Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 178

Thread: Factions

  1. #61
    Member Member Narayanese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    398

    Default Re: Factions

    Frm what I can read from gutansagan (some words are diffucult in it) there is a coutry called suiariki (=sweden) which is ruled by upsala kunungi (=the king in Uppsala).

  2. #62

    Default Re: Factions

    The only thing Västgötaskolan has done so far is to pretty much disregard all archeological and historical evidence and give way to exactly the same kind of patriotic feeling you seem to acusing other of. How did Adam of Bremen become a propaganda machine for a Swedish state that according to you didn't exist? Did Sven Estridsson just make it up? He and of course all the other Medieval, Dark Age historians who time after time continue to mention Sweden but does hardly ever speak a word of a kingdom in Götaland, and who when they do place it in the migration period. Is it plausible that people who could navigate from Scandinavia as far west as Nova Scotia, as far east as the Caspian sea and as far south as Northen Africa, would not know their own neighbours?
    I'd like to here which historical claims of the västgöta skola are...

  3. #63
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Factions

    The conflict between those two groups (Västgöta and Uppsala) is actually quite pointless. It only depends on how you define the term "birth of a nation", and if you define it one way one side wins and if you define it another way the other side wins. It seems like the debate is just about how you are supposed to define the term "birth of a nation", and that it's only about attributing either of the parts with that term. Quite pointless what the words tell, the truth doesn't change either way.

    Now if you look at the historical evidence, you see that at the time when the Sviar tribes dominated in terms of foreign activity, i.e. viking raids etc., a very small part of modern Sweden was included in the kingdom centered around Birka etc. However, even if you go forward in time to the 13th century, the area united under one ruler is still very much smaller than the size of modern Sweden.

    It's therefore, I have to say, pointless to center the discussion about what we should call the birth of Sweden. A debate of that kind has no historical significance but is rather an unscientific and more emotional type of debate. Instead, the discussion should be centered around how the different tribes/kingdoms/factions in the area actually lived and acted. No matter how it was, both Sviar and Gotar have contributed to the modern Swedish culture etc. and are practically the same. As for the name Sweden, which is thought to originate from "Svea rike", the most logical assumption is to date it back to the time when Svithiod was more dominating - it seems unlikely that the Gotar, after gaining control over the Sviar, would use their rival's "tribesname" as name of their kingdom. Not by thereby claiming the Sviar to be the only contributors to the modern Sweden.

    Quote Originally Posted by GBG
    The idea of an ancient "Svea Rike" that engulfed much of modern day Sweden and conquered foreign land is purely fictional.
    Yes, the early Sviar kingdom/faction was most likely a lot smaller - at times probably not much larger than a circle including Birka and Uppsala. The conquests spoken of in the tales aren't entirely fictional though. The siege of Constantinople, which I believe Byzantine sources confirm, most likely came from Swedish vikings - whether they acted on own initiative or ordered by a "state" is unclear. Among viking graves there have also been found statues and other things that confirm the contacts with Byzantines and even Arabic peoples. As for the colonization of the Novgorod area, it's not merely a fraction of later Russian names and early cultural items that are based on Norse names (which would be the case if there were only trade connections - compare to the later Hansa's influence on names of inhabitants in port cities for example), but a very great number of them are. That it was tribes probably of Swedish origin that colonized that area can hardly be considered fictional, but theoretically this colonization could have been carried out by other vikings - perhaps coming from independent ostgotar tribes. In defense of Västgöta-skolan one can say that the viking conquests were quite short-lived and didn't last long. The viking infantry based warfare probably proved lacking when the couched lance charge was spread over Europe, at about the same time the vikings started losing importance, and when feudalism and other political changes made the prospects of quick hit and run attacks more difficult.
    Last edited by Rodion Romanovich; 08-19-2005 at 13:11.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  4. #64

    Default Re: Factions

    You can open your eyes, or you can choose not to. You can believe propaganda from the 19-th century, or you can choose not to.

