Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 13:42, Paul MacArthur wrote:



    I think the principalities played a large part in the old empire. They
    served as a more direct ally for the Roele line with immediate relatives
    overseeing vast domains for the emperor. So with the emperor (according to
    your initiative idea) having such a large initiative and large landed
    princes with dukes under him Cerilia could be in the grasp of such a
    dynasty. Of course efficiency is the topic thus an emperor carefully
    designs each vassals domain in accordance to his abilities of rule (bld str)
    allowing the Emperor and his standing army to get the initiative on any
    would be traitors.

    The princes probably did play a large part. Just how the principalities
    were organized is however a matter of conjecture. In English peerage for
    example, a Baron is the principal holder of land. A Duke is the highest
    title you could hold however this doesn`t entitle you to any land at
    all.
    e.g. Prince Charles is a prince of the realm by virtue of birth, he`s
    also Prince of Wales which doesn`t help with land either. His next title
    is Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay. Then Earl of Carrick, which
    is the position of chief royal representative to that county(shire).
    Finally, he`s Baron Renfrew - now he gets land. So a title may give you
    great authority and standing without entitling the holder to a great
    domain. (p.s. Charles is also Lord of the Isles and Great Steward of
    Scotland - which are Scottish titles)


    On another note, Avanil was a principality, not sure if a prince ruled it or
    if the emperor himself did. Vague is the history of this empire and its
    structure.

    Was it a principality or was it a duchy with a prince as its regent ? A
    prince need not always rule a principality. Assuming that it (the title)
    has something to do with Avan`s heritage - somehow he was a member of
    the Imperial family, it doesn`t appear that this meant the Avan`s were
    in line for the Iron Throne.

    If it wasn`t immediately apparent (and I rather think that it was - the
    Gorgon wouldn`t have kept quiet) that the last Roele was dead, why
    wasn`t the Avan claim to the throne upheld ? Why was there no clear line
    of succession ? It would certainly have been in the best interests of
    the empire to have chosen *someone*. The conclusion that I draw from
    this is that there wasn`t *any* suitable candidates. i.e. Both Avan and
    Boeruine were disqualified in some way - and they continue to be so,
    many generations later.

    ************************************************** **************************
    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
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 13:42, Paul MacArthur wrote:



    I think the principalities played a large part in the old empire. They
    served as a more direct ally for the Roele line with immediate relatives
    overseeing vast domains for the emperor. So with the emperor (according to
    your initiative idea) having such a large initiative and large landed
    princes with dukes under him Cerilia could be in the grasp of such a
    dynasty. Of course efficiency is the topic thus an emperor carefully
    designs each vassals domain in accordance to his abilities of rule (bld str)
    allowing the Emperor and his standing army to get the initiative on any
    would be traitors.

    The princes probably did play a large part. Just how the principalities
    were organized is however a matter of conjecture. In English peerage for
    example, a Baron is the principal holder of land. A Duke is the highest
    title you could hold however this doesn`t entitle you to any land at
    all.
    e.g. Prince Charles is a prince of the realm by virtue of birth, he`s
    also Prince of Wales which doesn`t help with land either. His next title
    is Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay. Then Earl of Carrick, which
    is the position of chief royal representative to that county(shire).
    Finally, he`s Baron Renfrew - now he gets land. So a title may give you
    great authority and standing without entitling the holder to a great
    domain. (p.s. Charles is also Lord of the Isles and Great Steward of
    Scotland - which are Scottish titles)


    On another note, Avanil was a principality, not sure if a prince ruled it or
    if the emperor himself did. Vague is the history of this empire and its
    structure.

    Was it a principality or was it a duchy with a prince as its regent ? A
    prince need not always rule a principality. Assuming that it (the title)
    has something to do with Avan`s heritage - somehow he was a member of
    the Imperial family, it doesn`t appear that this meant the Avan`s were
    in line for the Iron Throne.

    If it wasn`t immediately apparent (and I rather think that it was - the
    Gorgon wouldn`t have kept quiet) that the last Roele was dead, why
    wasn`t the Avan claim to the throne upheld ? Why was there no clear line
    of succession ? It would certainly have been in the best interests of
    the empire to have chosen *someone*. The conclusion that I draw from
    this is that there wasn`t *any* suitable candidates. i.e. Both Avan and
    Boeruine were disqualified in some way - and they continue to be so,
    many generations later.

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.

