Avanil

[kgauck]

Discussion thread for Avanil (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Avanil). If you would like to add a comment, click the Post Reply button.

[kgauck]

I'd like to start putting up heraldry for the provinces of Avanil. If anyone has descriptions or ideas for Avanese arms, do post.

[Thelandrin]

Well, the game used red and gold squares for both Avanil and the City of Anuire, so that might be a good place to start. Since it's also true that dynastic rulers generally have the national arms as their personal ones too, they might include the famous dragon of Avanil.

[kgauck]

I have the arms of Avanil up, I'm wondering if anyone has actually done work on the provinces which they believe should be represented.

I would have no problem assigning arms to each of the provinces, but I would rather get imput from people who have DM's the area or otherwise already done work on the area. Wilenburg posted the foundational information we used in Avanil, and may have ideas. Jaleela, who had arms for Diemed may well have done work on Avanil's provinces. Or, heads up, Diemed's provinces.

Even when I put stuff up, its tenative. I put up the arms of Danigau I made based on ideas Andrew Tall gave me, but I also really like Jaleela's idea of using a wolf and canting Wulf Danig's name.

[Thelandrin]

I'm not sure if it's my resolution, but the coat of arms for Avanil looks a little fuzzy, as if you had an image degradation when you uploaded it. Also, on a purely stylistic point of view, the eagle looks like it's two-faced rather than two-headed, because you can't see the break between its heads.

Incidentally, what do the Imperial arms look like?

[Thorogood Roele]

I'm curious how it is that the arms of the Anuirean empire became the arms of Avanil on the wiki board? The two headed eagle is the arms of Empire. The artwork on the original DM's screen shows Michael Roele at the battle of Sorrow's field, I doubt he would have brandished Avanil's arms.

[AndrewTall]

Well the interesting question is what lands did Michael Roele have as his own? The Roele family should have controlled directly lands equal to those of any duke and the land needs to be right next to the Imperial City...

I don't see it as a realistic possibility that the Roele family held the Crown for a millennia without having substantial lands and wealth of their own - another family would have dislodged them easily.

So to me Avanil would have been the Roele lands - or at least part of it, with the Avan family a cadet branch of the Roele's. Possibly the head of the Avan family left the day-to-day running of Avanil to the 'Duke of Avan' and took the honourific 'Roele' or suchlike in practice when they took the Iron Throne - only the novels really cover this time to give us clues and the writers on occasion appear not to have been clearly informed about the history and system of which they wrote.

That sort of interpretation wouldn't make the Avan claim to the Iron Throne much better than anyone else's - they presumably took the lands after the main family line died out and other families are just as related to the main Roele bloodline, but it would explain why they took the imperial arms as their own (imitation is the greatest form of flattery - and a constant reminder to others of the Avan imperial roots)

An alternative is just to simply say that Avan wants to be Emperor and made his shield look like the Imperial Shield to make clear that he sees himself as the next best thing to a Roele - let's face it, who could stop him simply claiming it? The chamberlain and possibly the temples of Haelyn might need to be placated but that's about it.

[ShadowMoon]

In my campaign Avanil's coat of arms resembles Imperial heraldry showing openly Avan's ambition, but instead of the red two-headed eagle, its red two-headed dragon on a white shield. But original Avanil's shield was a red dragon (one head Oo; ) on an orange shield.

And for me the original Roele's realm was over the land bridge between Aduria and Cerilia, which was destroyed in Godswar. So what remained of their kingdom is now under the Straits of Aerele.

[AndrewTall]

And for me the original Roele's realm was over the land bridge between Aduria and Cerilia, which was destroyed in Godswar. So what remained of their kingdom is now under the Straits of Aerele.

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.

[Jaleela]

Ruins of Empire: The arms of Darien Avan are shown as Darien wearing a red tabard with a two headed gold Imperial eagle.

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. I can't remember off the top of my head if there is a crown at the honour point above the eagle's head. If you take into account that the eagle will break one of the accepted practises (half the gold eagle is on the white part of the shield), it might make more sense to change the field color and/or the charge, or outline the eagle on the argent side with black so it stands out.

So they are different, but show a differencing to show Avan's ambition, but may also show that he is related to the Roele's by blood.

Avan, as stated above, could be a cadet branch of the Roele family. Also Avan's does not have the serpent, representing Azrai, in its talons. ;)

Not all differencing of arms happens with a label or crescent, or even a border. Sometimes it is a simple color change or addition of lesser charges or the removal of some.

[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 :)

[ShadowMoon]

My thoughts exactly...

Probably the Imperial City and surrounding lands like province of Anuire (Avanil) were remains of Roele's kingdom which were destroyed in Godswar cataclysm.

[Dcolby]

Darien Avan's entirely too arrogant attitude :)

Here, here I agree entirely, not only does he hide his Azrai bloodline (I can't let it go it just tickles me...sorry) but the Avanils' confiscated Imperial Lands to back their flimsy claim of blood!! :D

Maybe I should be Boeruines' press agent?? He comes off as way to uptight...Nearly as bad as Avans' arrogant ways..;)

[Dcolby]

The idea of land outside Anuire is very valid though-

I seem to recall that many of the conquered territories had Governors under the old Imperial system in Anuire. Surely these lucretive appointments were another way the Old Emperors ensured loyalty and supplemented the power of their Avanese holdings by handing out the choice cuts to the trustworthy. The promise of a governorship for the Son, Nephew or Cousin of a duke could by a lot of loyalty and maybe even set Dukes against one another to earn such rewards.

[dalor]

You only have to look at the history of the Japanese Empire to see why an Emporer could, for all intents and purposes, be without real holdings and still hold onto (in Japans case) at least nominal power.

Tradition can go a long way.

[kgauck]

Japanese emperors tend to be figureheads, and there are long periods in which they are powerless figureheads. Certainly the Emperor of Anuire is something more than a cerimonial office.

[Dcolby]

Japanese emperors tend to be figureheads, and there are long periods in which they are powerless figureheads. Certainly the Emperor of Anuire is something more than a cerimonial office.

They were also thought to have divine ancestory...& perhaps that same connection of blood relation to a God also played a small part in the power of the Anuirean Emperors.

Extensive Personal Holdings..
Theoretical Ownership of All other lands..
Traditions and apparatus of leadership resting in the Roele line..
Control of Overseas and Conquered territorial Governorships,
and a tangible "Divine Right" would make for a very, very powerful and very very heavy crown. No small wonder the "Empire" went to hell in a handbasket with the ending of the Roele line.

[ShadowMoon]

IMHO, the "Divine Right" was the main factor why Roeles were Emperors for so long, beeing that Haelyn is a patron of Anuire afterall. Imperial Temple was certanly making sure to remind Anuireans (nobles and serves alike) of this, thus securing Roele's right as well as their religious supremacy.
No one would openly chalenge Roele imperial line and/or their right, many probably hoped and schemed to bring Roeles down, but as long as Roeles had legitimate heirs, Iron Throne was in their hands.

Probably before the Godswar, Roeles needed strong material power and cunning politics to support their position as Emperors, but after the "Light" forces triumph over the Shadow, and Haelyn's ascendancy in Anduiras place, under the Roeles banner, they secured the Iron Throne forever.

[kgauck]

Let's not forget that this thread has mostly maintained itself on the question of whether the emperor owned lands directly himself. The objection that Andrew and I have made is that without a substantial base of direct power, theorical power becomes worthless. Machiavelli, in his Discourses on Livy, suggests it can last a single generation but not two. If the Emperor had a seccure base of power aproximating a duchy, had lands in the duchies, controlled things in the lands were Imperial Govorners were appointed, and had some kind of broad tax (and Andrew is correct to suggest its not a direct tax, kings of England had a tax on wool and kings of France had a tax on salt), then we're talking about real power, and the ideological componants, Haelyn's teachings, traditional deference, habits of obediance, oaths of obligation, reinforce and support real power. but, without real power, without direct access to GB and RP, ideological support alone will not produce any tangible power.

[Thelandrin]

It's entirely possible that the Emperors had widespread holdings throughout Anuire. They may have held various Haelyn temple holdings, probably controlled a lot of law holdings in various countries and almost certainly held great chunks of Avanil. Chances are too that they were the only regents in the Imperial City.

[kgauck]

My own sense is that they, in medieval fashion, controlled the economy through excessive regulation and taxation as well. In game terms, they owned the guilds, but made less money per holding. There seems to be a lot of color to the effect that guilders are on the rise, and that their role is new. Who then controlled these holdings previously? If the medieval world is our model, the crown.

[ShadowMoon]

My own sense is that they, in medieval fashion, controlled the economy through excessive regulation and taxation as well. In game terms, they owned the guilds, but made less money per holding. There seems to be a lot of color to the effect that guilders are on the rise, and that their role is new. Who then controlled these holdings previously? If the medieval world is our model, the crown.