    I will not debate this issue further. The notion of claiming that there was a "Svea Rike" in the 8-th or 9-th century is just silly. Ask any historian you want.

  5. #65
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by GBG
    You can open your eyes, or you can choose not to. You can believe propaganda from the 19-th century, or you can choose not to.

    I will not debate this issue further. The notion of claiming that there was a "Svea Rike" in the 8-th or 9-th century is just silly. Ask any historian you want.
    What exactly in my post is it you disagree with? I don't think I disagree with you about anything else than that the name "Svea rike" must originate from an earlier period than the period when the Gotar tribes had just gained control over the Sviar tribes, as it seems very illogical to name the faction after their defeated rivals, rather than calling it "Gotrike".

    If you think any 19th century propaganda has anything to do with my point of view, you're wrong. I'm basing it on the primary sources, either by reading the primary sources myself, or by tracing which primary sources the secondary sources referred to, and I make the judgement completely on my own. I don't trust Adam of Bremen much, my main sources are the archaeological findings and contemporary chronicles written by people who would benefit from diminishing the importance of the vikings.
    Last edited by Rodion Romanovich; 08-19-2005 at 13:54.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  6. #66

    Default Re: Factions

    I'm just a little mad that he pissed on Beowulf. It's fiction, yes, but it's based on truth, as all epics are.

  7. #67

    Default Re: Factions

    King Hygalecs (sp?) death has actually been more or less confirmed in contemporary chronicles.

    The siege on Constantinople was carried out by Oleg, and thus really not connected with any Swedish state, even though the Nestors chronicle states many varangians participated. The quite famous "Ingvars tåget" of the 1070's is recored on dozens of runestones and at least one Icelandic chronicle though, was an iniciative from the Swedish state to open up the eastern traderouts once again.
    And that people from Östergötland particpated in the east is nicely illustrated by evidence pointing towards Orthodox christianity existing there before catholic.

  8. #68
    Dungalloigh Brehonda Member Ranika's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,416

    Default Re: Factions

    The Gaels formed out of a coalesence of Iberians, Gauls, and Britons, along with the natives of the island, between the 6th and 3rd century BC, emerging as a unique demi-Celtic culture. Despite intermittent wars with British tribes and petty kingdoms, they were relatively overlooked, except in terms of trade in the earlier periods. The dark ages were not 'dark' for the Irish. To the contrary, they are the 'Irish Golden Age'. Ireland was untouched by invaders that spread through Europe for a long time. After being Christianized, they rapidly began to copy books, and maintain knowledge of western Europe. Their missionaries spread throughout Europe, reestablishing Christendom as the dominate force against pagan invaders, and the petty kingdoms of Ireland were arguably among the most advanced kingdoms in Europe at the time, largely due that they were some of the only kingdoms untouched by the ravages of invaders. However, when the vikings invaded, a great deal was lost; so many libraries in Britain were destroyed, including the medical library of Brega, that it is arguable that medical sciences in the region were thrown back at least a few centuries; complex surgeries and medical procedures were almost all lost, replaced almost entirely by local remedies, that couldn't do near the same good. However, the invasions did force the Irish onto the world stage more widely; while Irish missionaries, poetry, and literature were known in most of Europe, the island was seen, by many outside of the British Isles, as a somewhat mysterious place. The Irish victory at Clontarf became one of the most heralded battles of the medieval era, with any self respecting aristocrat claiming to have a relative who fought or died there. However, the understanding of the island was still rather poor, and Norman-English used the justification that the Irish were 'largely pagan and savage' to explain to their peers why it was necessary for them to invade, after the death of their ally, the king of Leinster. No one really questioned this; few had ever been to Ireland for any extended period of time, and the Norman descriptions of the region did little to help Ireland's cause. Further, Ireland had not directly communicated with the papacy since the missions of St. Palladius nearly 700 years earlier, so the church saw little reason to intervene, since it too was unaware of the status of the island (though the church had recognized several high kings since Brian Boru as "the true and honorable 'Scotum Imperator'"; Emperor of the Irish').

