Subject: MYSTARA-L Digest - 27 Mar 2008 to 29 Mar 2008 (#2008-6) From: MYSTARA-L automatic digest system Date: 30/03/2008, 18:00 To: MYSTARA-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM Reply-to: Mystara RPG Discussion There are 3 messages totalling 441 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Mystaran Numismatics 2. Thyatian dominion 'Rank' (2) ******************************************************************** The Other Worlds Homepage: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/OtherWorlds.asp The Mystara Homepage: http://www.pandius.com To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM with UNSUB MYSTARA-L in the body of the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 03:39:00 -0500 From: Greg Weatherup Subject: Mystaran Numismatics Aloha, >> I can see how the Doulakki & Traldar systems could be related to Nithian >> system, but I don't see the connection to Milenian (though I don't know = m=3D uch >> about Milenia, is that the culture on SW Skothar or the historic one on >> Davania? An M-Greek right?) > > > The second one ;) > The other one is Minaea (with, BTW, is likely related to all M-Greek > peoples, but with Jennite influence).=20 I'm always getting those two [minea & Millenia] mixed up. > IIRC, while Traldars and Doulakki > should represent M-Mycenaean Greece, the gnoll invasion should represent a > M-Greek Dark Ages, the remaining "late Doulakki" on Darokin and Thyatis are > M-Ancient Greece (of Greece and Italy, respectively) and the Traldars that > migrated to Davania became the M-Hellenistic Greece Milenian Empire. hmm.. While I've never gotten the Traldar =3D M-Greek relationship everyone= seems to follow, I do however like how you break it down. > BTW, that gives me an idea, that the Milenians could be, in part, a > M-Seleucid Empire. Although it would be difficult to have a second M-Persia > at there (we already have one at the Arm of the Immortals, the Yezchamenid > Empire),=20 Persia has had many different empires over its history (Achaemenid, Seleuci= d/Greco-Persian, Median/Medes, Neo-Assyrian, Parthian, Elamite, Sassanid, S= eljuq/Turco-Persian, Ilkhanate/Timurid/Mongol, Safavid, and many, many othe= rs), perhaps they [Yzechemenid, Milenian, & others] could be further broken= down, Unfortunately I don't know enough about the various ones to make any= specific suggestions. > we had a M-Phoenicia quite close to this region (Taymora),=20 Taymora as M-Phoneicia.... Now I wish I know more about Phoneician coinage,= but All I can find is a disputed claim that they invented bronze making. > and a > few remaining fragments may survived in Davania. We also have the davanian > Oltecs, that don't have (yet) a RW equivalent, AFAIK (although a M-Rapa Nui > could be useful, especially if we could link it to the original culture at > the IoD and Colima (Azcan Empire, HW)). Minaea also could be the M-Bactrian > Kingdom, since it also had, as it's RW counterpart, have M-Scythia just > north of it =3D3D) ooh, a good possibility, but don't they [the Minaeans] have a piratical ben= t? Of course, who says we can't combine the two... >> a dispute going all the way back into the Archaic period with the competi= ng >> Aeginan & Attic systems > > Pehaps a Nithia vs Traldar/Doulakki systems competition? =3D3D) or even a Traldar vs Doulakki competition... many possible ways to utilize= this. >> but it does make me want to leave this RW-greek system for use in >> Milenia/Minea, and use something else for Nithia and later >> Traldaras/Doulakki. > > I'm listening, please go on with your idea ;) I don't have anything more on this developed, sorry. (snip) >> (unfortunately non of my games ever got that far) and while I never figur= ed >> out all the details, it is fairly close (probably 80-90% similar) to >> Valerya's take on the Belcadiz. > > Is it at the Vaults? =3D3D) http://www.pandius.com/belcgaz.html OR http://www.geocities.com/valerya1/be= lcadiz/index.html >> As for Terentias, I always figured it was originally an independent >> 'Thadder type state that joined the empire (be-it freely or by intimidat= i=3D on >> and pressure) and hence why it was given grand-duchy status (much like h= o=3D w >> Machetos was originally a Traladaran, or maybe doulakki entity, long sin= c=3D e >> largely overrun by Thyatian/Kerendian/Hattian immigrants). Towards that = =3D end >> I had tried to figure out why the different Thyatian dominions were each= =3D the >> status that they were (Barony, County, Duchy, or Grand-/Arch- Duchy), th= o=3D ugh >> I never did get all the details fully worked out. > > I think Machetos was a doulakki state, and probably all other greek souding > names reflects the doulakki presence at mainland Thyatis and south Ylaruam. see my next post under a new subject. (snip) > GP's Fomorian realm at the Altan Tepes have a M-Etruscan culture.