Or Law holdings perhaps...

[Dcolby]

Or Law holdings perhaps...

On the question of holdings other than Land controlled by the Emperor, I would tend to think that Law Holdings would be the most valued and form the greater portion of Imperial Holdings outside the Emperors personal demense.

From a pure Game mechanic viewpoint Law holdings can be used to oppose most other sorts of holdings. Seize the Income of those holdings that exist already, and lacking law holdings a rival cannot raise troops save for expensive and unreliable mercs.

Why run a guild or church when a law holding can counter both of these types and loot those that do not support the "law". Just my own take..

[ShadowMoon]

On the question of holdings other than Land controlled by the Emperor, I would tend to think that Law Holdings would be the most valued and form the greater portion of Imperial Holdings outside the Emperors personal demense.

From a pure Game mechanic viewpoint Law holdings can be used to oppose most other sorts of holdings. Seize the Income of those holdings that exist already, and lacking law holdings a rival cannot raise troops save for expensive and unreliable mercs.

Why run a guild or church when a law holding can counter both of these types and loot those that do not support the "law". Just my own take..

ditto...

;)

[dalor]

Very true...they were most often figureheads, until
the advent of the modern era really...and now they are
back to being figureheads.

My point was only that a national leader can lead
without having lands...even in a feudal system.

[kgauck]

Very true...they were most often figureheads, until
the advent of the modern era really...My point was only that a national leader can lead without having lands...even in a feudal system.

In the modern era, vast bureaucracies can inforce the impersonal will of the state, which can make a figurehead appear powerful. But it is the inertia and raison d'etre of the organization that keep it going, not the desires of a leader. Leaders who oppose the bureaucracy can destroy themselves.

"It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favour; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others only defend him half-heartedly, so that between them he runs great danger."

[kgauck]

I am quite sure that the Emperor ought to have controlled law holdings. Its hard to take any regent seriously who pretends to domination who does not control the law.

But when measuring the Emperor (or any soveriegn) against his many vassals, can we not presume that they too own some land and some law? If so we are back to a presumption that he can be overawed by many recalcitrant vassals. Control of guilds and dominance of the church is required to give us the power of a great prince.

Of course this is a default position. Certain eras might have seen a weak emperor or a particularly activist temple.

[Autarkis]

It could also be the fact that the Roele line is related directly to a god, and not any god, the patron god of his people. That has alot of clout in a game where miracles happen because the gods will it.

[Dcolby]

I am quite sure that the Emperor ought to have controlled law holdings. Its hard to take any regent seriously who pretends to domination who does not control the law.

But when measuring the Emperor (or any soveriegn) against his many vassals, can we not presume that they too own some land and some law? If so we are back to a presumption that he can be overawed by many recalcitrant vassals. Control of guilds and dominance of the church is required to give us the power of a great prince.

Of course this is a default position. Certain eras might have seen a weak emperor or a particularly activist temple.

I agree, it is very likely certain that no matter how hard we try to come up with an all powerful Emperor who could not and would not be challenged it is extremely unlikely that every Emperor had full control and measure of his empire.

In fact history provides very few "Great" Rulers (comparitively to ones that are more or less figureheads) no matter what system of Gov't that are above challenge or instances of being outmanuvered politicaly. Most rulers then, now, and in fantasy settings are masters of the deal and compromise in order to enjoy any success.

The Lands and Holdings of the Emperor would have waxed and waned with the ability of the sitting Emperor.

Certainly there were in the line of Roele a few Emperors that simply let the empire run itself and faded away into comfortable obscurity.

[dalor]

The Japanese Feudal Govts (the various Shogunate families) WERE a vast bureaucracy.

I think you missed my entire point and have moved on to something else I wasn`t even talking about.

I`m saying that the Roele family did not need lands that belonged only to them. Did they have any? I`m sure they did...but the idea of a Divine Dynasty is more realistic in a Fantasy Game (if you can pardon the seeming paradox) than in our real world.

The Roele Empire could have been run by an Emperor who used his direct relationship and family ties with Haelyn to easily keep his nobles in line. Who in their right mind would go against a family directly related to the very god they called on in battle...and nearly all other things as well?

The fact that every noble was with little doubt invested by a Priest who belonged to the church of the Imperial Family`s direct relation would be a primary facet in every man`s thinking. The fact that the Roele`s had a True Bloodline no doubt meant that they were literally looked upon as near-gods at the least.

Did the Roele Emperors have land? Without a doubt. It can`t be overlooked though that religion played a significant part in their rule and their early ideas of "Manifest Destiny"...If Haelyn were the King of the Gods, why not should his own people be lords over all others?

Religion no doubt played even more a role in the affairs of the Anuirean Empire than it ever did in the Pope`s tenuous hold over Europe until the time of the Reformation Movement.

Not only did the Emperor rule as a Temporal Emperor, but he was the direct relation to a God that was the God of an entire people...and I`m sure that is exactly how the various Temples to Haelyn taught it. Were the Catholic Pope`s one continuous family of decent from Jesus himself would be the only way to compare the two...and obviously they were not.

So I second the idea that once there were no more Roele`s to sit on the throne, it is little wonder the Empire has never recovered: the entire idea that Gods ruled the people was shattered and with so much doubt then in place there was no hope for the Empire to survive.

Thanks for the quote by the way, its always good to read the thoughts of other people...who are you quoting?

[ShadowMoon]

And keep in mind, that back then there was only one Haelyn temple, the Imperial Temple, and within the Empire it was the superior of faiths, and recognised as a governing religious institution of the Empire (like a State Religion in present realms). So I am pretty sure that Imperial Temple sticked with Roeles. Roeles were like earthly manifestation of their overlord, and their protectors from the day one.

And I don't believe Emperors controled Temple holdings directly at anytime, though they had much influence within the Temple, and probably many of Roele's house were High Priests (like younger brothers, etc.). But I am sure that Temple swore their allegiance and signed a writ of vassalage to the Emperor.

Probably similar scenario went for Guilds, ie. Imperial Guild managed the economy of the Empire, and again there were probably some of Roele's blood that were Guild Masters, but Emperors never had any Guild holdings. Again they were most probably vassals of the Imperial seat.

And all landed rulers within the Empire were vassals of the Iron Throne.

All "court" Wizards swore their allegiance to the Royal (Imperial) College of Sorcery, the sole center of the legal arcane society. College of Sorcery was under direct sponsorship of the Iron Throne and swore the oath of vassalage to the Emperor.

What I am saying is that the Emperor is a single govermental body, and he never had Temple and Guild holdings let alone Sources, only Law holdings, colonial assets and lands before Godswar with Imperial City and some surrounding territory (Anuire province) remaining. But Imperial Temple, and Imperial Guild were vassals to the Iron Throne, as well as remaining landed rulers.

Emperors commanded Imperial Legion that was elite (praetorian-like) army, with a full support of the Knights of Haelyn. So no matter that main bulk of Anuirean military was commanded and mustered by various nobles, Imperial seat was never defenseless, nor easy to conquer either by mundane or magical means or through the diplomacy.

Besides not many nobles would turn against their liege openly, because they would go directly against their own right to rule their realm, as well as against their patron Haelyn. So plots and schemes were always present, but Imperial position of Roeles was never seriously endangered.

Till Boeruine started the coup with the help of Michael Roele's older sister. But Michael dealt with that properly, though his sister made a pact with the Gorgon later, thus leading Michael Roele to his doom on the fields of Gorgon's Crown, and leaving the Empire without a heir, which lead to fall of the Imperial line, and the Empire.


Slightly-Off Topic:

I never understood how Boeruine got away with this, I mean its a terribile stain on their name, especially now when the "myth" of the great Empire is something that makes Anuirean hearts swell with pride.

[Dcolby]

Slightly-Off Topic:

I never understood how Boeruine got away with this, I mean its a terribile stain on their name, especially now when the "myth" of the great Empire is something that makes Anuirean hearts swell with pride.

I think that the Chaos following the Gorgons destruction of the Roeles may have aided the lines survival.

Also that a Roele was involved in the whole affair may have meant a more leanient stance was taken in order to "Save Face".

As to the stain on the name, certainly Beoruines political position vs. Avans is one that is behind the curve in relation to allies, cash and regency. Maybe his "name" and families past deeds remain an impediment in acheiving his goals.

Perhaps the Archdukes reputation for never forgetting aide rendered or forgiving an injury is a response to his families name?

It certainly appears that the only course open to him is conquest, where as Avan has many many ways to gain the crown.

Speaking first hand as my current incarnation of the setting just concluded a massive war between Beoruine and Avan, if Avan keeps his allies he may loose initial ground and nearly any battle in which Beoruine has personal command.