    The proper title of the king of Ireland is Ardruire, Ard Ri, or, in Latin, Scotum Imperator. The high king, as he was called in English, did consider himself an emperor. He took tribute from multiple kings, and, as such, he technically was an emperor. The high king was elected through Gaelic tanistry laws, generally, as were all other officials. However, there were exceptions; Malachy surrendered his crown to Brian Boru, but only under the condition that when Brian died, Malachy would become the high king. Heirs were not considered though; there was no concept of heirs in the common sense of blood descent, but there were 'tánaise'; a person elected to succeed a current king or chief when the current one died, under 'tana' (lordship) laws; these laws included rules that stated that the the tanist (the tánaise in old Irish) must have his mental and physical faculties about himself, and other requirements. However, in many regions, it was expected that the next king, chief, or other official, would be elected from the immediate family of the former official; however, a Gaelic 'immediate' family included a mileu of cousins, uncles, and other relations, thought the tanist was often selected as the current chief or king's eldest son (if he met the requirements and no one objected). Law was adjudicated by the elected 'brehons', judges. The brehons could not change laws; only enforce them. If a law was to be changed, a clan (called a tuath) would vote for or against it. If this law was to affect multiple tuath, the results would be taken to council, where the brehons would each be accompanied by two men from their clan, to ensure the vote was properly conveyed. No one, including brehons, was above law; in fact, the higher one's station in society, the more harshly they could be punished for infractions. However, they didn't execute anyone; instead, if one could not pay the fines for murder, he would be outcast, and the offended family could legally kill him if they wished. The position of high king was more effective in the earlier periods, but the sub-kingdoms grew more indepedent and petty, until the position of high king was essentially meaningless. However, this didn't keep the kings from fighting over this position. The Irish-Gaels spread into Caledonia, forming the kingdom of Dal Riada, which was also considered an Irish kingdom for several centuries, and involved itself in the politics of the Irish petty kingdoms. In the late dark ages, two main contenders, Brian, the king of Munster, and Malachy, the king of Ulster and Meath, took the title of high king (though Malachy was recognized). Brian's claimancy was largely ignored as he was technically considered a pirate, for having spent years raiding Ivar, the Norse king of Leinster's, holdings. However, his popularity as a skilled and heroic commander who could win battles with inferior numbers (actually just his own Dalcassian clansmen, and those who'd join him for his fame), gained him great respect. Malachy was also a legendary commander though; he commanded the army of Ulster, and in 980, he captured Teamhair (Tara) and Dubb Linn (Dublin), and pronounced himself high king. In 998, Malachy and Brian came to a truce; Malachy recieved the north of Ireland and Brian the south. By 1002, the joint sway of Malachy and Brian could not last. Malachy, being unable to gather enough support to take on the mighty forces of Brian, allowed Brian peacefully to take over his lands. This was the greatest moment in the history of post-Christian native Ireland. Brian, by his title, “Ard Ri”, was claiming the kingship of all Ireland; a title left improperly fulfilled since the pagan king Niall of the Nine Hostages. For 11 years, Brian rebuilt Ireland, using the island's comparatively vast resources and trade wealth (which were not able to be used to their full extent due to disunity) to lift the Ireland from the pillage of Norse invaders. However, in 1013, the Leinstermen and the Dublin Vikings revolted against Brian. Mael Morda, King of Leinster, allied himself with the Dublin Vikings and went to war with Brian to try and claim the title of high king for himself. The Dublin Vikings sought allies overseas. The Earl of Orkney came with a large contingent, while other Viking contingents came from as far afield as Iceland and Normandy. Brian gave them Battle at Clontarf on Good Friday, 1014 and the Irish defeated them. However, as the Vikings were retreating, one of their leaders, Bothair, murdered Brian, and was later hunted down by Brian's brother Wolf the Quarrelsome, and killed in retribution; the strong high king was dead, but viking power in Ireland was broken. Malachy took the title of Ard Ri, and controlled Ireland until his death; this was arguably the most peaceful period Ireland had experienced since the invasions began. However, Malachy was not as ambitious or strong as Brian, and the high kingship would never again be so powerful; he did, however, manage to hold the island together, and claimed Dublin and Mannau (temporarily) as vassals. Ireland's central rule weakened, until the Norman invasions began, followed by most of the island plunging into anarchy.