  3. #3
    Site Moderator Magian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Thief River Falls, MN
    Posts
    473
    Downloads
    182
    Uploads
    19
    >From: Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
    >
    >
    >
    > I think the principalities played a large part in the old empire.
    >They
    > served as a more direct ally for the Roele line with immediate
    >relatives
    > overseeing vast domains for the emperor. So with the emperor
    >(according to
    > your initiative idea) having such a large initiative and large landed
    > princes with dukes under him Cerilia could be in the grasp of such a
    > dynasty. Of course efficiency is the topic thus an emperor carefully
    > designs each vassals domain in accordance to his abilities of rule
    >(bld str)
    > allowing the Emperor and his standing army to get the initiative on
    >any
    > would be traitors.
    >
    >The princes probably did play a large part. Just how the principalities
    >were organized is however a matter of conjecture. In English peerage for
    >example, a Baron is the principal holder of land. A Duke is the highest
    >title you could hold however this doesn`t entitle you to any land at
    >all.
    >e.g. Prince Charles is a prince of the realm by virtue of birth, he`s
    >also Prince of Wales which doesn`t help with land either. His next title
    >is Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay. Then Earl of Carrick, which
    >is the position of chief royal representative to that county(shire).
    >Finally, he`s Baron Renfrew - now he gets land. So a title may give you
    >great authority and standing without entitling the holder to a great
    >domain. (p.s. Charles is also Lord of the Isles and Great Steward of
    >Scotland - which are Scottish titles)
    >


    I am not to keen on the actual titles in historic relevance and application
    so I appreciate your explaining.


    >
    > On another note, Avanil was a principality, not sure if a prince ruled
    >it or
    > if the emperor himself did. Vague is the history of this empire and
    >its
    > structure.
    >
    >Was it a principality or was it a duchy with a prince as its regent ? A
    >prince need not always rule a principality. Assuming that it (the title)
    >has something to do with Avan`s heritage - somehow he was a member of
    >the Imperial family, it doesn`t appear that this meant the Avan`s were
    >in line for the Iron Throne.
    >

    I think the house of Avan during the empire was of the title of Duke.
    Avanil itself was a principality and has always been I think. Atlas of
    cerilia may have that info. Thus I would say that the regent of Roele who
    may have (speculation of course) directly ruled over Avanil was replaced by
    the Duke Avan who became by default a prince of the empire because of Avanil
    being a principality. This in no way links his lineage to the last emperor
    directly thus the title of Archduke of Boeruine claiming precedence over the
    Avans since an Archduke is a son of an emperor from my understanding of
    titles. Meaning Boeruine`s claim is to a great-great-etc. uncle of Michael
    Roele himself. Not sure when that comes in (in other words how many greats
    for the uncle?) but we do have a date for the house of Mhoried and its tie
    to the Roele line with the second emperor Boeric son of Roele himself and
    the Lady Mhor. However they had an illegitimate child out of wedlock. I am
    curious if the Boeruine name (not the Andu Boru name) has any link to Boeric
    also, perhaps a brother of his?

    Of course since we are assuming that promigeniture has its precedence on the
    last emperor and prior Emperors in decending order of previous times. So
    the two great houses described above could be considered way back in line of
    claim to the throne because of the marriages of Michael`s sisters to the
    various Dukes, right? Well the oldest sibling of Michael (the last emperor)
    was married to the Archduke of Boeruine and they had a child together in
    turn who had a child mixed with a low noble from Avanil. That is where the
    story ends besides tracing the other houses lines who do not precede the
    oldest sister since Michael was the only boy.


    >If it wasn`t immediately apparent (and I rather think that it was - the
    >Gorgon wouldn`t have kept quiet) that the last Roele was dead, why
    >wasn`t the Avan claim to the throne upheld ? Why was there no clear line
    >of succession ? It would certainly have been in the best interests of
    >the empire to have chosen *someone*. The conclusion that I draw from
    >this is that there wasn`t *any* suitable candidates. i.e. Both Avan and
    >Boeruine were disqualified in some way - and they continue to be so,
    >many generations later.
    >

    I think the complications of greed and prior linkages to the former emperors
    through various marriages and grants are what complicate the issue of who is
    a direct descendant of the Roele line who precedes all others. As for
    disqualification of becoming an emperor I think no one really has much of a
    say in the matter. Brute force and will to power are probably the only way
    to the throne since the only real authority blocking anyone from becoming
    the next emperor is all the other realms lack of pledge to vassalage to
    anyone. Of course the blessing of the High Lord Imperial Chamberlain does
    look good on anyone`s resume, I doubt however (depending on the political
    climate) that this would really stop any regent from ascending to the
    throne.

