>The 'Malkioni who still followed Froalar's way' were full blown Pagans
>in the eyes of the Malkioni in Fronela and would have been described as
>such. They would have only used Hrestoli when contrasting themselves
>with the Old Malkioni (who joined Malkion in his exile) and not the
>Brithini.
I love this discussion. I think that the question of terms (or Question of Terms, as Gloranthans might put it) is a very Vexed and Nice Question. By that, I mean that Gloranthans argue endlessly about it. I especially loved the Atomists, and wish I had written that (you will, Oscar, you will). I hereby adopt the terms Talorist, Gerlantist, Atomist (especially), and Froalarian. Keep it up! This dialectical (actually multi-threaded) process is much better for developing Malkioni history than anything one person could produce. My humble opinion is that late 3d age Glorantha is about ready for a Gibbon-like historian, who will put together what looks like a rational and authoritative treatise on church history, like the famous chapter in the Decline And Fall of the Roman Empire. Until we find that historian, we're groping in the fog of conflicting partisan opinions, flawed secondary sources, and the irreducible uncertainty of any historical study. What fun!
I have to agree with Peter M. (that's twice now) about Carmanian attitudes toward Talor. No way is he Arkat's lieutenant. As Mike Dawson pointed out in his Malkionism seminar at Convulsions (available real soon in the post-con book), there is a continuum of attitude about Arkat, all the way from "he's the savior" to "he's the devil." The Carmanians, as spiritual descendants of Talor (Arkat's rival in many ways), would most likely fall toward the anti-Arkat end of the spectrum.
Powered by hypermail