Avatar of Vahir
  • Last Seen: 3 yrs ago
  • Joined: 12 yrs ago
  • Posts: 759 (0.17 / day)
  • VMs: 0
  • Username history
    1. Vahir 12 yrs ago
  • Latest 10 profile visitors:

Status

User has no status, yet

Bio

User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

WIP (Hope you don't mind, Durandal, about me mentioning you on my sheet)
The Most Glorious Kingdom of Saverne
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alignment: Interplanetary semi-autonomous nation. Against the Hegemony (Privately) Species: Saverne is a human nation. Jalilu merchants are present within the Kingdom, though the human inhabitants are quite xenophobic towards them, and thus few Jalilu settle there. Leadership: By the grace of God, King Sylander II rules Kingdom. All decisions regarding the internal ruling of Saverne fall in his wise hands. Nevertheless, he is assisted in this task by the Estates, a small council of twelve noblemen and twelve clergymen, headed by his son and heir, Prince Therrian. Court is held in the royal capital of Faucher, on planet Saverne. Economy: Saverne is a kingdom of great inequality. The royal planet itself is prosperous, covered in opulent metropolises and sprawling urban centers. It is an important financial center within the Hegemony. The beauty of the surface cities, however, is deceptive; beneath these cities, inside the planet's crust, lies a massive network of slums. Those who have fortune live on the surface, while those without live below them, tending to the needs of the rich. Beyond planet Saverne, the Kingdom controls the rest of the colonies inside its star system. These are generally miserable settlements, however. Most of them are mining stations in asteroid belts, populated by less than a thousand laborers each, who live hard lives, toiling to extract the minerals that are the lifeblood of Saverne. Those on the barren desert worlds are not much better off. Instead of harvesting asteroids, the main economic drive on these planets is the massive factory clusters which dot them, owned by oligarchs who live on the Royal Planet. Relations with other factions: Though officially the King is a loyal citizen of the Hegemony, it is common knowledge that the Kingdom is constantly struggling for more autonomy. Darker still are the rumors that the King is one of the great benefactors of the Solar Brotherhood, offering asylum to its agents and funding for its projects. Technology: The Kingdom is quite wealthy, and so its military is equipped with the cutting edge of hegemony technology. As far as day to day life goes, however, it almost seems as if the Kingdom is two separate nations: The country of the poor, who make do with shockingly primitive technology that would be obsolete a century ago, and the country of the rich, who live as gods. History: (To be filled as I get a better handle on the lore here)
What are you disagreeing with? You are practically repeating what we already established which is that no one questioned why someone is born to rule over others. Sure, rebellions happened, monarchs were killed, and crowns shifted hands, but at the end of the day those peasants that rose up would go back to their fields and just work for the next guy that comes along claiming he is destined to rule them. They accepted it as a normal thing because they never left their little bubble of ignorance. Progress of philosophy was crippled by Church who insisted that every new idea must be explained and be connected to God. Everything else was sacrilegious. You can clearly see the difference in philosophy of the Medieval ages and that of the Renaissance and the Enlightment, for example reading works of Machiavelli and Hobbes, who are mocking the way society works. If this was done in the Medieval times the author would be punished, most likely by death.
Xilaw
My point is that the idea of the divine right to rule of kings is as old as civilization, and not at all a characteristic of medieval society. In fact, the monarchies we typically associate with that kind of posturing came after the Renaissance.
I don't deny there has been civilizations in the Medieval Ages. It's called the Dark ages because scientific progress was relatively stagnant. Sure, it's not exactly historically accurate to call it Dark ages as it implies nothing significant happened. Obviously this is not true. However, there was no progress in neither medicine nor literature (most of it revolved around religion), science was practically non-existent and anything that remotely went against contemporary standards was frequently dubbed witchcraft. Contrast to this is the Renaissance and the Enlightenment period when literature and art flourishes, science is still somewhat held back but is making break throughs in secret. Criticizing Church is slowly becoming acceptable. This is the era when Europe is slowly leaving it's conservative cocoon. We're talking about Europe here, I'd leave the Islamic world out of it, who by the way, was ahead of Medieval Europe in a lot of aspects, including mathematics, astronomy, astrology, anatomy, physiology, philosophy etc. We can see this by the fact that Europe had to gather and translate old scripts from the Arabs, who unlike Europeans, wrote down and preserved literature of the ancient times and built upon the foundations laid down by the ancient Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, and other great civilizations.