However soon (4-6 war moves) Avans Gold begins to bear wght against Beoruine.

The Actions of my players (Very aggresive little cuss's that were using the two superpowers distraction with one another to make a land grab of their own) changed the political playing field and a settlement was reached.

Of course the question has just been postponed and I am sure the ArchDuke and the Prince will be tussling again soon. :D

[AndrewTall]

Regarding some of the above points it's worth remembering that a) gratitude is fleeting, resentment of taxation endures and b) the Roele family tree will not be a straight line but a series of entwined trees.

Roele will have had several children - it's one of the most necessary duties of a king let alone an emperor. One of these - possibly but not necessarily the eldest will have become emperor. The others (with very high and possibly true bloodlines) will have married Boruine, Mhor, etc, etc. After 1-2 generations EVERYONE has an equal claim to divine right to rule (and quite a few should have a true bloodline, but let's not go there).

In Birthright the idea of primogeniture takes a hammering due to the mechanics of bloodline inheritance. Remember that the kids average mom and dad in 2e, but 1 or 2 of them will get an inheritance boost when mom and dad pass on.

If they pick child # 3 to inherit then child #1 will have a substantially inferior bloodline - and may well struggle to take control against #3 (and even if the parents choose child 1 to prevent power-plays, if they truly support #3 and #1 is opposed to the bloodline philosophy the land's choice may make #3 heir in any event).

I would expect therefore that in BR the 'natural' heir to the throne is the child who inherits the greater bloodline - not just the first out.

That means however that a) being nice to mom and dad is v important for a noble as it determined who inherited the bloodline not just the land and b) when kids #3 and #1 turn up ruling the empire and Boeruine respectively, #1 has just as much family claim to Haelyn as #1 - it was the parent's choice who got which land, Boeruine is not so much rebelling against the natural order when he rebels shortly before the fall of the empire, but having a vigorous family row.

I realise that you have to 'make space' for the Roele's lands if you want them, or make Avanil the old lands of the Roele family, but I would note that even if the emperor holds law holdings across Anuire (much like Avan today), the income is low and the bloodline at a disadvantage in a fight - one turn of occupation and any duke can kick out the Roele's - it doesn't impact the game much to say that the Roele's held land, but does add some history (the ancient hunting lodge ordered sealed by imperial command and long forgotten) and verisimilitude.

[kgauck]

If one considers historical models, every split creates partisans on both sides. People don't rebel against their soveriegn because they are nothing but bold, naked ambition (well every century might throw up one or two such figures, but rebellions are far more common than that) they take up arms because they have a just cause.

We as observers may sympathize with one party or the other, may find their quarrel petty, or we may find the whole issue opaque. But one guide to the potency of a grievance is how the followers behave.

A leader will not generally run off without his followers. The followers have an opportunity to endorse a grievance, cause, or perception of events, and this can temper a ruler or encourage him to action.

If Boeruine lead a rebellion against the Emperor, then it was because he had a grievance he believed was just and this was a cause that won him support among his followers. Its also possible that some folks today believe that the injustice perpetrated by Micheal Roele against Boeruine was enough to cause Haelyn to withold his favor when it came time to face the Gorgon.

[Autarkis]

If one considers historical models, every split creates partisans on both sides. People don't rebel against their soveriegn because they are nothing but bold, naked ambition (well every century might throw up one or two such figures, but rebellions are far more common than that) they take up arms because they have a just cause.

We as observers may sympathize with one party or the other, may find their quarrel petty, or we may find the whole issue opaque. But one guide to the potency of a grievance is how the followers behave.

A leader will not generally run off without his followers. The followers have an opportunity to endorse a grievance, cause, or perception of events, and this can temper a ruler or encourage him to action.

If Boeruine lead a rebellion against the Emperor, then it was because he had a grievance he believed was just and this was a cause that won him support among his followers. Its also possible that some folks today believe that the injustice perpetrated by Micheal Roele against Boeruine was enough to cause Haelyn to withold his favor when it came time to face the Gorgon.

The problem is the Boeruine did not lead a rebellion against the Emperor. He used the death of Michael's father to push forth a claim on the throne, orchestrated (or attempted to) the death of Michael, and allied with goblins to further his claim (claimed goblins killed Michael then allied with them against Michael when he was still alive.)

Based on the books, House Boeruine had the strongest claim after Michael died (because the dolt forgave them) but because Laera Roele allied with the Gorgon and her children *might* have been the spawn of the Gorgon (remember Laera's little frolic with the Gorgon in IT) are probably the reasons they didn't assume the throne right after Michael's death. Though Boeruine may have been able to hide that, the fact that Laera was buried in an unmarked grave and that the reason for war was what the Gorgon had done, attempting to hide at least Laera's role in the whole affair as very, very difficult.

Also, I am not sure if there is such a proliferation of descendants of Roele or many that have the Roele bloodline, simply because the next in line for the throne after Michael was Boeruine. It is not uncommon or inconceivable that extra male children of the current Emperor were removed from inheriting, either through being cloistered in the priesthood, have "accidents" or given a chance to prove themselves on the front (and get themselves killed.)

It is also highly possible that the Roele line creates more female offspring than male (hence why Michael had seven sisters.) There is also the possibility with healing magic being more prevalent that having multiple sons was not as common since the chance of them dieing to a childhood disease was almost eliminated.

The addition of divine magic and ruling by a bloodline directly related to a god changes the game. In addition, depending on whether you play 2nd Edition (where the bloodline itself determines your ability to lead and gather regency) or BRCS (where skill and bloodline determines your ability to lead and gather regency) will probably also change the factors for why something happened.

[ShadowMoon]

Just to remind that Aedan Dosiere was was always few feets away from Michael Roele, he knew about Boeruine trachery...

[kgauck]

The problem is the Boeruine did not lead a rebellion against the Emperor. He used the death of Michael's father to push forth a claim on the throne, orchestrated (or attempted to) the death of Michael, and allied with goblins to further his claim (claimed goblins killed Michael then allied with them against Michael when he was still alive.)

That's a rebellion. And I'm sure it had plenty of political context. The differences between Lancaster and York involved differences in policy. The differences between Plantagenet and Valois involved differences in policy, in governing style, and implied significant changes in many parts of goverment. The great Imperial contenders of the 14th century, Wittelsbach, Luxemburg, and Habsburg each offered different politics, diplomacy, and traditions.

When Henry of Bolingbroke deposed his cousin, Richard II, it was almost entirely political. Henry, was leader of the faction so long associated with Lancaster, dating to Thomas and Henry (of Grosmont), royalist, pro-Canterbury and suspicious of the Avignon Papacy, connected to Spanish politics with an eye to an expansion of the war in France, and of course the great bard of the age, Chaucer, was a Lancasterian. (some say he was assasinated in political dealings)

Richard was a sucessor to his father's politics, pro-papal, favoring the neutrality of other powers in the Hundred Years War, and indeed peace in France, something new. Also new were interests in architecture, art, and religion.

I have no doubt that around so great a prince as Boeruine, or indeed the House of Boeruine, an alternative politics would spring up as those differing with the crown seek the protection of a great man, and the great man looks for issues to work on the crown.


Also, I am not sure if there is such a proliferation of descendants of Roele or many that have the Roele bloodline, simply because the next in line for the throne after Michael was Boeruine.

Its not a question of Micheal's decendents, its a question of his father's and grandfathers, and so on, their decendents. The real question is, how many cousins does Micheal have.


It is also highly possible that the Roele line creates more female offspring than male (hence why Michael had seven sisters.)

This is the ideal case for the argument that the dukes are closely related to the Roele line, because many of their mothers' were Roele princesses. Under such conditions it would not take very long before Boeruine had as much Roele blood as someone with the surname of Roele.

[geeman]

At 04:49 PM 5/11/2007, kgauck wrote:

>If Boeruine lead a rebellion against the Emperor, then it was
>because he had a grievance he believed was just and this was a cause
>that won him support among his followers.

We shouldn`t overlook the influence of naked ambition legitimized by
some grievance for public consumption. The Archduke might even be
able to convince himself that his true motive is the grievance rather
than his lust for power. (I`ll grit my teeth and refrain from any
modern examples....)

Gary

[Autarkis]

At 04:49 PM 5/11/2007, kgauck wrote:

>If Boeruine lead a rebellion against the Emperor, then it was
>because he had a grievance he believed was just and this was a cause
>that won him support among his followers.

We shouldn`t overlook the influence of naked ambition legitimized by
some grievance for public consumption. The Archduke might even be
able to convince himself that his true motive is the grievance rather
than his lust for power. (I`ll grit my teeth and refrain from any
modern examples....)