    Edit; I don't know where this will fit, some one with a better grasp of English may wish to edit it in appropriately to fit, this is simply a concept that should be in to give a better idea of the culture;

    Gaels, the Irish included, were named absent of the modern concept of 'surnames'. A person's name was their given birth name, followed by the name of their father, preceded by mc, moc, or mac; literally 'son of', or the name of an admired ancestor or relative, preced by one of these pre-terms, followed by their tuath name (their 'clan' title), which was 'Ua' (of) followed by the name of their tuath. After this would be any other titles they had, such as 'Boruma' (Cattle-Counter), or the name of a saint they were dedicated to (such as 'Mael Sechnaill'). In the final case, a devotees 'saint' name was often used as if it were their given name, such as in the case of 'Mael Cuilm'; more commonly seen today as 'Malcolm', and was listed as the name of several kings, though not their birth names.
    Last edited by Ranika; 08-31-2005 at 10:03.
    Ní dheachaigh fial ariamh go hIfreann.


  9. #69
    dictator by the people Member caesar44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    the holy(?) land
    Posts
    1,207

    Thumbs down Re: Factions

    Sorry , but where we can see the camp' map , that is , the distribution of the faction on the camp' map ?
    "The essence of philosophy is to ask the eternal question that has no answer" (Aristotel) . "Yes !!!" (me) .

    "Its time we stop worrying, and get angry you know? But not angry and pick up a gun, but angry and open our minds." (Tupac Amaru Shakur)

  10. #70
    is not a senior Member Meneldil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    3,074

    Default Re : Factions

    I'll post a pic later, if Legio agrees.

  11. #71
    dictator by the people Member caesar44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    the holy(?) land
    Posts
    1,207

    Thumbs down Re: Factions

    I hold
    "The essence of philosophy is to ask the eternal question that has no answer" (Aristotel) . "Yes !!!" (me) .

    "Its time we stop worrying, and get angry you know? But not angry and pick up a gun, but angry and open our minds." (Tupac Amaru Shakur)

  12. #72

    Default Re: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranika
    Heirs were not considered though; there was no concept of heirs.
    What about the Tanist?

  13. #73
    Dungalloigh Brehonda Member Ranika's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,416

    Default Re: Factions

    Oh, that's true; I meant more an heir in the sense of direct blood heirs like in most European monarchies; I should make mention of 'tánaise' (the proper period term for the individual; the system is 'tana'; lordship).

    For those who don't know, tanistry refers to a replacement chief/king elected before the current one dies (in the case of high king Brian to Malachy, Malachy was the tanist to Brian, though Malachy wasn't so much elected as agreed upon by the two men's agreement over who would be high king, when Malachy yielded to Brian). Later, most often, the eldest son of the current ruler would be tanist, but this had nothing to do with prigomeniture. It was that dignity of chieftainship or kingship was expected, often, to go to the eldest and most worthy of the same bloodline; however, Gaelic bloodlines are pretty wide and also validated cousins and the like, and that was more of a guideline anyway; non-related aristocracy could also be made tanist.

    On a side note about another game, ever played something from Paradox? Crusader Kings specifically; of their possible 'heir' systems, there wasn't Tanistry. Kinda depressing, they just had a generic 'electoral' system. I didn't expect specific 'regional' tanistry laws, but the basest concept of tanistry would've been nice, but I suppose it'd require taking into account all of a character's traits and the like (the mentally infirmed/crippled/etc., were not eligible for descent under tanistry laws).