Xilaw
Wiki Quite a long list.
Sure, civilizations existed, but was there much progress in anything other than in art of warfare? It was a time of wars, poverty, famine, plagues and death. On top of that, it was an era of little to no hygiene. Byzantium can be somewhat excused as far as that goes.
Xilaw
Yup, the medieval period was characterized by these things. But how is that any different from any other pre-industrial period? From Rome to 18th century Germany, population growth was glacial, pandemics were epidemic, famine was the family friend of every peasant. The medieval period (and again, lumping together 1000 years of history under one period is a gross oversimplification) wasn't any more bleak or bright than previous or following eras.
Papacy wouldn't be as strong as it was if the monarchs wanted all the power for themselves. Fact is, they acknowledged Pope as the religious leader. The Pope literally had the authority to stop two kings fighting each other and make them fight together against a common enemy which is the case with Crusades. This 'struggle' for power only culminated in the 16th century with the emergence of Protestant church and even then Kings only joined it for completely unrelated reasons, for example King of England converted because he wanted a divorce. King of Denmark converted because he needed the money from confiscating church lands after his country was broke following a civil war. By this time Europe was already largely in Renaissance period.
Xilaw
I'm not talking about religious dissidence, I'm talking about conflict for religious authority. Both King Henry and Emperor Henry engaged in ugly squabbles with the papacy over this.
If I'm not mistaken, 17th century is 100-150 years after the Medieval ages. How is it anachronism?
Xilaw
It's an anachronism in that the church had nowhere near the authority to hunt down dissenters in the time period known for the divine right to rule of kings.
Was just doing some irony, don't worry :P The fact is that before the 17th century none questions on the nature of royal power. It was given for granted that it came directly from God.
TwistedSun
I don't think anything was questioned back then. Everyone just accepted it as it was, either because they were illiterate and uneducated or because they feared the almighty church that was out to get anyone who was going against it's teachings. Dark ages, indeed.
Xilaw
No. Kings in the 17th century certainly ruled with a divine right to rule, but that's been pretty much standard for all of history- every despot since the cavemen claimed to rule with the mandate of heaven. And throughout that history, it was never enough to just shut everyone up- whether the people accepted an autocrat was largely dependent on the man's political strength. I mean, the 17th century saw ol' Charlie of England- one of the great proponents of the divine right to rule, mind you- be overthrown and executed, largely because of his attemps to control everything. The second assertion I'd like to contest, and one that makes me cringe in terrible agony every time I see it, is everything you said about the so called 'dark ages'. Apparently, everything between the fall of Rome in the 400s and the renaissance was anarchy and cultural stagnation, which lasted over a thousand years. Except for, what do you call it, the Carolingian renaissance of the 700s, or the cultural brilliance of the Byzantines and the Islamic world, ect, ect. /Sarcasm My point here is that calling the 400-1400 period the 'dark ages' is a gross oversimplification, one which reduces the greatness of the countless civilizations that rose and fell in that period (yes, civilization did exist). Finally, you seem to imply that the 'church'- by which I assume you refer to the Roman Catholic Church- was not only a proponent of the divine authority of Kings, but actively hunted those who opposed their tyranny. This is a ridiculous concept; for one thing, the popes would never impart divine authority on kings, authority they guarded as their own. The thousand years you clumped into the 'dark ages' saw a constant struggle between the papacy and the European Kings for religious authority. And even if one were to ignore that and pretend that the popes loved these Kings, it ignores the simple fact that your statement is an anachronism. By the 17th century, the roman church was already spiraling into its political decline. A third of Europe had broken off and formed their owned reformed churches, and even in those catholic nations that remained, papal authority was almost non-existent. With that said, good sir, I bid you adieu. (Oh, and I'm interested in the RP.)
I've got to go off the grid for the next week or so for christmas stuff, so I won't be able to post an IC. We'll just say the Legion is traveling to random places while I'm gone.
Symmetry, my good man. Jeddaven needed a week to make the OCC, so it's only natural he needs a week to make the IC.
My map (I'll edit this post as needed)

The Legion



I meant, edit it into your first post there, people might not see it here in the comments
Put a link to the chatzy in the opening post so that new players can see it.
zombieaccount said
Hope IC starts soon.


Shit, I hope the OOC starts soon.
© 2007-2026
BBCode Cheatsheet