Gary

There was no grievance, or more concisely, that was not the reason Boeruine gave for his claim to the throne. He orchestrated Michael's death (which failed) and claimed that Michael was not Michael, but a doppleganger or fake (made even more believable by the fact that with magic, it could happen.) He even began to believe it because a) he thought his plan succeeded and b) the Gorgon was most likely manipulating him through Boeruine's court mage.

His followers believed that Boeruine was the rightful heir, right up until Michael killed him and Boeruine's son bent knee, acknowledge Michael as Michael and this the rightful Emperor, and all of Boeruine's cronies got to marry a Roele. The Iron Throne is an interesting read, less for plot, but more for background information on how Michael died. My reading of it lead me to believe that Boeruine's claim was special, most likely because as powerful a vassal as he was, a previous Emperor attempted to keep in line through marriage. And that Michael's marrying off his sisters to Duke's was unprecedented (both in how to deal with Boeruine's cronies but also in the fact they were marrying dukes.)

I look at it as less a rebellion and more a civil war. Semantics, I know.

There is also another reason why Boeruine's claim is weak. Laera did have a tryst with the Gorgon and the Boeruine line may have a closer tie to Roele through Laera's son actually being the son of the Gorgon.

[kgauck]

We shouldn`t overlook the influence of naked ambition legitimized by some grievance for public consumption. The Archduke might even be able to convince himself that his true motive is the grievance rather than his lust for power.

Sure. Hume remains us that reason can be the slave of the passions, giving us pretty reasons for doing what we would do otherwise, but under the pretence that we decided to do it. But that's an important thing. But people are not attracted to nake ambition, so dressing your ambition up (and there is always some dressing up) makes it palatable. But I also affirm that choices have consequences, and different rulers will rule differently. But the questions of chicken and egg puzzle the philosophers much more than the court, town, and field.

[kgauck]

There was no grievance, or more concisely, that was not the reason Boeruine gave for his claim to the throne.
You refute claims of Boeruine's motives, but then continue by describing his actions, not his motives.

He orchestrated Michael's death (which failed) and claimed that Michael was not Michael, but a doppleganger or fake (made even more believable by the fact that with magic, it could happen.) He even began to believe it because a) he thought his plan succeeded and b) the Gorgon was most likely manipulating him through Boeruine's court mage.

What then were Boeruine's motives?

Keep in mind that Birthright is a political setting. If characters don't have politics, if they just have egos, their actions aren't terribly interesting.

[AndrewTall]

I see Boeruine's actions as primarily a power-grab, perhaps he was a Roele scion married off into the Boeruine family (if they only had a daughters, a junior Roele son would be welcomed into the family via marriage).

If he'd killed Michael (which would not have been publicly known about if he'd succeeded, then he would have retrieved his 'rightful place' as emperor without any major bloodshed - unless some dukes 'rebelled against him'. Of course when Michael lived a real war was inevitable unless Michael crept off into the sunset / pulled off an assassination / personal challenge.


On the influence of the church, I would expect that the priesthood was every bit as political as the rest of the nobility - and if one 'Roele' challenged another (for example when Boeruine challenged Michael) and the challenger was clearly stronger and more likely to support the church, then the majority of the priesthood would probably support the challenger and justify it later.

To avoid the problems of an absolutely dominant church (b/c it can prove faith) of priests utterly devoted to the creed (because o/w they lose spells etc clearly indicating which is in the right and which is the heretic) I put a similar restriction on priests as I did on mages in the campaigns I designed - so only a rare few priests can 'invoke miracles' - and they are not bestowed lightly, while the god is much more distant s less likely to give direction. (More accurately I removed them completely except as a guiding philosophy for the church, apart from anything else I feel uncomfortable role-playing a god as DM)

Given how strong some religions are in rail-roading thought in the real world, to keep a D&D game interesting you need something to undermine them, political intrigue within the priesthood is a good candidate - any organisation with that much wealth and power will attract a lot of parasites and ambitious types.

btw, I am not sure where your comment on summoning angels comes from - as far as I am aware there are no deva's / demons etc in BR, only Shadow World creatures (who can admittedly stand in for either) so the church shouldn't have otherwordly minions, not that it really needs them with spell casting priests, paladins, etc.

[Autarkis]

You refute claims of Boeruine's motives, but then continue by describing his actions, not his motives.

What then were Boeruine's motives?

Keep in mind that Birthright is a political setting. If characters don't have politics, if they just have egos, their actions aren't terribly interesting.

Boeruine's motives are simple and very transparent: He wants the throne. For the longest time, Michael's father had daughter after daughter, without a male heir. Michael was not born until his father was late in his life and Boeruine assumed that he would be the designated heir until Michael was born. His actions were driven by his ego, and though he as a character in the novel was one dimensional and not terribly interesting, the war that he caused was.

I assume (and it is not written in the text) that the Court Mage of Boeruine had always been in league with the Gorgon and upon the birth of Michael began laying the ground work for Boeruine to become the thrall of the Gorgon (though Boeruine would not see it that way.) His motive, in the Fantasy Setting, is just pure greed and jealousy that he was losing the throne to a recognized heir. (Though not intentional by the author of the Iron Throne, it acts out in miniature the fall of the Gorgon during the Shadow War.)

The reason I describe his actions is because they reflect what his motive was. If he had a grievance against the Emperor, his approach would have been different and the message he told his compatriots would be different.

The novel the Iron Throne is like a greek tragedy, where the Boeruine sought the throne because of his ego and Michael died at the hand of the Gorgon for revenge. There were politics involved, but that does not take away from the key drivers of the main characters. They were epic representatives of their arch-type. The real world is not black and white, but the D&D universe is.

[geeman]

At 11:12 AM 5/12/2007, you wrote:

>Keep in mind that Birthright is a political setting. If characters
>don`t have politics, if they just have egos, their actions aren`t
>terribly interesting.

Politics and egos are much more interchangeable than I think you`re
suggesting here.

Gary

[kgauck]

Greek tragic figures act out of noble motives and come to a bad end because of a fatal flaw. They are rich and complex and you identify with them and feel bad (pathos) when they fall. Boeruine is not being described this way.

The really great thing about a good tragedy is that you identify with and feel all of the characters have good motives, even if they are flawed. I prefer to see all the sides in a conflict as real people with real motives, rich and complex. The Birthright setting gives us Awnsheghlien as unambiguous evil. The humans don't need to be.


The real world is not black and white, but the D&D universe is.Where is this written? Certainly stark good and evil, law and chaos are tangible forces which empower great actions, but they don't require all characters to cling to the most extreme edges of the spectrum.

What we have here is a kind of Richard III problem. Of all the kings Shakespere portrays, only Richard III is an unambiguous villain. Shakespere even gives him deformities to make it clear to any audience that he is corrupt. He's a monster, who kills for greed and ambition, unlike the heroic characters who kill for a higher purpose. Given that the Gorgon is the monster of the piece, having Boeruine as a monster, unredeemable, pure greed and ambition put the two characters into the same spot, and in that contest, the Gorgon will win. He's more monsterous, more evil.

Boeruine as Faustus strikes me as much more interesting than Boeruine as Richard III. The main Awnshegh I use for my campaign as the dark menacing power is the White Witch, and no one knows they serve her until its way too late to back out and change allegence. Well, NPC's from her domain might serve here earlier, but her recruits in other realms think they are affiliating with normal people with normal motives and only when they are in deep, if then, do they ever know who they really serve.

[kgauck]

Politics and egos are much more interchangeable than I think you`re suggesting here.
By ego I mean "I want it because I want it." By politics I mean there is something slightly more complex. I want it so I can aid my friends, I want it to help my followers, I want it to help my people, I want it to serve this principle (justice, honor, peace, &c). Can one person be both ego and political, sure, see Hume above. But they are not interchangable. I can want both, but my desire to save my home town from a dragon is not the same thing as just wanting to get to the next level.

[Dcolby]

The real world is not black and white, but the D&D universe is.

I think that rests very heavily on the type of D&D the gamemaster presents. Certainly Greyhawk & the Forgotten Realms are very clearly "Black and White". The appeal to me and to my players that the Birthright setting holds is the grey that a Birthright setting brings.

Certainly the alignments are still there and part of the game, however the Birthright setting itself does not tend to overly reward the Extremes of Good nor does it punish the Extremes of Evil as in some published Greyhawk and F.R. adventures.

The "If the player that drinks of the fountain is Lawful and Good they are healed...or...Cured...or granted..." things do not tend to have a Birthright flavor. The players having influence over kingdoms and their own destiny also tend to move the game in more complicated paths.

Indeed being one of the Extremes in Birthright can make your path a very difficult one to tread.