    There are two paths actually, heroics that bind others to you thereby
    binding the realms together or the Ceasar/Ghengis like way of conquer and
    vanquish. Either way requires brute force and a will to power. Otherwise
    we will see Anuire as simply another Holy Roman empire divided amongst
    itself.

    Perhaps the short sighted statements above are overlooking another
    possiblity for Anuire. That of a Republic in which many of the PBeM
    campaigns seem to take. Not necessarily a direct republican approach but
    more of a tendancy toward this end. (At least the games I have played)
    Even the Ruins of Empire`s author is a republican at heart (imo) because any
    character who is a facist/despotist is looked upon as unworthy of the
    throne. Personally I don`t like the imperilistic setup (in real life)
    however not many Empires would have existed if they were not megalomaniacs
    who wanted to dominate his neighbors. Thus how an empire is born. Of
    course you can be a fascist and hail to the glory of Law and order brought
    to Cerilia under the banner of Roele by the grace of Haelyn and say that
    Roele was a hero, but they who were subjegated by his rule would tell you
    different. Roele was a fascist regardless of how good his intentions were.
    Other emperors had similar intentions, even one of the darkest emperors in
    sci-fi Palpatine. He only wanted to bring order to the galaxy from the
    corruption of the republic whose senators were bought by the rich thus
    accelerating the division of the rich and poor through lobbyist legislation.
    Thus the patriots were born for the Empire in Star Wars.

    Unfit for rule or disqualification of becoming emperor is all relative to
    ones personal views, and perhaps the political arena one is in. So if the
    Chamberlain was truly looking out for the empire he would have given the
    blessings to another regent immediately. The lack of an emperor weakens the
    empire by allowing small landed lords to believe themselves sovereign. I
    think the Dosiere is looking for a republican empire or something of the
    like. His agenda is not the agenda of an imperialist because the delay of
    emperor only aids the empires enemies no matter who the next emperor would
    be.

    ciao,

    Paul


    __________________________________________________ _______________
    MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
    http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.
    One law, One court, One allied people, One coin, and one tax, is what I shall bring to Cerilia.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 16:16, Paul MacArthur wrote:


    Of course since we are assuming that promigeniture has its precedence on the
    last emperor and prior Emperors in decending order of previous times. So
    the two great houses described above could be considered way back in line of
    claim to the throne because of the marriages of Michael`s sisters to the
    various Dukes, right? Well the oldest sibling of Michael (the last emperor)
    was married to the Archduke of Boeruine and they had a child together in
    turn who had a child mixed with a low noble from Avanil. That is where the
    story ends besides tracing the other houses lines who do not precede the
    oldest sister since Michael was the only boy.

    In most patriarchal societies (and I`m assuming from a number of clues
    that Anuire *was*) the daughter couldn`t pass the title down, it has to
    stay in the male line (i.e same sire-name), even when she could reign in
    her own right (she`s a Roele remember). But the line is extinguished
    when the last male relative dies. In such a case there`s no clear cut
    way to decide a new ruler.



    I think the complications of greed and prior linkages to the former emperors
    through various marriages and grants are what complicate the issue of who is
    a direct descendant of the Roele line who precedes all others. As for
    disqualification of becoming an emperor I think no one really has much of a
    say in the matter.

    By disqualification I mean the Chamberlains approval. There fact that
    both seem to require it seems to me to have the backing of law (or
    custom). The Chamberlain does not appear to have at any time over 500
    years given this approval to either house. Now this seems strange, given
    that the Chamberlain has not claimed anything for himself either in all
    those years - so we`re left waiting for the return of the true emperor.
    Even should it be unclear as to which claim has precedence, (which I
    doubt - I would prefer to say that each claim is equal in merit), a
    decision one way or the other could have been made (usually in such
    cases the elective body chooses the most acceptable candidate - and
    there`s always an elective body).

    Brute force and will to power are probably the only way
    to the throne since the only real authority blocking anyone from becoming
    the next emperor is all the other realms lack of pledge to vassalage to
    anyone. Of course the blessing of the High Lord Imperial Chamberlain does
    look good on anyone`s resume, I doubt however (depending on the political
    climate) that this would really stop any regent from ascending to the
    throne.