    Neongod; Aside from tanistry, how was the rest of the description? Mind you, my English is sometimes less than perfect (mainly in terms of grammar), and I misconvey ideas at times.
    Last edited by Ranika; 08-31-2005 at 08:36.
    Ní dheachaigh fial ariamh go hIfreann.


  14. #74
    dictator by the people Member caesar44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    the holy(?) land
    Posts
    1,207

    Thumbs down Re: Re : Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by Meneldil
    I'll post a pic later, if Legio agrees.

    Legio , what is your answer ?
    "The essence of philosophy is to ask the eternal question that has no answer" (Aristotel) . "Yes !!!" (me) .

    "Its time we stop worrying, and get angry you know? But not angry and pick up a gun, but angry and open our minds." (Tupac Amaru Shakur)

  15. #75

    Default Re: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranika
    Neongod; Aside from tanistry, how was the rest of the description? Mind you, my English is sometimes less than perfect (mainly in terms of grammar), and I misconvey ideas at times.
    I would say that your English has improved since I last critiqued, for lack of a better word, one of your posts (my Gaelic, though, still sucks). I thought the description was quite extensive, but I'd rather a Tuath be considered a 'clan' and not a 'tribe'; the Gaels are, after all, the group that spawned the word.

    After having read that there will be conflict as to the naming of family members in the game (they require surnames, apparently), it might be appropriate to note that the Irish used no surnames before the Norman invasion.

  16. #76
    Dungalloigh Brehonda Member Ranika's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,416

    Default Re: Factions

    Surnames didn't exist, but there were 'clan' titles, like 'Ua Conchobar' (literally just 'of Conchobar', but implies descent from Conchobar), which work perfectly fine for 'surnames'. I did forget though, any 'Ui' titles in the Irish name list need to be made 'Ua'; I wasn't thinking at the time (actually, I was thinking like I was just writing up 'Clan titles', as in, entire clans). 'Ui' is 'of' on a mass scale (a tuath), 'Ua' is personal; so, one can be a member of the 'Ui Neill', but is, himself, a 'Ua Neill'. The exception is the Connaghta sometimes used 'Uo', which can be both plural and singular 'of', though it was sometimes used in place of 'Ua'; we can have a few 'Uo' surnames (common clan names from Connaght, like 'Uo Connair' and 'Uo Conglach' perhaps).

    Also, secondary titles can be used, such as 'Red-Hand', 'Black-Knee', 'the Devout', etc. (in an appropriate period Gaelic; some names like this I already included in the surname lists I wrote). I will note in the descript though that these are all titles denoting a trait or clan affiliation, rather than a 'surname' in the modern sense.

    I'll change 'tribe' to 'clan' (though even calling them 'clans' is a bit late {though I do agree with the change; this is how most English speakers recognize Gaelic extended families}, except for the literal Gaelic 'Cenell' and 'Clainall'; by English speakers they were generally referred to as tribes, which is actually a kind of translation of 'drognan', which is more literally 'the people of', and was usually used to describe pre-Norman 'counties' in Ireland; such, 'Drognan Ard Mammo' was 'The People of Mayo'; clan was, in English, more commonly referencing later clans in Scotland, rather than just any Gaelic clan).
    Last edited by Ranika; 08-31-2005 at 10:10.
    Ní dheachaigh fial ariamh go hIfreann.


  17. #77
    is not a senior Member Meneldil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    3,074

    Default Re : Re: Re : Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by caesar44
    Legio , what is your answer ?

