> Well it is known that after Sartar was crushed, rivalries and
> feuds quickly flared and fighting was quite common. IMO if
> the belief in Sartar was as strong as you think, peace would
> have taken a lot longer to break down. Hence I'd place the
> loyalties of most Sartarites to the nation as a distant third
> behind clan and tribe (fourth if the cities are counted).
>
> --Peter Metcalfe
I don't so. A true nation can break into civil war just because the normal
way of life has disapeared.
RW exemple: I think the kingdom of France was yet a contry with a strong
sense of identity at the beginning of the 15th centurie. But the mental
illness of the king (charles VI) and the defeat of Agincourt (as you say)
brought the kingdom near complete dissolution (with the active contribution
of king henry V of England). Feuds beetween nobles (from the
Armagnacs/Bourguignons war to clannic-like skimirshes in the south of France
and Brittany) erupted again, global insecurity rose and even socials
structures were alterated.
If it can occurs to an centralizated kingdom like France, wich was not
entirely conquered, I think that the lunar conquest of Sartar may have
triggered this kind of behaviours even if every sartarites feels to belong
to some supra-tribal entity .
Powered by hypermail