[Autarkis]

Greek tragic figures act out of noble motives and come to a bad end because of a fatal flaw. They are rich and complex and you identify with them and feel bad (pathos) when they fall. Boeruine is not being described this way.

The really great thing about a good tragedy is that you identify with and feel all of the characters have good motives, even if they are flawed. I prefer to see all the sides in a conflict as real people with real motives, rich and complex. The Birthright setting gives us Awnsheghlien as unambiguous evil. The humans don't need to be.

Where is this written? Certainly stark good and evil, law and chaos are tangible forces which empower great actions, but they don't require all characters to cling to the most extreme edges of the spectrum.

What we have here is a kind of Richard III problem. Of all the kings Shakespere portrays, only Richard III is an unambiguous villain. Shakespere even gives him deformities to make it clear to any audience that he is corrupt. He's a monster, who kills for greed and ambition, unlike the heroic characters who kill for a higher purpose. Given that the Gorgon is the monster of the piece, having Boeruine as a monster, unredeemable, pure greed and ambition put the two characters into the same spot, and in that contest, the Gorgon will win. He's more monsterous, more evil.

Boeruine as Faustus strikes me as much more interesting than Boeruine as Richard III. The main Awnshegh I use for my campaign as the dark menacing power is the White Witch, and no one knows they serve her until its way too late to back out and change allegence. Well, NPC's from her domain might serve here earlier, but her recruits in other realms think they are affiliating with normal people with normal motives and only when they are in deep, if then, do they ever know who they really serve.

Where in the setting material are you getting this for Boeruine? Where is this grievance listed? In Iron Throne and the follow up novel War, there is no indication of this. It is very clear that Arwyn of Boeruine wanted the throne just because he did. It may not make for an interesting character, but that is how he is portrayed. There is no indication that the Emperor slighted him throughout the book, on the contrary, the Emperor goes out of his way to please Arwyn. Back to what started this discussion, where do you find a grievance that Arwyn had against the Emperor to spur on his actions based on canon material?

Arwyn simply wanted the throne because, well, he wanted the throne. Thats it. You can throw in real world examples, compare him to Richard and Longshanks or other monarchs, but it doesn't change what his motives were. He was an example of how insidious the Gorgon is in manipulating regents, similar to Ghoere in The Falcon and the Wolf. Ghoere wants the throne because he wants the throne. Not to better the world, but because he wants the power it represents.

Evil is very black and white in the BR setting. Azrai rewards those who embrace evil (check out pages 24 to 26 of the Book of Regency.) There is no overarching reward for Good, because acting good should be its own reward and the magic level of the world is low. There are no Holy Avengers raining from the sky, nor fountains specifically aligned to an alignment that gives a reward. Good is the underdog, and I think the BR takes a lot of its cues from Tolkein. But even though Good is the underdog, it doesn't take into account that the setting is a battle between good and evil, right and wrong.

There is a difference in how you alter the setting to meet your personal play style and what the default setting is.

[Autarkis]

I think that rests very heavily on the type of D&D the gamemaster presents. Certainly Greyhawk & the Forgotten Realms are very clearly "Black and White". The appeal to me and to my players that the Birthright setting holds is the grey that a Birthright setting brings.

Certainly the alignments are still there and part of the game, however the Birthright setting itself does not tend to overly reward the Extremes of Good nor does it punish the Extremes of Evil as in some published Greyhawk and F.R. adventures.

The "If the player that drinks of the fountain is Lawful and Good they are healed...or...Cured...or granted..." things do not tend to have a Birthright flavor. The players having influence over kingdoms and their own destiny also tend to move the game in more complicated paths.

Indeed being one of the Extremes in Birthright can make your path a very difficult one to tread.

There is no fountain that bestows power because of the low magic and divine interference flavor of the game. BR is full of examples of Good versus Evil.

Off the top of my head:
Moergan vs. Raenech
Mhor vs. Markazor
Baruk-Azhik vs. the Orogs

The main proponents of the setting, those with the bloodline of Azrai, are irredeemable, evil. The setting, at least for the Anuirean Empire, is that of a divided realm looking for that small group of heroes to be the light in these dark times (or more precisely the players.) To be the Fellowship that brings the ring to Mount D...er...

[dalor]

I agree.

A certain Italian once said something to the effect that: "A ruler should always strive to do good, but have the capacity to do evil when needed."

Something to that end.

I have always liked Birthright because even a Lawful and Good ruler must at times deal harshly with his own people or do things that call into question the entire alignment issue itself.

We even tried one game where Alignment wasn`t used (fortunately we had no Paladins in that game).

[kgauck]

There is a difference in how you alter the setting to meet your personal play style and what the default setting is.
and in the next message


BR is full of examples of Good versus Evil. [...]
The main proponents of the setting, those with the bloodline of Azrai, are irredeemable, evil. The setting, at least for the Anuirean Empire, is that of a divided realm looking for that small group of heroes to be the light in these dark times (or more precisely the players.) To be the Fellowship that brings the ring to Mount D...er...

That's on way to read the setting, and clearly its there. The game can be read that way. I don't alter the default setting to meet my personal style of play, I don't focus on the Awnsheghlien, I focus on the interactions within realms. Here is, what I see as the difference in approach.

If you look at the campaign wide materials, the Atlas of Cerilia, for example, there is a strong emphasis on Awnsheghlien, Azrai, and the consequences of the War of the Shadow.

If you look at the individual PS's they focus on local politics between neighboring realms and within individual realms. The individual PS's focus on regular problems of governance, Bellamie the problem noble, balancing the books at the end of the day, fending off the aggression of Ghoere, your key temple (IHH) wants to reclaim holdings held by RCS, but RCS is intimatly connected with Moedore, and this splits your friends and makes them rivals.

In the first case I can see a Manichaeism reading of Birthright, in which there is a grand struggle, dark times, the players are supposed to confront the great evil, "to be the Fellowship that brings the ring to Mount D...er..." and the rest of that.

But wouldn't you agree that if we focus our attention on a much smaller scale, of ruling a little realm like Roesone (especially if we play in the style where one PC is king and the other PC's are his lieutenants, vassals, and advisors) then we get a result much more like the one I am describing. Since you responded to Dcolby's post, I think its evident that some portion of us like a less stark enviroment in which to play. Finally, that we are not altering the setting to satisfy our own style, but drawing our inspiration and finding our attraction from different parts of the setting.

[AndrewTall]

The main proponents of the setting, those with the bloodline of Azrai, are irredeemable, evil. The setting, at least for the Anuirean Empire, is that of a divided realm looking for that small group of heroes to be the light in these dark times (or more precisely the players.) To be the Fellowship that brings the ring to Mount D...er...

Black and White:
What about the Siren, the Banshegh or the wolf? What about the large number of non-awnsheghlien scions of Azrai? The Ghonallison family in Tuornen for example, many of the elves, Tara from the Tuarheviel PS?

Some awnsheghlien are clearly meant to be extra-ordinarily evil, nice and black 'n' white with no troublesome grey to stay a paladin's vengeance.

but the setting also directly counters that sort of play however with its treatment of goblins - clearly described numerous times as more than just blade-fodder contrary to most AD&D stereotypes of the day and a similar movement of elves away from the 'nice fairy' types - both shifts were designed to make people think in tones of grey not black and white.

Yes your character can be the one to overthrow the local big bad (Anuire: Gorgon, Rjurik Highlands: White Witch, Vosgaard: Raven, Brechtur: Swordhawk/hag, Khinasi: Magian/Serpent) and play an epic fantasy-opera campaign, but the setting is also clearly geared up to permit a campaign based on political intrigue where the 'not my side' = evil = blade fodder - huzzah! mode of thought is non-functional.

The setting is designed imho to meet both the epic/opera style of play and also a more subtle political game of shifting greys - read any of the write-ups on regent tactics in the book of priesthood, magecraft etc and you will see conflict without necessarily that conflict being good vs evil. That's a key part of the design to enable a broad audience over a period of time.

In general I would say that the greys are more prevalent at the lower level gameplay and the boundaries become more clearcut as you progress, but given the game-play styles of various role-players that's hardly surprising.




Where in the setting material are you getting this for Boeruine? Where is this grievance listed? In Iron Throne and the follow up novel War, there is no indication of this. It is very clear that Arwyn of Boeruine wanted the throne just because he did. It may not make for an interesting character, but that is how he is portrayed. There is no indication that the Emperor slighted him throughout the book, on the contrary, the Emperor goes out of his way to please Arwyn. Back to what started this discussion, where do you find a grievance that Arwyn had against the Emperor to spur on his actions based on canon material?

