Now that I have properly apologized for writing a sentence that could be interpreted by base men of little virtue as criticizing the use of the Russian Revolution and the later Empire of Soviets as a source of ideas for the Lunar Empire, I'd like to address another pair of sentences:
>The former version of the Lunar Empire was a mixture of romans and
arabians.
Romans and . . . arabians? Trippy.
>The present version is only based on ancient Persia.
Only on ancient Persia? I think the sentence should read -"the present version is more like ancient Persia than the Roman Empire." Which makes a lot of sense in my opinion. Another source of comparison would be the Mauryan Empire of India. Come to think of it, Ashoka would make an ideal Red Emperor - hey Nick, which mask would he have been?
For those of you who want a better grasp of the Lunar Empire, beyond such vague statements as "they are only based on the ancient Persians", my first recommendation is to purchase and then read Fortunate Succession. It's the most information yet published on the Lunar Empire (beyond the drum and bugle chronicles in the History of the Lunar Empire from WF) - and it is the most approachable of the triad of Pelorian books. My second recommendation is to purchase Enclosure. Marvel at Mike O'Connor's fearsome rendition of Shargash's stern visage. Read the remarkable collection of Heortling source materials, including the Saga of the Vingkotlings, experiment with the PenDragon Pass system, and then my friend, indulge yourself in an orgy of Alkothic blood-letting that has very little to with Persia and very much to do with Shiva and Krishna. My final recommendation (albeit rather expensive) is to go to Australia this January and take part in the Life of Moonson. My experience included the sinister mind-blowing sight of Greg in drag as the benevolent Great Sister. The Lunar Empire has never been the same since.
Jeff
Powered by hypermail