    I'm sure Legio agrees, but the provinces aren't all done yet (I'm still waiting for PseRamesses' infos about Scandinavia), and I'm not sure if faction such as the Welsh, the Irish, Nordmmanland etc. should be treated as ethnical group (hence the welsh would own all wales) or as political entities (hence the welsh would represent the Principalty (?) of Gwynedd, and only hold Gwyneed at the start)

  18. #78
    dictator by the people Member caesar44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    the holy(?) land
    Posts
    1,207

    Thumbs down Re: Re : Re: Re : Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by Meneldil
    I'm sure Legio agrees, but the provinces aren't all done yet (I'm still waiting for PseRamesses' infos about Scandinavia), and I'm not sure if faction such as the Welsh, the Irish, Nordmmanland etc. should be treated as ethnical group (hence the welsh would own all wales) or as political entities (hence the welsh would represent the Principalty (?) of Gwynedd, and only hold Gwyneed at the start)
    Thanks , I will hold again
    "The essence of philosophy is to ask the eternal question that has no answer" (Aristotel) . "Yes !!!" (me) .

    "Its time we stop worrying, and get angry you know? But not angry and pick up a gun, but angry and open our minds." (Tupac Amaru Shakur)

  19. #79
    is not a senior Member Meneldil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    3,074

    Default Re : Factions

    You may still see some screenshots in the Campaign map thread.

  20. #80
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Re : Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by Meneldil
    I'll post a pic later, if Legio agrees.
    Yeah, I agree
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  21. #81
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Re : Re: Re : Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by Meneldil
    I'm sure Legio agrees, but the provinces aren't all done yet (I'm still waiting for PseRamesses' infos about Scandinavia), and I'm not sure if faction such as the Welsh, the Irish, Nordmmanland etc. should be treated as ethnical group (hence the welsh would own all wales) or as political entities (hence the welsh would represent the Principalty (?) of Gwynedd, and only hold Gwyneed at the start)
    For Wales, all the areas controlled by Rhodri Mawr, who united several Welsh principalities, would be the starting position. I believe he came from Gwynedd, so "Welsh" is subject to a name change to Gwynedd or something similar, I guess. Norwegians should own little more than Vaestfold with it's city Kaupang from start, etc.

    So it's political entities that is the general plan.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  22. #82
    dictator by the people Member caesar44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    the holy(?) land
    Posts
    1,207

    Thumbs down Re: Re : Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
    Yeah, I agree

    Thanks

    Good Meneldil ?
    "The essence of philosophy is to ask the eternal question that has no answer" (Aristotel) . "Yes !!!" (me) .

    "Its time we stop worrying, and get angry you know? But not angry and pick up a gun, but angry and open our minds." (Tupac Amaru Shakur)

  23. #83
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Re : Factions

    I can recommend this thread for info on the campaign map: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=48794

    especially the later pages shows more about the provinces, but it's not the final version (some provinces, especially in Balkans area, not yet placed). However, it doesn't yet show who'll own which province.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  24. #84
    dictator by the people Member caesar44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    the holy(?) land
    Posts
    1,207

    Thumbs down Re: Re : Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
    I can recommend this thread for info on the campaign map: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=48794

    especially the later pages shows more about the provinces, but it's not the final version (some provinces, especially in Balkans area, not yet placed). However, it doesn't yet show who'll own which province.
    OK !
    "The essence of philosophy is to ask the eternal question that has no answer" (Aristotel) . "Yes !!!" (me) .

    "Its time we stop worrying, and get angry you know? But not angry and pick up a gun, but angry and open our minds." (Tupac Amaru Shakur)

  25. #85
    Dungalloigh Brehonda Member Ranika's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,416

    Default Re: Factions

    Oh, such as it is, is there a way in RTW to represent Tanistry? At least giving the Gaelic faction heirs a 'tánaise' trait that would boost their influence, and maybe management (the tánaise was given a little crew that helped them keep their affairs in order, especially in the instance that the the current king or chief should die suddenly).
    Ní dheachaigh fial ariamh go hIfreann.