Boeruine:
The books are silent on the matter of why Boeruine rebelled - as you would expect from books that are heroic fantasy not political thrillers - as such they makes no statement for or against there being reasons for the rebellion or whether or not those reasons were justified. You could equally well argue over whether tailors made clothes, cobbler made boots, etc - they were not relevant to the story and so were not mentioned, but that does not mean that there were no cobblers, tailors, etc. I would note also that the descriptions of Arwyn and his character argue against him simply being a power junky - he is a firm, blunt, but mostly fair figure from recollection not some monomaniac monster (his son on the other hand...)

The only way you can argue that Boeruine had no motive for the crown beyond pure greed is to choose not to consider what would have caused him and a number of allies to try and take the throne - Boeruine hardly fights alone and the other nobles do not immediately flock to the throne to oppose him, indicating that the empire was very fragmented before the rebellion - Boeruine could easily have thought the child-Michael (or whoever stood as regent for him) incapable of reforging the empire and seen himself as the only person strong enough the take the role forcing him to claim the throne in order to protect the empire. If you want to play a political game, where the actions of Boeruine will echo down the generations and impact the current setting, you need to consider the why's in order to properly assess the current position - is Michael seen as a hero or as a fool? Was Boeruine the fiend whose blind ambition led to the destruction of the empire or the tragic hero who so nearly saved it from annihilation?

[Jaleela]

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.

Hmmm...

Just a side note, but according to Rich Baker, Anuire is based loosely on France, and given the powerful and semi-independant duchies, both before and after the end of the Empire, that is what we based as a model of how things generally function and customs, etc.

At this point in our game, it is sort of like the HRE, neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire, as one of my Prof's used to joke, but with an emperor who is in a position similar to the Holy Roman Emperors, largely dependant on the goodwill of a number of greater and smaller electors, some of who can blow him off if he irritates them enough.

We also base the GB and regency points available to the emperor on a basis of 1 or 2 GB per province due in taxation from the various landed regents, and say a regency point per province recognizing and giving fealty to the emperor. Our taxation system follows the ruleset, but is theorectically in detail in our campaign based on duties on certain goods, tolls, and sales taxes on specific items - say salt, or wine, or a hearth tax.

Typically, medieval rents were due, regardless of country at the harvest time, so if a GM is to base money raised by the government on this system, GB's would only be collected once a year. By basing it on duties on imported or exported goods, and sales taxes, that is both a historical solution for governments before strong, centeralized monarchies, and provides GB's seasonally instead of once a year. Some regents who personally control manors and lordships have a 'privy-purse' that they can draw on, based on yearly rents for the manors. This is a lot smaller than what taxation brings in, but it is a good emergency fund for regents.

The emperor in our game uses the imperial monies to maintain a core imperial legion, which is supplemented by the feudal hosts due from each duchy - this is usually a much smaller number of men than each duchy can raise on its own. Basically, the emperor maintains imperial legion war card units as a small core, and things like knights and most cavalry are provided by the duchies.

[Jaleela]

As an aside, the landmark event that caused moderns to consider this issue in a serious way was the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, on All Saints Day while everyone was in church. To see a country's capital slain in church no less, to see the earthquake tumble the city, fires consume the city, and then a tsunami overwhelm the city, is a grave crisis. The old world view attributed this to the wrath of God, but moderns argued other causes, from the congestion of cities (Rousseau) to the arbitrary fragility of life and death (Voltaire), to more naturalistic explanations that volcanos and earthquakes are controlled by as yet undiscovered natural processes (techtonics and vulcanology are still way off).

.

Ah, but a medieval person would have argued that the earthquake clearly occured as a divine punishment based on some sin of the royal family, or the people themselves. Just as a strong, efficient and good monarch was seen as a sign of God's favour, or a bad, inept one as a sign of God's ill-pleasure manifest.

Interesting point though.

[ryancaveney]

A certain Italian once said something to the effect
that: "A ruler should always strive to do good, but
have the capacity to do evil when needed."

Exactly. A good ruler does bad things to those who try to do bad things to the people under his protection. IMO, saying "Oh, but that would be lowering myself to their level" is an admission of being unworthy to rule.

The way I like to think of it is in the words of the Witch from Sondheim's _Into the Woods_: "You're not good, you're not bad, you're just nice. I'm not good, I'm not nice, I'm just right." The job of the ruler is to be right, part of which is punishing anyone whose excessive desire for niceness interferes with doing what's right. The fun part is that no one ever agrees on what right really is, so there's always plenty of gray area.


We even tried one game where Alignment wasn`t used

I never use alignment in any of my games. Never have, never will. Kenneth Gauck is the only person who has ever said anything in favor of the alignment system that didn't make me recoil in disgust, but even he has been unable to convince me that D&D has ever made of it what he sees as possible, instead relying on it only as a poorly-implemented role-playing crutch for the weak-minded.

Indeed, given that the prototypical D&D campaign is dungeon crawling, which is properly defined as breaking into other sentient beings' homes, killing them, and stealing their possessions, all on the flimsy excuse that they are inherently "evil", is the best example ever invented of Chaotic Evil behavior. =) I'm perfectly serious -- I just think the irony is hilarious, too.


Ryan

[Autarkis]

and in the next message
That's on way to read the setting, and clearly its there. The game can be read that way. I don't alter the default setting to meet my personal style of play, I don't focus on the Awnsheghlien, I focus on the interactions within realms. Here is, what I see as the difference in approach.

If you look at the campaign wide materials, the Atlas of Cerilia, for example, there is a strong emphasis on Awnsheghlien, Azrai, and the consequences of the War of the Shadow.

If you look at the individual PS's they focus on local politics between neighboring realms and within individual realms. The individual PS's focus on regular problems of governance, Bellamie the problem noble, balancing the books at the end of the day, fending off the aggression of Ghoere, your key temple (IHH) wants to reclaim holdings held by RCS, but RCS is intimatly connected with Moedore, and this splits your friends and makes them rivals.

In the first case I can see a Manichaeism reading of Birthright, in which there is a grand struggle, dark times, the players are supposed to confront the great evil, "to be the Fellowship that brings the ring to Mount D...er..." and the rest of that.

But wouldn't you agree that if we focus our attention on a much smaller scale, of ruling a little realm like Roesone (especially if we play in the style where one PC is king and the other PC's are his lieutenants, vassals, and advisors) then we get a result much more like the one I am describing. Since you responded to Dcolby's post, I think its evident that some portion of us like a less stark enviroment in which to play. Finally, that we are not altering the setting to satisfy our own style, but drawing our inspiration and finding our attraction from different parts of the setting.

I would agree that there are two "settings" or "feels" for the game. There is the overarching theme of the battle between good and evil in the shadow of a once glorious empire. And the second of being at the micro level, having to deal with the day to day issues. They are not exclusive.

[Beruin]

The books do state what Boeruine's motives are. The Chamberlain (the father, not the son), the General, and Prince Fhilereane (to name a few, I don't want to go through the entire novel and footnote everyone) are very clear that he is a man who wishes power. Take into account that he allied with the Gorgon (not known to his allies) and he is a fiend lead by blind ambition.

I disagree. It's been a while since I read the novel, but judging from the prologue and the epilogue I've always regarded IT as in essence being the memories and recollections of Aedan Dosiere. The other characters are described from his point of view and this does not really make for a complete or objective description.
Boeruine certainly is ambitious, but this is the only side of his character that we see, besides at least according to the senior chamberlain, he is ambitious, but not evil (p.50).

I must say I always found Aedan thoughts about Boeruine being behind the goblins kidnapping Michael hard to credit and his logic faulty. In my view, Boeruine tried to take advantage of the situation after Michael was gone and presumably dead, but did not initiate this situation. The Gorgon perhaps seems more likely.
Besides, after Michael suddenly returned after a year of generally being held for dead, Boeruine had already acted on his ambition and was now in a situation were he could not back down without risking a serious loss of face and probably even his position as duke.

[kgauck]

As Sorontar suggested, I pulled out the thread about temples demonstrating divine power, paladins, and alignment and put it in another thread called Temples, Alignment, and Paladins. Here we can continue to discuss why Avanil's arms so resemble the Empire, if Avanil was a kind of Imperial demense, and why the Emperor might need such a base of his own, being as he is, he Emperor.

[Dcolby]

What no Tangents?!?! :o

[Thelandrin]

Well, the whole religion thing had already turned itself into a two-page thread, in a completely different thread! :)

[ShadowMoon]

Yes but what has become first post of the newly thread (my post), was not about religion and stuff, but about Imperial power... bleh...

Quote:


And keep in mind, that back then there was only one Haelyn temple, the Imperial Temple, and within the Empire it was the superior of faiths, and recognised as a governing religious institution of the Empire (like a State Religion in present realms). So I am pretty sure that Imperial Temple sticked with Roeles. Roeles were like earthly manifestation of their overlord, and their protectors from the day one.

