tribal", the anthropological connection of tribes
    > is different - later okay. Accept nomadic, and the stubborn kin-loving
    > society. Add in the following of druidical powers and place them in
    > highlands and forests. The description is of a clannish race of Celtic
    > origin. Clans are nomadic in nature and follow an (often elected) leader
    > from place to place - although they may settle from time to time - they
    > do not have the territorial boundaries of tribal groups.
    >
    > I think the Vos were probably modeled on the Mongols, but the Mongols
    > are not right for the time frame.Could there be confusion here between
    > the barbaric huns and goths ? The cold northeast and the features given
    > the Vos are more Mongol but the historic actions of Attila the Hun and
    > Ghengis Khan are similar. The Vos never achieved the victories of the
    > Mongols and their achievements are more in line with that of the Huns. I
    > think the Vos are a composite.

    I think the Vos are modeled after some eastern european/russian/slavic
    peoples, not Mongols. Just they are in a harsher climate than their RW
    "equivs".

    > The Brechts are the hardest, even though their germanic names and
    > history point to them being northmen - saxons, danes, angles etc. The
    > involvement (in theory at least) of a love of commerce is at first a
    > contradiction. But what if it is a love of plunder and booty - the
    > northmen were surely very rich from all their plunder, but they were
    > very warlike unlike the Brechts (although they did have a period of
    > Brecht unity).

    What about Danes? The Brechts were modeled after the Hanseatic League,
    which was very trade focused. You seem to be implying "the northmen" to
    be the Vikings and such. There are more than one "northmen" in that region.

    > The overall scale of Cerilia is very small compared to the areas
    > inhabited by these historical groups - only in Great Britain do you see
    > all of these cultures represented in an area of similar scale. Great
    > Britain is no continent though - but neither is Cerilia measured out by
    > standard province size.

    From my measurements, Cerilia is a great deal larger than Great Briton.
    Anuire is slightly larger than France, Khinasi a little smaller than
    Turkey, Brechtur a good deal smaller than Denmark at its height during
    the Hanseatic League, Rjurik about the size of southern Sweden, and
    Vosgaard about half the size of Poland. All put together, you get a
    continent about one third the area of Europe (I include the land up to
    the Ural Mnts and just short of Asia Minor as Europe). For a continent,
    it is very small, missing a few cultures as well. I plan to make my
    Aduria the Asia Minor and Middle East of the BR world (I see the Khinasi
    as more Moors than Turks), with a Babylonian culture, an Egyptian
    culture, and a Mycanean culture.

    Not sure what else to put there, though. Maybe I`ll put Djapar on Aduria
    (Djapar would be to Aduria as Khinasi is to Cerilia, a cultural region,
    not a continent), as a Turkish or high Arabian culture. Maybe a Persian
    culture as well to make Aduria larger. Then I still need an idea for a
    jungle culture on the southern tip. Was thinking a Amazonian type thing.

    --
    / Adam Theo, Age 22, Tallahassee FL USA
    // Email & Jabber: theo@theoretic.com
    // (Boycotting AOL, therefore no AIM or ICQ)
    =//===== Theoretic Solutions: http://www.theoretic.com
    // || "Bringing Ideas Together"
    || Jabber Protocol: http://www.jabber.org
    || "The Coolest IM on the Planet"
    || "A Free-Market Socialist Patriotic American
    || Buddhist Political Philosopher."

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
    NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,562
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    The races/cultures that the peoples of Cerilia are based on can be found in
    an interview with Rich Baker. From memory it is something like this:

    Anuireans - Holy Roman Empire/Gondor from Tolkien
    Rjurik - Celtic/Norse/with a little Scottish Highlander and American Indian
    thrown in
    Brecht - Hanseatic League
    Vos - Slav tribes such as the Polovst and Pechenegs
    Khinasi - Moors with a Turkish flavour in some areas

    Also, from an email swapped with Carrie Bebris many years back, I remember
    her saying that the Masetian Empire was based on the ancient Persian Empire,
    I think around 5th century BC. The Adurian Empire (the evil guys who forced
    the tribes to flee Aduria) was the corrupted Masetians while the Masetians
    found in eastern Cerilia were those who (for whatever reason) weren`t
    corrupted and still followed Masela.