    I agree - nobody has been in a position to *force* the issue, but if
    they had been that would have been enough.


    There are two paths actually, heroics that bind others to you thereby
    binding the realms together or the Ceasar/Ghengis like way of conquer and
    vanquish. Either way requires brute force and a will to power. Otherwise
    we will see Anuire as simply another Holy Roman empire divided amongst
    itself.

    Perhaps the short sighted statements above are overlooking another
    possiblity for Anuire. That of a Republic in which many of the PBeM
    campaigns seem to take. Not necessarily a direct republican approach but
    more of a tendancy toward this end. (At least the games I have played)
    Even the Ruins of Empire`s author is a republican at heart (imo) because any
    character who is a facist/despotist is looked upon as unworthy of the
    throne.

    Yes, absolutely. The Roman empire was in fact a republic for a large
    portion of its history.

    Roele was a fascist regardless of how good his intentions were.

    Ave Ceasar ! (him too -that`s the classic Roman situation)

    Other emperors had similar intentions, even one of the darkest emperors in
    sci-fi Palpatine. He only wanted to bring order to the galaxy from the
    corruption of the republic whose senators were bought by the rich thus
    accelerating the division of the rich and poor through lobbyist legislation.
    Thus the patriots were born for the Empire in Star Wars.


    My thought is that no Duke could be Emperor, i.e. the Emperor is of all
    the Dukedoms but lord of none - a republic of a kind in fact. Thus
    Boeruine and Avan don`t qualify unless they renounce their dukedoms and
    realms - which the current control freaks wouldn`t do. Perhaps the
    original constitution of the Empire was to make all duchies equal - and
    so that no duchy becomes preeminent - the Emperor must be outside of
    them (in order to be above them).

    ************************************************** **************************
    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
    Site Moderator Magian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Thief River Falls, MN
    Posts
    473
    Downloads
    182
    Uploads
    19
    >From: Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

    >My thought is that no Duke could be Emperor, i.e. the Emperor is of all
    >the Dukedoms but lord of none - a republic of a kind in fact. Thus
    >Boeruine and Avan don`t qualify unless they renounce their dukedoms and
    >realms - which the current control freaks wouldn`t do. Perhaps the
    >original constitution of the Empire was to make all duchies equal - and
    >so that no duchy becomes preeminent - the Emperor must be outside of
    >them (in order to be above them).

    Each empire through history had its own type of government. These tended to
    reflect the emperors personality so then the type of empire depends upon the
    emperor who creates it and rules it. Thus perhaps is the Chamberlains
    abstained support for any claimant justified if he is trying to direct a
    certain type of empire.

    An imperial council or senate does seem like it is needed for just about any
    form of empire if it is to last. It sure is fun to think about what one
    could do with a game like this on a political level.

    ciao,

    Paul

    __________________________________________________ _______________
    Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.
    One law, One court, One allied people, One coin, and one tax, is what I shall bring to Cerilia.

  6. #6
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    At 03:13 PM 5/31/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

    >If it wasn`t immediately apparent (and I rather think that it was - the
    >Gorgon wouldn`t have kept quiet) that the last Roele was dead, why wasn`t
    >the Avan claim to the throne upheld ? Why was there no clear line of
    >succession ? It would certainly have been in the best interests of the
    >empire to have chosen *someone*. The conclusion that I draw from this is
    >that there wasn`t *any* suitable candidates. i.e. Both Avan and Boeruine
    >were disqualified in some way - and they continue to be so, many
    >generations later.

    I don`t think it was strictly a succession issue. Michael Roele`s death is
    wrapped up with the domain system in that the circumstances of his death
    meant his realm wasn`t transferred directly to a scion/heir, no matter
    whether one was designated by MR or not. The emperor`s realm, as such,
    dissolved. No one inherited the throne because the realm that it
    represented was pretty much gone.

    Gary

    ************************************************** **************************
    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, 2002-05-31 at 16:25, Gary wrote:

    At 03:13 PM 5/31/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

    >If it wasn`t immediately apparent (and I rather think that it was - the
    >Gorgon wouldn`t have kept quiet) that the last Roele was dead, why wasn`t
    >the Avan claim to the throne upheld ? Why was there no clear line of
    >succession ? It would certainly have been in the best interests of the
    >empire to have chosen *someone*. The conclusion that I draw from this is
    >that there wasn`t *any* suitable candidates. i.e. Both Avan and Boeruine
    >were disqualified in some way - and they continue to be so, many
    >generations later.