=20 (snip) hmm.. Giants differentied by culture.... Is this posted somewhere or is it= still in development? (After searching, I'm guessing this is it: http://p= andius.com/fomorian.html). Of course can you imagine the size of an Etrusc= an tomb if the Etruscans were giants? It would be more like whole caves or= huge mounds rather than tomb-rooms. Interesting ideals. >> Terentias as a M-Portuguese pirate source... Are there any RW historic >> Portuguese Pirates we could emulate as an Terentian NPC? (I can't think = o=3D f >> any off the top of my head). > > Although there are some known portuguese pirates/privatters (Bartolomeo > Portugu=3DEAs and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolomeo_Portugu%C3%AAs a= nd > Manuel Rivero Pardal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Rivero_Pardel for > example), foreign privateers working for the portuguese crown (Roche > Braziliano being the most famous) or pirates that raid the portuguese > colonies (usually Brazil, such as Bartholomew Roberts, Edward Low and even > Francis Drake), the portuguese empire actually have quite little envolvment > with piracy, fighting it or uing it as a tool, when compared to England, > France and Netherlands (and possibly as much as Spain). > That's likely because when Portugal was at its height (XV-XVI), there > weren't such strong piratical tradition at the Atlantic, and most of what > existed by that time, focused much more at the Caribbean Sea and the spani= s=3D > h > gold and silver. When the piratical axis shifted to the Indian Ocean, > Portugal had already suffered much from the Iberian Union (much of it's > resources were used by Spain while struggling for it's supremacy on Europe > and America, and some of it's colonies were lost, like Recife and Olinda > (Brazil) to the dutch WIC). sounds like a good analysis of the situation to me. Also, I suspect the ou= tcome of the battle of the three kings in Morocco also disinhearted them. = But mostly what you wrote. :) > Still, mystaran Verdans are somewhat different from RW portuguese people, > since they do have a strong piratical tradition. Vilaverde and Texeiras ha= v=3D > e > many privateers and the strongest fleets (and sea tradition) of the SC. > Also, both have probably the best pirate heavens of the region (although > honestly I think this is somewhat odd; Vilaverde should be hunting pirates > that don't work for them, since their riches comes through commerce). I always thought that, between Vilaverde and Texeiras, one supported piracy= and the other privateering (admittedly a slight distintction, but one impo= rtant to the two)? Both against each other in rivalry and against outsider= s. >> yes, it could be the predecessor of one or both systems. (note to self: >> go look up the Nueva Ispanola system) > http://www.pandius.com/ispanola.html > Coinage: Dubloon (gp), Peso (sp), Real (cp); Thyatian and Minrothian coins > are accepted at face value, all others are deeply discounted. ah, thank you. So we've already got an example of Dubloon's, Peso's, and R= eal's in Mystara. Since much of the Thyatian sea influence is from Terenti= as, this could add more support to such denominations having originating fr= om there. >> That could be very helpfull, as I don't know when I'll have the time to >> search through the old digests I saved. > > Ok, I'll send it for you ASAP ;) Thank you. Greg "Gecko" Weatherup GWxup@excite.com Gecko_G@email.com --=20 Want an e-mail address like mine? Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com! ******************************************************************** The Other Worlds Homepage: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/OtherWorlds.asp The Mystara Homepage: http://www.pandius.com To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM with UNSUB MYSTARA-L in the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:09:29 -0500 From: Greg Weatherup Subject: Thyatian dominion 'Rank' Thyatian Dominion status's: Here's a question I've been thinking on lately, and that I touched on in my= Numismatics thread: Why are certain Thyatian dominions the 'rank' that th= ey are? ie, why are some Duchies and others Baronies, some Counties while = others are Arch-/Grand-Duchy? Is there any rhyme or logic to it? Tiny Ter= entias is a Grand-Duch same as the [relatively] gigantic Karameikos? Actiu= s & Vyalia are counties but are smaller than the Baronies of Biazzan & Buhr= ohur? etc. etc. Here's my half-developed idea, I want to see what everyone else thinks of i= t- Originally, in old Thyatian there were two distinct words, both of which ev= olved into the modern thyatian word for "Duchy". The first, higher meaning= one, is what the original three tribes set up for themselves within the [t= hen] new empire- The Duchy of Thyatis, Duchy of Kerendas, & Duchy of Hattia= s (The 'Duchy' of Hattias later being reduced to County status after they r= evolted against the empire) The second, lower meaning one, is what all the other Duchies are (Mositius,= Machetos, Kantrium, etc.). However in modern Thyatis both are simply rendered as "Duchy" and the disti= nction is lost. Perhaps the distinction could be something like along the = lines of (but not identicle to) how we have the latin/german "prinz" & "fur= st" both being "Prince" in English, but having different original meanings. To carry my idea forward- My idea is that originally indipendent or semi-in= dependent dominions/states/entities that joined the empire (willingly or un= der persuasion) were made Duchies (of the second kind). Thus you get Tel A= kbir and Machetos, Machetos eventually being much more overrun by Thyatian/= Kerendan/Hattian emmigration than Tel Akbir was. But Vyalia and Buhrohur are not Duchies even though by this logic they shou= ld of be! The Vyalia were to of