    Ashley

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
    NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Fri, 2002-05-17 at 12:23, Adam Theo wrote:

    >
    > > The Brechts are the hardest, even though their germanic names and
    > > history point to them being northmen - saxons, danes, angles etc. The
    > > involvement (in theory at least) of a love of commerce is at first a
    > > contradiction. But what if it is a love of plunder and booty - the
    > > northmen were surely very rich from all their plunder, but they were
    > > very warlike unlike the Brechts (although they did have a period of
    > > Brecht unity).
    >
    > What about Danes? The Brechts were modeled after the Hanseatic League,
    > which was very trade focused. You seem to be implying "the northmen" to
    > be the Vikings and such. There are more than one "northmen" in that region.
    Yeah, I`ve got the Danes in there "saxons, danes, angles etc" - so yes.
    The Hanseatic league is much later though, it`s very much late medieval
    (700 years later). It is a good reference in a way that is similar to
    the Vos/Mongol and Vos/Hun connection. That still supports a more
    general (earlier) connection to all northmen, especially Scythians which
    is coincidentally Hanseatic heartland to come. There`s a very definite
    spread of ideas taken from over 1500 years of history - I`m looking for
    a best fit not a perfect fit - that won`t happen.

    >
    > > The overall scale of Cerilia is very small compared to the areas
    > > inhabited by these historical groups - only in Great Britain do you see
    > > all of these cultures represented in an area of similar scale. Great
    > > Britain is no continent though - but neither is Cerilia measured out by
    > > standard province size.
    >
    > From my measurements, Cerilia is a great deal larger than Great Briton.
    > Anuire is slightly larger than France,
    Yeah Cerilia as a whole is larger than Great Britain, but not quite as
    large as your calculations I think. Hmmm interesting math. I`ve got
    Anuire at about 150,000 square miles, while England is about 93,000 and
    France 212,000. I certainly would claim Anuire *larger* than France, but
    it is obviously larger than England.

    In defense of my calculations, I don`t claim Mieres as part of Anuire
    geographically - it shares the same position relative to Cerilia as
    Brittainy does to Great Britain. Nor do I include the elf realms of
    Sielwode and Tuarhievel, or the dwarf and goblin realms. While I do
    include Dhoesone for the sake of calculations - this should be more
    properly included geographically with the Rjurik. Nor do I include
    Suiriene.

    Khinasi a little smaller than
    > Turkey, Brechtur a good deal smaller than Denmark at its height during
    > the Hanseatic League, Rjurik about the size of southern Sweden, and
    > Vosgaard about half the size of Poland. All put together, you get a
    > continent about one third the area of Europe (I include the land up to
    > the Ural Mnts and just short of Asia Minor as Europe). For a continent,
    > it is very small, missing a few cultures as well. I plan to make my
    > Aduria the Asia Minor and Middle East of the BR world

    (I see the Khinasi
    > as more Moors than Turks), with a Babylonian culture, an Egyptian
    > culture, and a Mycanean culture.
    Moors rather than Turks ? Yeah, that`s probably more in the right time
    frame (the turks being much later c 1000 AD). The moors are a bit late
    too starting circa 700 AD being Moslem Arab and Berbers. Of course you
    might mean the more original term Moors (meaning "black" people - no
    disrespect intended to anyone), which would be a good fit too. I`m not
    up on the culture of those peoples so much.

    >
    > Not sure what else to put there, though. Maybe I`ll put Djapar on Aduria
    > (Djapar would be to Aduria as Khinasi is to Cerilia, a cultural region,
    > not a continent), as a Turkish or high Arabian culture. Maybe a Persian
    > culture as well to make Aduria larger. Then I still need an idea for a
    > jungle culture on the southern tip. Was thinking a Amazonian type thing.
    >
    > --
    > / Adam Theo, Age 22, Tallahassee FL USA
    > // Email & Jabber: theo@theoretic.com
    > // (Boycotting AOL, therefore no AIM or ICQ)
    > =//===== Theoretic Solutions: http://www.theoretic.com
    > // || "Bringing Ideas Together"
    > || Jabber Protocol: http://www.jabber.org
    > || "The Coolest IM on the Planet"
    > || "A Free-Market Socialist Patriotic American
    > || Buddhist Political Philosopher."
    >
    > ************************************************** **************************
    > The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    > To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    > with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Fri, 2002-05-17 at 12:23, Adam Theo wrote:

