What age would you choose to live?

[Duguntz]

Lack of nobility...? Are you sure, man? Maybe not nobility in the European sense, but hereditary positions in many Amerindian societies in present-day Canada were common during the early colonial period and likely the pre-colonial period, as well. My own ancestors were hereditary chiefs since the earliest periods of recorded history in the Great Plains, and certainly long before the European colonization of my homeland.

Completly true. I was speaking solely in term of nobility understood in European fashion. in our people's fashion, we shopuld speak more of a hereditory social position than of a title of nobility, in my opinion. of corse I speak knowing my knowledge about past or our people isn't as deep as yours :S

[Megas Methuselah]

Completly true. I was speaking solely in term of nobility understood in European fashion. in our people's fashion, we shopuld speak more of a hereditory social position than of a title of nobility, in my opinion. of corse I speak knowing my knowledge about past or our people isn't as deep as yours :S

Yeah, you right, you right. Exceptions probably made for the chiefdoms, hereditary positions were more of a strict responsibility than a right or privilege. In the northern bands of the Great Plains, if you weren't doing what your people wanted you to do, then they would just leave your band and migrate to the band of another chief, if not simply strip you of your responsibility outright. Besides, power was also shared with the council, the elders, and the warchiefs, so once again, being a hereditary chief was more about representing the will of your people rather than being something of an absolute monarch (in the case of my own ancestors, anyways).

Of course, the role of chief wasn't always hereditary in present-day Canada, nor was it the only hereditary position in many cases. After all, Canada is a huuuuuuge place, spanning across 1/3 to 1/2 of a huuuuuuge continent, and the countless cultures vary... alot. This should probably be taken into account, since we live half-way across the continent from each other, my Algonquin brother.

[Duguntz]

Yeah, you right, you right. Exceptions probably made for the chiefdoms, hereditary positions were more of a strict responsibility than a right or privilege. In the northern bands of the Great Plains, if you weren't doing what your people wanted you to do, then they would just leave your band and migrate to the band of another chief, if not simply strip you of your responsibility outright. Besides, power was also shared with the council, the elders, and the warchiefs, so once again, being a hereditary chief was more about representing the will of your people rather than being something of an absolute monarch (in the case of my own ancestors, anyways).

Of course, the role of chief wasn't always hereditary in present-day Canada, nor was it the only hereditary position in many cases. After all, Canada is a huuuuuuge place, spanning across 1/3 to 1/2 of a huuuuuuge continent, and the countless cultures vary... alot. This should probably be taken into account, since we live half-way across the continent from each other, my Algonquin brother.

It should certainly be taken into consideration! as the distinction is to be made between cultural groups (algonquin, Cree, Mohawks, etc...) but also, each band had their own habits and traditions ;) As for algonquin, the ''political'' power was mostly in the hands of the women as it was a matriarcal society, the role of cheif, though having power within the band, was more concentrated on war and commerces, alliances, well, inter-band questions. but at home, hehe, mama ruled (along with the elders). Wich was very surprising for Champlain when he made alliance with the algonquin against the Iroquois and the red-coats, as his emissaries told him that, though men were speaking, decision were, for a big part, made by women! (what a change, for a european who's used to the egemony of man!) this is about all i know about the politics of my ancestors!

I've a question, I told you my people, i don't recall (or maybe don't remember) where you come from, i know the name of your ancestor, but not even what group he was from!

[athanaric]

nah, I'd stick to the early Abbasid era.

Arab, young, and academically good, I could be the next jahith

Or taken out in some intrigue. (Cue tasteless head/off joke...)


That said, for me it would be the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century. As an English or German gentleman. With money...
Imperial Rome/China/(Sasanid) Persia/Japan would be nice places, too.

Wich was very surprising for Champlain when he made alliance with the algonquin against the Iroquois and the red-coats, as his emissaries told him that, though men were speaking, decision were, for a big part, made by women!

Oh it's the same in Europe and Asia, just a lot more subtle.

[Ibrahim]

Or taken out in some intrigue. (Cue tasteless head/off joke...)

nah, I'd stay the **** away from the court; I'll keep to a library.

That said, for me it would be the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century. As an English or German gentleman. With money...

well, hopefully you won't squander the money-that would be pretty unpleasant.

[athanaric]

nah, I'd stay the **** away from the court; I'll keep to a library.

A very wise decision. I admit that the life of an Arab or Persian scholar back in those days looks very appealing.

well, hopefully you won't squander the money

Heh, I'm much too greedy for that. Plus, I hate gambling and drinking (as in, people getting drunk) with a passion. Tends to save a lot of money.

[Megas Methuselah]

I've a question, I told you my people, i don't recall (or maybe don't remember) where you come from, i know the name of your ancestor, but not even what group he was from!

Depending on how you look at it, I guess one could say I am Cree, Saulteaux, and Metis.

[Macilrille]

Yeah, you right, you right. Exceptions probably made for the chiefdoms, hereditary positions were more of a strict responsibility than a right or privilege. In the northern bands of the Great Plains, if you weren't doing what your people wanted you to do, then they would just leave your band and migrate to the band of another chief, if not simply strip you of your responsibility outright. Besides, power was also shared with the council, the elders, and the warchiefs, so once again, being a hereditary chief was more about representing the will of your people rather than being something of an absolute monarch (in the case of my own ancestors, anyways).

Of course, the role of chief wasn't always hereditary in present-day Canada, nor was it the only hereditary position in many cases. After all, Canada is a huuuuuuge place, spanning across 1/3 to 1/2 of a huuuuuuge continent, and the countless cultures vary... alot. This should probably be taken into account, since we live half-way across the continent from each other, my Algonquin brother.

Ehhh... most band societies develop into tribal societies with hereditary positions developing especially as it moves towards chiefdoms then kingdoms. How do you think the European, etc nobility developed. It it quite evident in Danish history how chieftains and warlords grew into nobility ruled by a king merely marginally more powerful.

I would chose to live now, would like to take my experience and self-confidence and reel time back 25 years while keeping that (keep your daughters safe), and being a heroic Viking Warlord seems nice as a dream. However, the diseases, squalor, etc would probably not be so fun...