And I don't believe Emperors controled Temple holdings directly at anytime, though they had much influence within the Temple, and probably many of Roele's house were High Priests (like younger brothers, etc.). But I am sure that Temple swore their allegiance and signed a writ of vassalage to the Emperor.

Probably similar scenario went for Guilds, ie. Imperial Guild managed the economy of the Empire, and again there were probably some of Roele's blood that were Guild Masters, but Emperors never had any Guild holdings. Again they were most probably vassals of the Imperial seat.

And all landed rulers within the Empire were vassals of the Iron Throne.

All "court" Wizards swore their allegiance to the Royal (Imperial) College of Sorcery, the sole center of the legal arcane society. College of Sorcery was under direct sponsorship of the Iron Throne and swore the oath of vassalage to the Emperor.

What I am saying is that the Emperor is a single govermental body, and he never had Temple and Guild holdings let alone Sources, only Law holdings, colonial assets and lands before Godswar with Imperial City and some surrounding territory (Anuire province) remaining. But Imperial Temple, and Imperial Guild were vassals to the Iron Throne, as well as remaining landed rulers.

Emperors commanded Imperial Legion that was elite (praetorian-like) army, with a full support of the Knights of Haelyn. So no matter that main bulk of Anuirean military was commanded and mustered by various nobles, Imperial seat was never defenseless, nor easy to conquer either by mundane or magical means or through the diplomacy.

Besides not many nobles would turn against their liege openly, because they would go directly against their own right to rule their realm, as well as against their patron Haelyn. So plots and schemes were always present, but Imperial position of Roeles was never seriously endangered.

Till Boeruine started the coup with the help of Michael Roele's older sister. But Michael dealt with that properly, though his sister made a pact with the Gorgon later, thus leading Michael Roele to his doom on the fields of Gorgon's Crown, and leaving the Empire without a heir, which lead to fall of the Imperial line, and the Empire.


Slightly-Off Topic:

I never understood how Boeruine got away with this, I mean its a terribile stain on their name, especially now when the "myth" of the great Empire is something that makes Anuirean hearts swell with pride.

[kgauck]

Some of the posts, such as the one quoted above, I left in both threads, because they made sense in both, and removing them from either one would have been confusing. The above post is also post # 40 in this thread.

[Thelandrin]

Is there any particular reason that the Mieran laws have been entirely left out of the Avanil domain block? Arron Vaumel seems to have done a bunk!

[vota dc]

Discussion thread for Avanil (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Avanil). If you would like to add a comment, click the Post Reply button.

The article is fine and the population also: 167000 that is a little less than Boeruine and a little more than Alamie.
However other domains have total different population:for example Taeghas that is vassal is 405,700 and Aerenwe that has few populated provinces is 450,000.

We need to fix population in all realms on the wiki because I don't like "Avanil superpower that protects Taeghas...that has more than twice population".
Since Anuire is big as France and the game is medieval I think that we should use Avanil population as standard.

[Rowan]

The article is fine and the population also: 167000 that is a little less than Boeruine and a little more than Alamie.
However other domains have total different population:for example Taeghas that is vassal is 405,700 and Aerenwe that has few populated provinces is 450,000.

We need to fix population in all realms on the wiki because I don't like "Avanil superpower that protects Taeghas...that has more than twice population".
Since Anuire is big as France and the game is medieval I think that we should use Avanil population as standard.

We've had trouble deciding on a standard population level. If we're using Anuire = France, then all of Anuire should probably have at least 10-20 million pop. That would mean Avanil ought to have a population over 1 million.

[AndrewTall]

I square the circle by having the BR numbers as 'taxpayers' or 'hearths' - that lets you scale up by 5-10 easily and can write stuff in a way which doesn't bother either side.

One clear problem with 'straight' BR figures is that you get cities of 1-2,000 people which has little scope for competing power factions.

Otherwise the debate on population levels has been long and heated and only gets worse if you use, say, 50x50 as province size instead of 20x20 to get a more american size continent.

[vota dc]

We've had trouble deciding on a standard population level. If we're using Anuire = France, then all of Anuire should probably have at least 10-20 million pop. That would mean Avanil ought to have a population over 1 million.

551 MR means 1027 AD (fall of empire 476+551) the population should be 8-10 millions...but even so you are right:167000 is too few.
Maybe we should open a thread,decide a rule for population for province level and then calculate the population again.

[kgauck]

Technology is Renaissance, so population is closer to 20 million. I would say Avanil has a pop of 835,000.

[Sorontar]

As has been pointed out before, we have had many arguments about Cerilian populations before. To quote from the population page on the wiki (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Population) :


The population is a controversial issue among Birthright players. Some prefer a "points of light" approach that regards the original figures as shown on the Province Level table as the total number of people in a province.

Others note that this level of population density is inconsistent with with the duration of human habitation of Cerilia or the technological development of the humans there. Those who prefer a larger population, can regard the population figures as households rather than individuals. This allows them to assume a household contains five or more persons, and increase the population proportionately.

Readers should note that in general descriptions on the pages will avoid assuming one position or the other attempting to accommodate both preferences either by general statements or alternate statements.

Personally, I think we just have to have population levels and work with that. Who cares whether level 5 is 5,000 or 50,000. It clearly can generate more revenue and raise bigger militia (by default) than level 4.

Sorontar

[SirRobin]

I've always felt that the listed populations in original Birthright material was too low, but was understandable given the dangers they faced in comparison to our history. Death by goblin, elf, giant spiders, monsters in the sewer, and undead, on top of the plague, famine, war, etc... that our ancestors faced, could go a long way to explaining such low numbers.

Then again the numbers still felt too low.

I always figured the numbers were kept low to help players feel like they were having a bigger impact on the environment. In addition to providing lots of "wide open" to have adventures in. While it looked like Anuire had a Renaissance (1300's to 1600's) level of technology, in general, it felt like Anuire was taking place in the middle ages (400's to 1200's).

Personally, I always "pictured" Birthright taking place in the 1000's to 1100's of our timeline, European-wise. Nearing the Renaissance but not there yet. I credited the more advanced "technical" expertise of Anuire to long term exposure to Elvish and Dwarfish cultures. Of course it is very subjective to personal preferences and opinions.

A x5 of the source material numbers is fine but prefered a x2/x3 myself.

[vota dc]

little OT with Avanil

Well,the dark age of Anuire is also different.There are not real barbarian invasions that take all the empire.So gaining Renaissance technology in 1000 AD can be possible.

[Thelandrin]

Europe in the 11th Century in Europe was still far from the Renaissance, too far in Cerilia's case. The Normans invaded England in 1066, bringing with them wooden motte-and-bailey castles and more-or-less creating modern surnames. I'd imagine that Rjurik is roughly akin to 11th Century Europe, but certainly not southern Anuire.

[SirRobin]

Indeed it is very much a matter of personal preference and perspective. Apologies for the OT but Birthright captured my imagination long ago and crops up again and again in my mind over the years. I've often pondered the differences in it's development to our own societies and how that would impact it's political and technological state by the "current" era that the source material unveils.

Honestly no comparable years in our era seem to truly "fit" all of it's aspects due to the different "historical" pressures it faced. Still, I find it entertaining to ponder.

Additionally, wasn't it the Crusades and the close exposure of the "Franks" to Byzantine and Islamic societies which helped draw them forward? Without the Crusades "Western" developments may have been slower. Lots of what-ifs.

Yet, as a matter of personal preference, I like to place Anuire's cultural state earlier compared to what source material indicated. The 1300's or later always felt to "recent," to me, historically.

[Rowan]

As for tech level, I'd look to the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) for inspiration more than to Western Europe before the Renaissance. There you have the remnants of empire in more force; state/church unions; deep, deep politics; and even a sense of the loss of imperial lands and recent conflict with the East (Khinasi).

[AndrewTall]

I'm someone else who prefers to have things set 'earlier', partly from a desire to cut down on armour class admittedly, but also because I prefer a lower population, more differentiation between technological people (dwarves) and others and wanted it to feel more 'gritty'.

I decided for my stuff ages ago that the Anuireans were aided in forming their empire by the fact that they gained iron around that time giving them a military advantage, more recently I was persuaded that it might be better if they simply made such weapons much better and cheaper to make with better quality iron and crafting techniques.

That said, given that I want very backwards people (goblins, vos) living next to quite advanced people I still needed fairly strict social issues to keep the tech level down. Also I shortened the timeline, making the empire last only a few centuries and the time since its fall be less than a century - a long empire crushes cultural differences, a long break makes it a vanished memory.

[SirRobin]

As for tech level, I'd look to the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) for inspiration more than to Western Europe before the Renaissance. There you have the remnants of empire in more force; state/church unions; deep, deep politics; and even a sense of the loss of imperial lands and recent conflict with the East (Khinasi).