    >
    > > The Brechts are the hardest, even though their germanic names and
    > > history point to them being northmen - saxons, danes, angles etc. The
    > > involvement (in theory at least) of a love of commerce is at first a
    > > contradiction. But what if it is a love of plunder and booty - the
    > > northmen were surely very rich from all their plunder, but they were
    > > very warlike unlike the Brechts (although they did have a period of
    > > Brecht unity).
    >
    > What about Danes? The Brechts were modeled after the Hanseatic League,
    > which was very trade focused. You seem to be implying "the northmen" to
    > be the Vikings and such. There are more than one "northmen" in that region.
    Yeah, I`ve got the Danes in there "saxons, danes, angles etc" - so yes.
    The Hanseatic league is much later though, it`s very much late medieval
    (700 years later). It is a good reference in a way that is similar to
    the Vos/Mongol and Vos/Hun connection. That still supports a more
    general (earlier) connection to all northmen, especially Scythians which
    is coincidentally Hanseatic heartland to come. There`s a very definite
    spread of ideas taken from over 1500 years of history - I`m looking for
    a best fit not a perfect fit - that won`t happen.

    >
    > > The overall scale of Cerilia is very small compared to the areas
    > > inhabited by these historical groups - only in Great Britain do you see
    > > all of these cultures represented in an area of similar scale. Great
    > > Britain is no continent though - but neither is Cerilia measured out by
    > > standard province size.
    >
    > From my measurements, Cerilia is a great deal larger than Great Briton.
    > Anuire is slightly larger than France,
    Yeah Cerilia as a whole is larger than Great Britain, but not quite as
    large as your calculations I think. Hmmm interesting math. I`ve got
    Anuire at about 150,000 square miles, while England is about 93,000 and
    France 212,000. I certainly would claim Anuire *larger* than France, but
    it is obviously larger than England.

    In defense of my calculations, I don`t claim Mieres as part of Anuire
    geographically - it shares the same position relative to Cerilia as
    Brittainy does to Great Britain. Nor do I include the elf realms of
    Sielwode and Tuarhievel, or the dwarf and goblin realms. While I do
    include Dhoesone for the sake of calculations - this should be more
    properly included geographically with the Rjurik. Nor do I include
    Suiriene.

    Khinasi a little smaller than
    > Turkey, Brechtur a good deal smaller than Denmark at its height during
    > the Hanseatic League, Rjurik about the size of southern Sweden, and
    > Vosgaard about half the size of Poland. All put together, you get a
    > continent about one third the area of Europe (I include the land up to
    > the Ural Mnts and just short of Asia Minor as Europe). For a continent,
    > it is very small, missing a few cultures as well. I plan to make my
    > Aduria the Asia Minor and Middle East of the BR world

    (I see the Khinasi
    > as more Moors than Turks), with a Babylonian culture, an Egyptian
    > culture, and a Mycanean culture.
    Moors rather than Turks ? Yeah, that`s probably more in the right time
    frame (the turks being much later c 1000 AD). The moors are a bit late
    too starting circa 700 AD being Moslem Arab and Berbers. Of course you
    might mean the more original term Moors (meaning "black" people - no
    disrespect intended to anyone), which would be a good fit too. I`m not
    up on the culture of those peoples so much.

    >
    > Not sure what else to put there, though. Maybe I`ll put Djapar on Aduria
    > (Djapar would be to Aduria as Khinasi is to Cerilia, a cultural region,
    > not a continent), as a Turkish or high Arabian culture. Maybe a Persian
    > culture as well to make Aduria larger. Then I still need an idea for a
    > jungle culture on the southern tip. Was thinking a Amazonian type thing.
    >
    > --
    > / Adam Theo, Age 22, Tallahassee FL USA
    > // Email & Jabber: theo@theoretic.com
    > // (Boycotting AOL, therefore no AIM or ICQ)
    > =//===== Theoretic Solutions: http://www.theoretic.com
    > // || "Bringing Ideas Together"
    > || Jabber Protocol: http://www.jabber.org
    > || "The Coolest IM on the Planet"
    > || "A Free-Market Socialist Patriotic American
    > || Buddhist Political Philosopher."
    >
    > ************************************************** **************************
    > The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    > To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    > with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Hello!

