Nick replies:
>I had assumed that the title "Shah" had some degree of odium attached to=
it
>in the early Empire after the overthrow of Carmanian rule, and would fal=
l
>into disuse for that reason.
I looked on it as being simply another word for "King" or "Ruler" in
Carmanian, something that doesn't tend to fall into disuse due to politic=
al
changes. =
> IMO, the Shah of Carmania is any man who rules Carmania and calls himse=
lf
> Shah without being offed immediately :)
>Magnificus, contrariwise, is only referred to as "Shah of Carmania" by h=
is
>political enemies in the Dara Happan Senate. This looks like a slur rath=
er
>than an encomium.
Yeah, I see where you are coming from but from their "Lofty Imperial" vantage, anything else seems parochial and rural. However, I think Magnificus was both proud of his origins and quite capable of defending himself, as he proved. After all the vaunted Imperial had been crushed, only the non-DH Sylilans, Glamourites and Carmanians came out of the occupation with laurels.
> Yes the Shahs took a pasting at the 4 Arrows, yes they lost a lot of
> power but I doubt that their rituals were expunged completely.
>Which other overthrown Second Age empire had unique royal rituals which
>survived and are still used to this day by its enemies and successor
states?
>The EWF? The Jrusteli God Learners? The House of Errinorru? So why the
>Carmanians?
I see a difference between the Carmanian royalty, which used the Idovanic=
_philosophy_ to empower their deities and disempower their enemies and th=
e
various 2nd age Empires you mention. Simply put, the culture that spawne=
d
the magics of the latter was either destroyed or irrevocably changed to a=
point that allowed no access to the magics used. The Carmanians on the other hand were extant throughout the whole period as a culture and certainly as a religion and philosophy. Yes the Lunars influenced and controlled them, but I do not think that they were eradicated in the same=
way. Therefore their magic would have to have been largely the same befo=
re
and after the Lunar conquest.
> I believe that [Magnificus'] weaponry included a significant amount of
> Carmanian old ritual, as well as Lunar power.
>I agree completely. But I do not think this included his recognition as
>Shah, or his embodiment of specifically Carmanian royal magical power.
This,
>IMO, was snuffed out at the Four Arrows of Light, and has not returned.
Okay, I disagree with you on that point. I think that even if parts of i=
t
were lost during 4 Arrows, there would have been no reason why the
Emperor/Shah or many of his new Carmanian noblity couldn't have resurrect=
ed
or quested for the lost powers.
> I also think that the manifestation of Carmanian magics at a specially
> selected point largely helped the Lunars defeat the Seleric warband and=
> thus allowed Shengs defeat.
>I agree completely. But I do not think these are those specific magics
>personal to the Shah of Carmania.
Not all of them, probably not even most of them, but some IMO. I think i=
ts
this Imperial diversity that makes the Emperor/Shah so damn nasty.
>> I don't think the Magi, the Satraps of Carmania, etc. would think [the=
>> Red Emperor] was the "top man" in their institutions -- rather, he'd b=
e
>> seen as the only person who can boss around (or intervene against) the=
>> Hierophant, the Governor of the West Reaches, or others.
> It depends on the period you are talking about.
>Of course. And Magnificus was a uniquely Carmanian case, as you'll
>recognise.
Yes I do. I agree that he was uniquely Carmanian but he was also the shaper of the new Empire after the destruction of most of the Egi. =
Therefore the new Imperial, non DH traditional form of rule that followed=
on after Magnificus was created by him and in part by the Carmanian influences and views he subscribed to.
Regards
Martin
Powered by hypermail