Good point, I've often looked for ways to put a Byzantium style state between Anuire and Khinasi. But that is because I've been a Byz-fan ever since finding this book (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Ages-Man-Byzantium-Cultures/dp/0662833406/ref=pd_sim_b_4) in a library decades ago.:D


I'm someone else who prefers to have things set 'earlier', partly from a desire to cut down on armour class admittedly, but also because I prefer a lower population, more differentiation between technological people (dwarves) and others and wanted it to feel more 'gritty'.

I decided for my stuff ages ago that the Anuireans were aided in forming their empire by the fact that they gained iron around that time giving them a military advantage, more recently I was persuaded that it might be better if they simply made such weapons much better and cheaper to make with better quality iron and crafting techniques.

That said, given that I want very backwards people (goblins, vos) living next to quite advanced people I still needed fairly strict social issues to keep the tech level down. Also I shortened the timeline, making the empire last only a few centuries and the time since its fall be less than a century - a long empire crushes cultural differences, a long break makes it a vanished memory.

Well the main thing I've always done was assume that the history given in original material is, mostly, a lie. Well, propaganda would be a better word for it I guess. Basically historical revisionism propagated by the "current" ruling classes to justify their position within society.

You have an empire that lasts for around nine centuries, then the "current" time frame takes place five centuries after that. This gives the ruling classes, and their patsies, at least five hundred years to create their own version of previous events. Of course some of it is true, but most of it is either a very "creative" interpretation of actual events or outright fabrication.

Personally, I always placed the twelve duchies' creation near the end of the empire, not around its beginning. The early Anuirean Empire was actually much closer to our historical Roman Empire. Instead of Barbarian Invasions being a major part of its collapse, the Gorgon's frequent assaults finally (along with plague) brought about the Anuirean Empire's decline and fall.

"The Last Emperor's" death was merely the final nail in the coffin. Indeed, the "modern" Anuireans are as closely related (racially) to the Rjurik, Vos, Khinasi, and even Adurian natives as they are to the "original" Anuireans. The second half of the Anuirean Empire's history saw greater and greater numbers of foreign mercenaries being imported to keep the Gorgon contained.

These imports, over the centuries, supplanted the original Graeco-Roman like society and, along with a plague or two, brought about the rise of Feudalism. By the empire's last century or two the Anuire we see in published material had been born.

Apologies for the rambling, just my interpretation.

[AndrewTall]

Hmm, I was about to say you only need a single generation to have whatever history you want to have happened become accepted as what did happen, but decided on reflection that actually this often happens after 5 minutes anyway...

Although there would have been some merchant and troop movements, it takes a lot of people to move population genetics - you can do it with conquerors who impregnate every female in sight (think latin america, norman england), but if its mainly 1:1 then even centuries of moderate mingling will not cause signficant genetic shift (apart from anything else the 'hybrids' tend to interbreed as they have similar social position). Also both administrative, troop and merchant movements would be more likely to spread Anuirean genes into other populations than the converse. As such I'd expect that the Anuireans are as distinct as anyone else if not more so, something doubly true for the aristocracy where breeding 'out' would have been breeding 'down'.

[SirRobin]

True, but it's along the lines of what I was thinking. As far as the aristocracy I figure it is, now, even less Anuirean. The rulers at the end of the empire were descendants of mostly "imported" armies. Over a few centuries the mercenaries ended up running the show.

Plagues on a "Black Death" scale, along with brutal assaults by the Gorgon, greatly depleted the empire's manpower reserves around the fifth century. Anuire began importing large numbers of mercenaries, even entire tribes, in order to keep the Gorgon at bay. As an aside it gives some new purpose to the Anuirean colonies. They may have started as projections of imperial might and economic power, but they ended up being recruiting areas.

I figure four centuries would have been plenty of time for the "barbarians" to supplant, to a degree, the original Anuirean culture and race. It only took a few centuries for it to happen to the western half of the Roman Empire. While other factors were involved, of course, I figure similar factors were also involved in Anuire. Additionally the "fear" of the Gorgon ended up keeping the empire, relatively, united except for the occasional civil war. Otherwise the capitol would likely have been sacked and the emperor deposed before the last one had a chance to croak heroically.

Instead of "Barbarian Invasions," you might call it "Barbarian Invitations." Gives it a closer resemblance to the fate of the Roman Empire in Western Europe.

I also figure the only reason the Gorgon did not end up conquering Anuire was that, in his mind, he'd already won. Anuirean desperation to stop him brought about the ruin of the society, and people, that created the empire in the first place. It was no longer the Anuire that "he" remembered and wanted to destroy. Once the "Last Emperor" delivered himself on a silver platter... Well, that was it really, the last remnant of the "world" he grew up in was gone.

Apologies, but going that route with Anuirean history just feels right to me.

It even lets me slide the "Aquitainia" and "Eleanor" type storyline in as had been proposed. However, in this case, they are actually truer to the "original" Anuirean Empire, socially/culturally/etc... than it's present occupants. Adds a bit of irony.

[Rowan]

There's nothing wrong with your versions of Anuire, of course. They do require a fair bit of revision, however.

I'm not sure what, other than technology level, should seem surprising or incongruous about the default setting material, however. And a fairly static technology level can be explained by the presence of arcane and divine magic, divine bloodlines, and differences in physics.

However, you need not go that far. If you're looking for historical parallels, the 2-3,000 years of history covering the human migrations to Cerilia are not very problematic at all.

Consider the many, many ancient empires in our own world, some of which were enduring. I don't have dates off the top of my head, but you've got the Han or Chin dynasties (a millenia?) at the most enduring. There are old Indian dynasties as well, but if you're looking for nearer Europe, you've got Ur, Babylon, Egypt, the Assyrians, Medes, Persians (many centuries), Greece, Rome, Corinth, Byzantium/Eastern Roman Empire. All of these lasted quite a while and controlled large expanses; many even had quite huge populations, very large cities (hundreds of thousands of people in them), and population densities comparable to Renaissance Europe.

If you want to provide historic parallels, Roele fits as Julius Caesar or any number of Roman heroes, setting the Empire on a timeline that could easily last 900 years and have 5 centuries more of lasting impact and longing for Empire (whether you take the Byzantine approach or recall the Holy Roman Empire's titular dreams farther west). That gets you from Roman tech to any level of Renaissance tech, and gives the Anuireans the most significant technology at the time they forged their empire. It also still gives them iron and considerable military history during the War of Shadow.

Step back your timeline a few more centuries and Roele was the Alexander the Great of his time, only he lived long enough to consolidate his gains and create a more lasting empire.

The three empires I like to look at in parallel yield different thematic interpretations of the Birthright setting while still permitting virtually all of setting timeline, assumptions, and material to remain intact:
1. Western Roman Empire--the most common analogue, withers to barbarian "invitation" as you aptly put, leaves remnants longing for what they had for centuries but keeps them suppressed under constant attacks for a few centuries (maybe the Gorgon is the Huns, Vikings and Tartars of the times)
2. Eastern Roman Empire--retains much of its strength, learning, technology, devolves under internal struggles among power players and loses farther reaches to gradual rebellion and decay, a hotbed of intrigue and money that still remains powerful for quite some time (I think this is the most accurate analogue)
3. Alexandrian Empire--held together by the Roele dynasty, it fragments gradually as conquered peoples and competing dukes/viceroys/generals chip break away the other conquered tribes; tech level may be a little lower, but mainly in things like castle and shipbuilding and full plate armor; most other tech would remain recognizeable

[SirRobin]

The Eastern Roman Empire may indeed be the best analogy but I prefer the Western Roman Empire. Just a matter of personal taste. Sort of Michael's death heralding the "Dark Ages" beginning. Similar to a Fifth Century AD and placing the "current" date around the Tenth or Eleventh Century AD.

I guess what bothered me about the original material was how "stable" it seemed. Nine-ish centuries is a long time for a stable state with active internal and external enemies, like the Gorgon, Spiderfell, etc... The original material felt very much like "Roele came, conquered, and everyone lived happily ever after." Of course there were conflicts and problems but they just didn't feel as big, to me, as they should have.

It also doesn't answer how a state controlled for as long as Anuire was gave birth to, or kept all along, a feudal society. Then there was the abnormally low population figures which seemed to hint at a major plague or ongoing state of bloody, and widespread, warfare which the original material hinted at being a thing of the past.

Maybe I was just reading it wrong but it is what got my restless mind going. I've often surmised that the first half of the Anuirean Empire was actually the Anuirean Republic.

An Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar analogy to Roele might fit but his achievements don't seem to really measure up to me. Yeah, its just a personal interpretation thing for me.