become a Duchy, but either because only some of the e= lven clans of the Vyalia accepted the Thyatian rule, or simply because the = Vyalia didn't want to become too entangled with the Humans, Vyalia only ent= ered the empire as a County, perhaps after much delay and/or negotiation. Buhrohur- By this logic and by my interpretation of Buhrohur, it should al= so be a Duchy. Here's my rational for it being "only" a Barony: I always f= avored that the dwarves were already in the Southern Altan tepes Mountains = before the arrival of the Thyatians OR perhaps it was the site of a Dwarven= Roanoke/Croatoan style "lost colony", but in either case they never recogn= ized the Thyatian claim over those mountains but eventually, to avoid hosti= lities, they allowed a new clan to be officially set up as a "Barony" under= the Thyatians (The Buhrohuri likely still consider themselves a Rockhome c= olony, but perhaps it is something the younger generation disagree with, si= nce they have grown up with and under the Thyatians) and the Thyatians with= their short [human] memory eventually came to believe that they had "invit= ed" the dwarves. Along this line, hadn't someone posted something where th= e Dwarves had a different name for the various mountain ranges of Brun? Wh= at was their name for the Southern Altan Tepes? now, I believe that leaves Kantrium, Retebius, Mositius, and the Grand Duch= ies. Between Retebius and Kantrium, wasn't one of them originally named after (a= nd likely awarded to) an Alphatian warhero who joined the thyatians in the = initial revolution against Alphatia? I think it was Retebius (If it was in= stead Kantrium, then this blows my whole theory). I propose that Retebius = was set up (originally) as a "Duchy" (of the second type) for the various A= lphatians who sided with the Thyatians in the revolution and was seen as a = settlement "homeland" or zone for them akin to the other entities that join= ed like Machetos and Tel Akbir. Like Tel Akbir, and especially like Machet= os, it has since seen heavy immigration of other Thyatian groups and so the= population is now largely Thyatian. Alternatively it could of been origin= ally something in old Thyatian between a County and a Duchy (Palatine count= y?), or just a county, and it eventually was "title inflated" to a Duchy wi= th the rise in importance of the air forces (perhaps along with the absorbt= ion of Hillfork, see below) Kantrium is mentioned as a "long established dominion" so I propose that it= was originally a Barony (or maybe a County) and that over time, perhaps qu= ite recently, had its title "inflated" after the original status of "duchy"= lost its special conontation/significance over the other ranks.=20=20 But then there is Mositius, which I am at a loss to explain. Was it perha= ps settled by OChalean's and Nuari, and thus could be a similar situation a= s the Alphatian "entity"? Otherwise it would likely also have to be a more= recent title "inflation" (Don't I seem to rememeber something about the Du= chess being a personal ally of Thincol?) We also have the three Grand-Duchies: Terentias, Westrourke (spelling?), an= d Karameikos. Karameikos, as we know is what came out of the "Protectorate= of Traladara" so I don't need to discuss it other than to remind that its = rank is VERY recent.=20 If I recall correctly, isn't Westrourke only of recent GD status, awarded t= o a cousin of Thincol or something? and might even be a recent addition to= Thyatian territory? (I don't know enough about it to be certaint). If the above about Westrourke is true, then Terentias is thus the "original= " "Grand-Duchy" and it seems that there are a couple of different theories = on it's origin (see the recent discussion in the Numismatics thread for exa= mple), but perhaps they [when Terentias first became a Grand-duchy] wanted = something akin to the Arch-Duchy status which was reserved for Ochalea and = the Nuari. So perhaps for a long time (until the creation of Karameikos an= d Westrourke) "Grand-Duchy" was an anomalous, unique, status in Mystara aki= n to the RW usage of "Arch-Duchy" thus swapping Grand- and Arch- in Mystara! I propose that "Baronies" were originally invisioned to be like 'Buffer sta= tes' between the duchies, and probably expected to be under the sway of the= ir neighbors, while Counties were meant to be more independent than Baronie= s. Thus Biazzan was created to be a buffer between Kerendas, Vyalia, and Buhro= hur (though the later two never emerged as Duchies), Kantrium could origina= lly have been a buffer between Retebius and Tel Akbir, perhaps even Luciniu= s started out as a buffer barony between Thyatis and Hattias (perhaps not). I propose that there was originally a Barony around the Hillfork area, whic= h was subsequently divided up between Thyatis, Kerendas, and Retebius (afte= r all, why is Hillfork more connected to the south than to the Ducal capita= l?) Lucinius, Halathius, and Actius thus could all have either always been Coun= ties, or could have be elevated from baronial status at some point in their= respective histories. Did I miss any of the mainland dominions?