    I don`t think it was strictly a succession issue. Michael Roele`s death is
    wrapped up with the domain system in that the circumstances of his death
    meant his realm wasn`t transferred directly to a scion/heir, no matter
    whether one was designated by MR or not. The emperor`s realm, as such,
    dissolved. No one inherited the throne because the realm that it
    represented was pretty much gone.

    We know (from Anuirean history) that there were civil wars over the
    issue. We also know that they were inconclusive. I don`t think the realm
    dissolved so much as no-one failed to take it (whatever it was). If, as
    I suggest, the domain was limited to the Imperial City and the fealty of
    the 12 duchies, then not only does the civil wars make sense - but your
    argument of dissolution also. i.e. The fealties couldn`t be reinstated -
    at least not to an Avan or Boeruine overlord.

    If Hierl Diem died suddenly without nominating an heir by investiture,
    his unambiguous natural legal heir could claim the throne, be supported
    by custom, law and church (with OIT that`s probably the same thing
    anyway), and invested peaceably in all of Diems domain. It`s highly
    unlikely that the situation was any different on MRs death, with the
    exception that there was no unambiguous natural heir.

    ************************************************** **************************
    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
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    At 11:23 AM 6/4/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

    > >If it wasn`t immediately apparent (and I rather think that it was - the
    > >Gorgon wouldn`t have kept quiet) that the last Roele was dead, why
    > wasn`t
    > >the Avan claim to the throne upheld ? Why was there no clear line of
    > >succession ? It would certainly have been in the best interests of the
    > >empire to have chosen *someone*. The conclusion that I draw from this is
    > >that there wasn`t *any* suitable candidates. i.e. Both Avan and Boeruine
    > >were disqualified in some way - and they continue to be so, many
    > >generations later.
    >
    > I don`t think it was strictly a succession issue. Michael Roele`s
    > death is
    > wrapped up with the domain system in that the circumstances of his death
    > meant his realm wasn`t transferred directly to a scion/heir, no matter
    > whether one was designated by MR or not. The emperor`s realm, as such,
    > dissolved. No one inherited the throne because the realm that it
    > represented was pretty much gone.
    >
    >We know (from Anuirean history) that there were civil wars over the
    >issue. We also know that they were inconclusive. I don`t think the realm
    >dissolved so much as no-one failed to take it (whatever it was). If, as
    >I suggest, the domain was limited to the Imperial City and the fealty of
    >the 12 duchies, then not only does the civil wars make sense - but your
    >argument of dissolution also. i.e. The fealties couldn`t be reinstated -
    >at least not to an Avan or Boeruine overlord.
    >
    >If Hierl Diem died suddenly without nominating an heir by investiture,
    >his unambiguous natural legal heir could claim the throne, be supported
    >by custom, law and church (with OIT that`s probably the same thing
    >anyway), and invested peaceably in all of Diems domain. It`s highly
    >unlikely that the situation was any different on MRs death, with the
    >exception that there was no unambiguous natural heir.

    There are two major differences, though, that may or may not have been an
    influence, but should probably be taken into consideration. First, there
    is the wild card of MR having "grounded" his bloodline. What does that
    mean as far as the transfer of his realm is concerned? Second, there is
    the unknown nature and size of the Empire itself. What was the make up of
    the Empire? Did the Emperor rule extensive provinces and holdings directly
    or, as you`ve described, did he control only a small personal fief with a
    massive network of Vassals across Anuire and running into Rjurik, Brecht
    and Khinasi lands all pumping RP and GB to him?

    It`s possible that there was no bloodline transfer since MR "grounded" his
    bloodline so that it couldn`t be stolen by the Gorgon. What does that mean
    as far as inheritance is concerned? Hard to say.... A regent who is the
    victim of bloodtheft using a tighmaevril weapon will lose both his
    bloodline and any accumulated RP won`t be transferred to an heir, and the
    realm of a regent without an heir will dissipate. I`d imagine that the
    Chamberlain`s role in the absence of a designated heir for the emperor
    would be to act as the heir himself but, again, the issue of the
    circumstances of MR`s death become an issue. One would assume that
    "grounding" one`s bloodline is not as terrible as having it stolen by
    another blooded character wielding a tighmaevril weapon, otherwise why
    would MR have done it? In fact, it`s probably preferable to simply dying
    since MR could have thrown himself off the precipice he`s so often depicted
    fighting the Gorgon on, or he could have fallen on his own sword rather
    than have bloodtheft performed upon him. Of course, had MR been the
    smartest cookie in the jar he probably wouldn`t have headed off to take on
    the Big G in the first place....