    Adam Theo wrote:

    > Peter Lubke wrote:
    >
    >> I
    >
    >> The Brechts are the hardest, even though their germanic names and
    >> history point to them being northmen - saxons, danes, angles etc. The
    >> involvement (in theory at least) of a love of commerce is at first a
    >> contradiction. But what if it is a love of plunder and booty - the
    >> northmen were surely very rich from all their plunder, but they were
    >> very warlike unlike the Brechts (although they did have a period of
    >> Brecht unity).
    >
    >
    > What about Danes? The Brechts were modeled after the Hanseatic League,
    > which was very trade focused. You seem to be implying "the northmen" to
    > be the Vikings and such. There are more than one "northmen" in that
    > region.

    Danes and Hanseatic League? As far as I remember my history lesson the
    danish kings were enemys of the Hanseatic League which were a league of
    trade cities, e.g. Hamburg, Bremen...

    I see the Brecht more like Dutch (Netherlands) traders + Hanseatic touch.

    bye
    Michael

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Fri, 2002-05-17 at 12:54, Ashems wrote:
    > The races/cultures that the peoples of Cerilia are based on can be found in
    > an interview with Rich Baker. From memory it is something like this:
    >
    > Anuireans - Holy Roman Empire/Gondor from Tolkien
    > Rjurik - Celtic/Norse/with a little Scottish Highlander and American Indian
    > thrown in
    Yes, I`d rather pictured them like the Irish Celts (the Scotti), more
    clanninsh than tribal.

    > Brecht - Hanseatic League
    > Vos - Slav tribes such as the Polovst and Pechenegs
    > Khinasi - Moors with a Turkish flavour in some areas
    Interesting that only the Hanseatic League qualifies as high or late
    medieval, everyone else is early medieval.
    >
    > Also, from an email swapped with Carrie Bebris many years back, I remember
    > her saying that the Masetian Empire was based on the ancient Persian Empire,
    > I think around 5th century BC. The Adurian Empire (the evil guys who forced
    > the tribes to flee Aduria) was the corrupted Masetians while the Masetians
    > found in eastern Cerilia were those who (for whatever reason) weren`t
    > corrupted and still followed Masela.
    Persians eh ? well well well (3 holes in the ground). There wasn`t much
    to go on there, I`d been thinking Greek possibly but Persian fits well.

    >
    > Ashley
    >
    > ************************************************** **************************
    > The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    > To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    > with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,562
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Peter Lubke wrote:
    > The Brechts are the hardest, even though their germanic names and
    > history point to them being northmen - saxons, danes, angles etc. The
    > involvement (in theory at least) of a love of commerce is at first a
    > contradiction. But what if it is a love of plunder and booty - the
    > northmen were surely very rich from all their plunder, but they were
    > very warlike unlike the Brechts (although they did have a period of
    > Brecht unity).

    There is no contradiction. Northmen during the viking era were great
    traders. In the east, trading was the norm. In the west, raiding and
    invading was the norm. It was probably a matter of how well-organized the
    people that the vikings met were, and alos of how ismilar they were
    culturally.

    The Anglo-Saxons were very disorganised and easy to invade. They were also
    quite similar culturally, so assimilation was easy. Thus the danes in
    England could remain danes.

    The Irish, bretons and early slavs were also very disorganized, but much
    more culturally differen. In these lands, it was often the vikings
    themselves who were assimilated - into Dubliners, Rus and Normans. Mixed
    cultures that were generally very successful in their own right, but who
    were no longer vikings.

    Vikings traded, raided, invaded or fought as mercenaries as opportunities
    arose. In the west, local resistance crubled, so invasion was a real
    possibility. Far away in "österled", there were the great empires of
    Bysantion (Miklagård) and Bagdad - too strong to invade. So here, trading
    and mercenary work was the only option.

