> Even at its peak, I don't think Sartar was all that centralized. At
> the most it was like the US with the "Articles of Confederacy"
> (http://www.elon.edu/gunderj/artcon.htm). Common name, they kinda
> work together, sorta. Just don't push it too far. The central
> government certainly doesn't have a big stick to force the clans and
> tribes in line. But then again, Sartar himself was never known to use
> violence. The Kingdom has always worked by people deciding that they
> have more to gain from unity. Buy-in, not force. What a concept.
Sounds more like the Canadian Conferation, really.
>
> "KYER, JEFFREY" <jeff.kyer_at_c...> wrote:
> >
> Nope, they're right on. I just glanced at _King_of_Sartar_ last week
> looking for info about a tribe I will be using. IIRC the dates are
>
> 1325 - first wave (Colymar were pre-first wave)
> 1480s - Kingdom of Sartar founded
> 1602 - the fall of Boldhome
>
> The direct struggle was kinda short. 1582 was the Battle of Grizzly
> Peak where the Tarsh-in-Exile group got plowed under and the northern
> tribes (Alda Chur and Alone areas) joined Sartar. So at most it was
> 20 years of direct fighting between the LE and Sartar. Note that a
> good number of Sartarites were helping the Tarsh Exiles, so the line
> was fuzzy.
>
> - doug
Actually, the Sartarites had formed a major part of the Tarsh forces for about 30 years before Grizzly Peak, which is why I considered it a longer struggle. Once the Tarsh border went, things got ugly in very short order.
Jeff
Powered by hypermail