    Anyway, the possibilities are:

    1. MR`s entire realm crumbled upon his death because he had no heir. The
    realms of the Emperor`s Vassals remained intact (as did the emperor`s
    actual provinces/holdings) but Vassalage agreements that focused upon the
    Emperor were lost in addition to his actual realm. In this scenario, it`s
    necessary for the Chamberlain to have either been a Vassal of the Empire,
    ruling the "province" of the Imperial City, or to have taken over and
    developed that "realm" in the centuries since MR`s death.

    2. The provinces and holdings controlled by MR were transferred to the
    Chamberlain, but the network of vassalage agreements that made up the
    Empire were destroyed.

    3. As #2, but instead of the vassalage agreements not being transferred,
    the Vassals voluntarily broke their agreements.

    Personally, I fall down more on #2 for this one. Either of the other two
    options is possible, of course, but it seems unlikely that every single one
    of the Vassals who made up the Empire broke their agreements to support the
    Empire. #1 would make MR`s "grounding" his bloodline rather a bad move,
    and though I picture him as foolhardy, I don`t think he was _that_ bad. #3
    makes the Chamberlain rather an incompetent figure, having allowed the
    Empire itself to crumble, and presumably one of his duties as Chamberlain
    was to act as the heir in the absence of one being designated.

    As for the size of the emperor`s actual domain, I think it`s likely he
    controlled more than just a province or two along with a few holdings and
    simply dominated through a massive system of Vassalage. There is no game
    mechanical reason for that not to work, but I think from a practical
    standpoint it`s hard to picture a Liege commanding Vassals who control
    individual fiefs much greater than his own. That makes for a rather weak
    ruler of an unstable empire in the long run, and I don`t really picture the
    empire as having been that shaky.

    Gary

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 09:58, Gary wrote:

    First, there
    is the wild card of MR having "grounded" his bloodline. What does that
    mean as far as the transfer of his realm is concerned? Second, there is
    the unknown nature and size of the Empire itself. What was the make up of
    the Empire? Did the Emperor rule extensive provinces and holdings directly
    or, as you`ve described, did he control only a small personal fief with a
    massive network of Vassals across Anuire and running into Rjurik, Brecht
    and Khinasi lands all pumping RP and GB to him?

    Of course, had MR been the
    smartest cookie in the jar he probably wouldn`t have headed off to take on
    the Big G in the first place....

    Yeah, to me it seems that the first thing to do in order to defeat the
    big G is to destroy his domain - and that`s no easy feat. Taken alone,
    with his power base gone, he`d be very formidable still - but not out of
    reach of a regent with huge resources of his own. But, back to the main
    points.


    Anyway, the possibilities are:

    1. MR`s entire realm crumbled upon his death because he had no heir. The
    realms of the Emperor`s Vassals remained intact (as did the emperor`s
    actual provinces/holdings) but Vassalage agreements that focused upon the
    Emperor were lost in addition to his actual realm. In this scenario, it`s
    necessary for the Chamberlain to have either been a Vassal of the Empire,
    ruling the "province" of the Imperial City, or to have taken over and
    developed that "realm" in the centuries since MR`s death.

    2. The provinces and holdings controlled by MR were transferred to the
    Chamberlain, but the network of vassalage agreements that made up the
    Empire were destroyed.

    3. As #2, but instead of the vassalage agreements not being transferred,
    the Vassals voluntarily broke their agreements.

    Personally, I fall down more on #2 for this one. Either of the other two
    options is possible, of course, but it seems unlikely that every single one
    of the Vassals who made up the Empire broke their agreements to support the
    Empire. #1 would make MR`s "grounding" his bloodline rather a bad move,
    and though I picture him as foolhardy, I don`t think he was _that_ bad. #3
    makes the Chamberlain rather an incompetent figure, having allowed the
    Empire itself to crumble, and presumably one of his duties as Chamberlain
    was to act as the heir in the absence of one being designated.