    /Carl

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
    NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Fri, 2002-05-17 at 17:40, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:
    > Peter Lubke wrote:
    > > The Brechts are the hardest, even though their germanic names and
    > > history point to them being northmen - saxons, danes, angles etc. The
    > > involvement (in theory at least) of a love of commerce is at first a
    > > contradiction. But what if it is a love of plunder and booty - the
    > > northmen were surely very rich from all their plunder, but they were
    > > very warlike unlike the Brechts (although they did have a period of
    > > Brecht unity).
    >
    > There is no contradiction. Northmen during the viking era were great
    > traders. In the east, trading was the norm. In the west, raiding and
    > invading was the norm.
    Ah so, well good point then.

    It was probably a matter of how well-organized the
    > people that the vikings met were, and alos of how ismilar they were
    > culturally.
    >
    > The Anglo-Saxons were very disorganised and easy to invade. They were also
    > quite similar culturally, so assimilation was easy. Thus the danes in
    > England could remain danes.

    You mean the romano-britons abandoned by the Romans (who took the entire
    british army with them including troops raised from the local areas)
    don`t you ? I don`t know about *easy*, they had a pretty hard time of it
    for a while, but the conflict was all between the nobles - the farmers
    and tenants weren`t involved and tended to get on with whoever was in
    charge that week.

    I think assimilation was helped by the conversion of the invaders to
    Christianity and inter-marriage more than any cultural similarities.
    While the Jutes, Angles and Saxons were culturally similar, the Britons
    were quite different.

    >
    > The Irish, bretons and early slavs were also very disorganized, but much
    > more culturally differen. In these lands, it was often the vikings
    > themselves who were assimilated - into Dubliners, Rus and Normans. Mixed
    > cultures that were generally very successful in their own right, but who
    > were no longer vikings.
    >
    > Vikings traded, raided, invaded or fought as mercenaries as opportunities
    > arose. In the west, local resistance crubled, so invasion was a real
    > possibility. Far away in "österled", there were the great empires of
    > Bysantion (Miklagård) and Bagdad - too strong to invade. So here, trading
    > and mercenary work was the only option.

    It appears that almost everyone invaded or fought as mercenaries. This
    was the Roman way late in the empire to use federates, foreign troops on
    the border of the empire. Even when Vortigern invited Hengist over, he
    was just following an established Roman practice.

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,562
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    You are confusing the vikings with the anglo-saxons, another germanic people
    who invade Britain 300 to 500 years eariler. The romans were all long gone
    by the time of the vikings. The anglo saxons. which you describe, were
    themselves related to, and became the victims of, the vikings.

    Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-05-17 12.27:

    > You mean the romano-britons abandoned by the Romans (who took the entire
    > british army with them including troops raised from the local areas)
    > don`t you ? I don`t know about *easy*, they had a pretty hard time of it
    > for a while, but the conflict was all between the nobles - the farmers
    > and tenants weren`t involved and tended to get on with whoever was in
    > charge that week.
    >
    > I think assimilation was helped by the conversion of the invaders to
    > Christianity and inter-marriage more than any cultural similarities.
    > While the Jutes, Angles and Saxons were culturally similar, the Britons
    > were quite different.
    >
    >>
    >> The Irish, bretons and early slavs were also very disorganized, but much
    >> more culturally differen. In these lands, it was often the vikings
    >> themselves who were assimilated - into Dubliners, Rus and Normans. Mixed
    >> cultures that were generally very successful in their own right, but who
    >> were no longer vikings.
    >>
    >> Vikings traded, raided, invaded or fought as mercenaries as opportunities
    >> arose. In the west, local resistance crubled, so invasion was a real
    >> possibility. Far away in "österled", there were the great empires of
    >> Bysantion (Miklagård) and Bagdad - too strong to invade. So here, trading
    >> and mercenary work was the only option.
    >
    > It appears that almost everyone invaded or fought as mercenaries. This
    > was the Roman way late in the empire to use federates, foreign troops on
    > the border of the empire. Even when Vortigern invited Hengist over, he
    > was just following an established Roman practice.
    >

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
    NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.

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.