=20=20 so originally the distinciton between Duchy and the other ranks (Barony & c= ounty) was more profound and there was even a distinction between two diffe= rent types of Duchy, but over time [A thousand years is a long time!] three= or four changes took place- 1) the gap between Duchy and County was basically eliminated (or rather mad= e no bigger than the gap between County and Barony) 2) The distinction between the two types of Duchy was forgotten 3) Baronies became more than just buffer states and emerged from the sphere= of influence of their neighboring duchies 4) and likely, titles became inflated, just like in RW-Europe. The two obvious questions that arise from this- a) were the Ylari colonies = (or other former thyatian lands) ever made or divided into dominion's or we= re they all simply protectorate's or provinces? & b) can the same apply th= e overseas territories on the Isle of Dawn (I touched on Westrourke and I t= hink the rest are all only county or lower correct? Though I am not sure w= hat Redstone's status is.) In addition to this I hold that there are non-Imperial dominions where the = imperial dominions are in turn carved into smaller dominions, some of which= are under the authority of the local imperial baron/count/duke, and others= directly to the Emperor (like the RW Holy Roman Knights) or perhaps even a= neighboring lord, but that is beyond the scope of my original reason for p= osting this. What does everyone think? Am I missing anything that would rule this schem= e out? Can anyone expand this to the Isle of Dawn dominions? thank you. Greg "Gecko" Weatherup GWxup@excite.com Gecko_G@email.com --=20 Want an e-mail address like mine? Get a free e-mail account today at www.mail.com! ******************************************************************** The Other Worlds Homepage: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/OtherWorlds.asp The Mystara Homepage: http://www.pandius.com To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM with UNSUB MYSTARA-L in the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:21:03 +0100 From: Giampaolo Agosta Subject: Re: Thyatian dominion 'Rank' On 29/03/2008, Greg Weatherup wrote: > Thyatian Dominion status's: > > Here's a question I've been thinking on lately, and that I touched on in my Numismatics thread: Why are certain Thyatian dominions the 'rank' that they are? ie, why are some Duchies and others Baronies, some Counties while others are Arch-/Grand-Duchy? Is there any rhyme or logic to it? Tiny Terentias is a Grand-Duch same as the [relatively] gigantic Karameikos? Actius & Vyalia are counties but are smaller than the Baronies of Biazzan & Buhrohur? etc. etc. There's some logic, indeed. The original Duchies (Thyatis, Kerendas and Hattias) represented the three main Thyatian tribes. The original Grand Duchies (Pearl Islands and Ochalea) represented formerly independent nations that had joined the Empire under Empress Valentia. Atila and I hypotesize that Terentias is a Grand Duchy for a similar reason (it joined willingly the Empire at some point in its history), though another option is that the Emperor leaves Terentias as "semi-independent" to avoid responsibility for the local pirate activity. Probably, all other original ranks were of the "Count" type, with Baronies being introduced at a later time. Later, there may have been many events that led to demotions and promotions. > However in modern Thyatis both are simply rendered as "Duchy" and the distinction is lost. Perhaps the distinction could be something like along the lines of (but not identicle to) how we have the latin/german "prinz" & "furst" both being "Prince" in English, but having different original meanings. Yes, that's a likely idea. Myself, I think the word is the same, but the two concepts evolved in different times -- much like the original Italian Duchies (Longobardic fiefs) were much larger than the later Duchies (i.e., a "title inflation" phenomenon). > Otherwise it would likely also have to be a more recent title "inflation" (Don't I seem to > rememeber something about the Duchess being a personal ally of Thincol?) Very likely. > If I recall correctly, isn't Westrourke only of recent GD status, awarded to a cousin of Thincol or something? and might even be a recent addition to Thyatian territory? (I don't know enough about it to be certaint). Indeed. Donegal Firestorm was a close ally (and maybe a relative, I don't remember) of Thincol. The area was probably a Province before the Spike Assault. > The two obvious questions that arise from this- a) were the Ylari colonies (or other former thyatian lands) ever made or divided into dominion's or were they all simply protectorate's or provinces? & b) can the same apply the overseas territories on the Isle of Dawn (I touched on Westrourke and I think the rest are all only county or lower correct? Though I am not sure what Redstone's status is.) I think they were indeed divided into dominions. That's what happened in the IoD as well. Tel Abkir and Biazzan are what remains of those dominions. GP ******************************************************************** The Other Worlds Homepage: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/OtherWorlds.asp The Mystara Homepage: http://www.pandius.com To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM with UNSUB MYSTARA-L in the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of MYSTARA-L Digest - 27 Mar 2008 to 29 Mar 2008 (#2008-6) **************************************************************