    As for the size of the emperor`s actual domain, I think it`s likely he
    controlled more than just a province or two along with a few holdings and
    simply dominated through a massive system of Vassalage. There is no game
    mechanical reason for that not to work, but I think from a practical
    standpoint it`s hard to picture a Liege commanding Vassals who control
    individual fiefs much greater than his own.

    Unless the only reason they have an emperor is that they don`t want any
    of the others to be supreme. i.e. if it`s a choice between Boeruine and
    *someone else", Avan will choose *someone else", ditto for most of the
    others - they`ll agree to a common emperor for the common good (of
    Anuire) as long as it`s never a powerful duchy - who would them become
    preeminent. There`s no evidence of any duchy being so powerful as to
    dominate ALL the others. Plus there`s the evidence of 12 duchies - AND
    the emperor.

    That makes for a rather weak
    ruler of an unstable empire in the long run, and I don`t really picture the
    empire as having been that shaky.


    Not shaky at all. Quite stable really. Factor in the RP/GB from
    conquests and the Emperor is stronger than any duchy - yet relies on
    them too. It`s mutual support.

    ************************************************** **************************
    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
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 09:58, Gary wrote:



    There are two major differences, though, that may or may not have been an
    influence, but should probably be taken into consideration. First, there
    is the wild card of MR having "grounded" his bloodline. What does that
    mean as far as the transfer of his realm is concerned?

    Nothing at all really. The whole grounding of the bloodline does
    complicate matters - as we have no idea what that means as far as the
    bloodline is concerned. But it doesn`t affect the disposition of the
    domain - he could have dealt with this quite separately.

    It`s possible that there was no bloodline transfer since MR "grounded" his
    bloodline so that it couldn`t be stolen by the Gorgon. What does that mean
    as far as inheritance is concerned?

    That appears the most likely result (no transfer of bloodline). Without
    choosing an invested heir - MR must have seen a good reason to ground
    his bloodline. A number of theories can be made:
    (i) That the land of the Anuireans holds the bloodline for any true
    Roele to claim in the future
    (ii) That the land of the Anuireans holds the bloodline, to defend it
    against the Gorgon - he cannot stand on any of the provinces of Anuire
    without feeling great pain - who knows ? Keeps Anuire safe "forever" -
    although not from the Gorgon`s armies.
    (iii) Both (i) and (ii)
    (iv) Something else

    One would assume that
    "grounding" one`s bloodline is not as terrible as having it stolen by
    another blooded character wielding a tighmaevril weapon, otherwise why
    would MR have done it?

    The assumption is often made that MR grounded his bloodline to prevent
    its theft by the Gorgon. That`s not an unreasonable assumption - but
    it`s a contingency plan - i.e. the Gorgon only gets to steal MRs
    bloodline if he fails. MR probably didn`t intend to fail, but if he
    thought that he might - he had better options to preserve the domain and
    the bloodline open to him. He could have passed the bloodline and/or
    domain on before he left -- of course this leaves him without bloodline
    abilities in combat. Still it`s an almost inconceivably irresponsible
    thing to do. It`s reasonable to assume therefore that one of the
    following is probable:
    (i) grounding gave MR such an advantage that he thought it unlikely that
    he would fail to defeat the Gorgon - what advantage though ? And a side
    effect was that the Gorgon couldn`t steal the bloodline.
    (ii) grounding was a way of defending the bloodline from bloodtheft even
    through tighmaevril. In this case a separate contingency would have been
    made regarding the domain as well. (to do one without the other shows a
    simultaneous great forethought/total lack of forethought)

    In fact, it`s probably preferable to simply dying
    since MR could have thrown himself off the precipice he`s so often depicted
    fighting the Gorgon on, or he could have fallen on his own sword rather
    than have bloodtheft performed upon him. Of course, had MR been the
    smartest cookie in the jar he probably wouldn`t have headed off to take on
    the Big G in the first place....


    I don`t think that MR would have necessarily known in advance that he
    would have had a chance at throwing himself from a cliff, the grounding
    was done prior to him knowing the circumstances of his final battle.

    On the issue of vassalage, I think that these are more person to person
    than domain to domain. Typically a newly crowned king has to receive the
    oaths of his vassals - I take this to mean that on the death of the
    previous king, the vassalage agreement has to be re-performed. Since
    these agreements are meant to be mutually beneficial - it would seem
    likely that they would be (even if renegotiated).

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.

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.