  26. #86

    Default Re: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranika
    Surnames didn't exist, but there were 'clan' titles, like 'Ua Conchobar' (literally just 'of Conchobar', but implies descent from Conchobar), which work perfectly fine for 'surnames'. I did forget though, any 'Ui' titles in the Irish name list need to be made 'Ua'; I wasn't thinking at the time (actually, I was thinking like I was just writing up 'Clan titles', as in, entire clans). 'Ui' is 'of' on a mass scale (a tuath), 'Ua' is personal; so, one can be a member of the 'Ui Neill', but is, himself, a 'Ua Neill'. The exception is the Connaghta sometimes used 'Uo', which can be both plural and singular 'of', though it was sometimes used in place of 'Ua'; we can have a few 'Uo' surnames (common clan names from Connaght, like 'Uo Connair' and 'Uo Conglach' perhaps).
    But a man should not have the same "surname" as his father, even it is a clan title, since "Ua" refers most specifically to the man's grandfather, although it was used more loosely as any male descendant. But, then, what of Mac- names and such? There are already "nickname"-type surnames in-game.

    As far as tanistry goes...well, you have the option of selecting the heir of your faction from your immediate family.

  27. #87
    Dungalloigh Brehonda Member Ranika's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,416

    Default Re: Factions

    I'm aware of the concern. Perhaps could use traits to eliminate 'births' in Gaelic faction, perse, and rely on 'adoptions' (which could be described as the coming of age of members of aristocratic families), 'man-of-the-hour', and marriages, so that the 'last name' is more of a random title/nickname?
    Last edited by Ranika; 09-01-2005 at 05:28.
    Ní dheachaigh fial ariamh go hIfreann.


  28. #88

    Default Re: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranika
    I'm aware of the concern. Perhaps could use traits to eliminate 'births' in Gaelic faction, perse, and rely on 'adoptions' (which could be described as the coming of age of members of aristocratic families), 'man-of-the-hour', and marriages, so that the 'last name' is more of a random title/nickname?
    That's an interesting idea. Maybe the adoptions can even be tweaked to begin at 0 or 1 year of age, but even if not, that seems like a reasonable suggestion. The other would be to grant nicknames to all Gaelic characters at birth.

    Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but did the Welsh operate similarly?

  29. #89
    Dungalloigh Brehonda Member Ranika's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,416

    Default Re: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by NeonGod
    That's an interesting idea. Maybe the adoptions can even be tweaked to begin at 0 or 1 year of age, but even if not, that seems like a reasonable suggestion. The other would be to grant nicknames to all Gaelic characters at birth.
    Well, we wouldn't need give them 'nicknames' at birth, perse; Dal, Ua/Uo, and Mac can be used at 'birth', and specific traits can grant nicknames. Like farmland development in a town governed by a character could give a stewardship trait for Gaels, which would change the character's 'last name' to Boruma/Boroime (Cattle-Counter), representing his many cattle. Brian would've likely attained this trait; he rebuilt a great deal of things once king; however, we could also have it as a title given by a trait gained by sacking settlements (plundering cattle).
    Last edited by Ranika; 09-01-2005 at 05:39.
    Ní dheachaigh fial ariamh go hIfreann.


  30. #90

    Default Re: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranika
    Well, we wouldn't need give them 'nicknames' at birth, perse; Dal, Ua/Uo, and Mac can be used at 'birth', and specific traits can grant nicknames. Like farmland development in a town governed by a character could give a stewardship trait for Gaels, which would change the character's 'last name' to Boruma/Boroime (Cattle-Counter), representing his many cattle. Brian would've likely attained this trait; he rebuilt a great deal of things once king; however, we could also have it as a title given by a trait gained by sacking settlements (plundering cattle).
    My worry is that the clan names would continue to have the same "surname", say, Mac Mholain, even when the character's father wasn't named Mholain. Can it be easily programmed that that the character's name in-game should appear as "Mac (father's name)" or "Ua (grandfather's name)"?

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO