Me:
>>Hendriki (or Hendreiki) have outgrown any normal size for
>>tribes or even tribal confederations during the roughly 1200 years
>>of their history starting as refugee band.
>I really don't see what relevance this has to the issue of
>the Hendreiki being a tribe or not.
The issue is: there are four Hendriki tribes, the Volsaxar, Esvularings etc.
Prior to the Pharaoh each of these tribes had a king, and the confederation of these four (oversized) tribes had a High King.
Zombie King Andrin renamed the tribal kings into earls. The Volsaxar took exception more strongly than others.
>The Hendreiki King was not an ordinary King but chosen by the Larnsti.
A high king chosen by a council of priests.
>Before the Pharaoh, the Hendreiki are a "clannish folk" (Glorantha:
>Intro p132)
Your description as "clannish folk" doesn't tell me much about actual organisation, but a lot about strong decentralist sentiments. There is nothing at all to prevent these clannish people to form four separate tribes as we are told in all publications about the place.
>and so the best label for the Hendreiki as a whole is "tribe".
So the Esvularings and Jondalarings are what, sub-tribes?
The Volsaxar turn out to be a tribal confederation similar to Sartar's pre-1495 Quivini, with three Quivini-sized tribes (BA called them tiny) and a fairly large tribe called the Volsaxi.
>When Andrin returns, he does not break
>the Hendreiki up into tribes but using a different method
>of organizing them.
Andrin didn't have to break up the Hendreiki into tribes - the tribes already existed. Andrin was the High King of Heortland, a position comparable to Argrath's claim as King of Saird, overking over four separate tribal confederations or mega-tribes as well as non-Heortling peoples of Heortland (Pelaskites, Aeolians).
>>The Quivini are a "back to the roots" movement with IMO about as
>>much historical authenticity as the Rokari, i.e. they constructed
>>a historical model from what information they had.
>The Quivini look pretty authentic to me in preserving their
>traditions considering they left at the same time as Andrin
>was starting his reforms.
The Quivini left with notions that what they had before wasn't enough. They had to rediscover their mythic identity once they were settled, and came up with their own oral parallel to the Abiding Book of Jrustela. The did not retain close contact with the priests back home.
>>>The other Hendreiki tribes accept the Pharaoh and so Heortland has
>>>two kings.
>>Given the "well-defined" terms "king" or even "high king" and "tribe",
>>I hesitate to fix the number of kings of or in Heortland.
>I don't see what the problem is. Beneath the King of Heortland,
>there are three earls, not tribal kings and a number of barons.
Tell that the mountain valley hicks of the Stormwalk Mountains or the Volsaxi.
>>The Pharaoh forced the majority of the Heortlanders to take part
>>in his sixfold structure.
>"forced" is wrong. The Heortlanders freely accepted the Pharaoh
>with only a minority (the future Volsaxi and Quivini tribes)
>dissenting.
Killing the king and returning him as a pharaonic creature is close enough to "forcing". The Heortlanders like to think that they freely accepted the Pharaoh. That's similar to post-WWII Germany soaking up US-American influences.
>>The Hendreiki aren't an organisation unit,
>Yes, they are. They know themselves to be a) a kingdom and
>b) a tribe.
Decide.
There is the Kingdom of Heortland which includes Aeolians and Pelaskites as sizeable non-Heortling and even more non-Hendriki minorities, just like the Principality of Sartar includes Telmori and Durulz. I'm fairly certain that you can find non-Hendriki Heortling tribes or clans in upland Heortland, or else the origin of the Torkani becomes puzzling.
There are the four Hendriki tribes, three of which have been renamed into Earldoms by the Pharaoh's creature Andrin.
If you accept tribes within tribes, you are leaving safe definition ground. Which is fine for me - as long as you graciously cede the same right to others than yourself.
>>If you prefer to use conflicting terms, ok, but then how do you
>>call the organisational state of the Esvularings or Jondalarings?
>As I said before, Earldoms and Marches.
And before Zombie Andrin?
Four large tribes...
>>Well, Sartar did not invent the city organisation of Wilmskirk
>>entirely out of the blue.
>Why not?
Because he didn't have to.
>>He had experience with the Heortland cities.
>Which are run on western lines, which is far removed from the
>Sartarite system where the local tribes have a say in the
>running of the city.
A city like Backford is run by having the barons and citizens have a say in the running of the city. (Barons: Andrinic equivalent of tribal kings in terms of the number of Heortlings they represent.) Andrinic Barons and Earls still are Heortling leaders in many respects, first and foremost in that they receive obedience only as chosen leaders. (A feudal system remarkably similar to the mediaeval German situation which only knew fealty to your immediate superior, with the added personal freedom to decide how far your fealty goes...)
[Volsaxi and Trade]
Peter:
>>>The Volsaxi are part of the Hendreiki tribe but reject the Pharaoh.
Me:
>>Most recently (i.e. Sartar's - Jarosar's reigns, until Tarkalor
>>entered the picture) because the Pharaoh encouraged the Kitori
>>to block the trade route through the Marzeel Valley, which they
>>did (among other things) by exacting tribute from the Heortlings
>>of the valley.
>I seriously doubt that the Pharaoh or the Kitori ever thought
>in terms of blocking trade routes to punish people.
While I might agree about the Kitori, the Pharaoh has been accused of this reaction in WF #6 (Intro to Famous Trolls of the Hero Wars).
>Secondly why would the Pharaoh allow the Kitori to exact tribute from
>_his_ heortlings and thus alienate them? The Volsaxi revolt
>was from the Pharaoh, _not_ the Kitori.
Yep. And the Pharaoh's decision to isolate Wilmskirk was after the revolt, as far as I'm concerned. The Volsaxi would have ceased to be "his" Heortlings.
>>the blockade of all trade into Quiviniland prior to Tarkalor's war has
>>been described as a hostile reaction to Sartar's bid for independence
>>(Wyrm's Footnotes #6, not entirely reproduced in Wyrm's Footprints).
>If there was anything like a total blockade of all trade between
>the Holy Country and Sartar, one would have expected it to be
>noticed in the KoS.
Much trade went to Nochet, with the duck boaters as important middlemen.
The Kitori were somewhat bribeable, with Argan Argari merchants taking their big cut or doing the smuggling.
>The trade-route is described as follows:
> Trade steadily increased along the routes established
> by Sartar. They began in Kethaela at the city of Karse
> and travelled north to Sartar's lands, reaching Wilmskirk.
> There Sartar's great road went east to Boldhome, and then
> either further east to Swenstown, or further north to
> Jonstown. From Jonstown, caravans went further north
> to Tarsh, either via Aldachur or across the Dragons Eye
> to the Tarsh capital of Bagnot.
> KoS p137
Yep. Until 1495 when Sartar made his bid for King of Dragon Pass. At the same time, Prince Sartar established the Grazeland trade routes to Dunstop and Bagnot.
>>The Pharaoh was happy enough to blockade the direct trade via
>>Whitewall into Sartar's new confederation when his former subject
>>made the bid for High King of Dragon Pass. He did accept trade along
>>the New River with the ducks as intermediates.
>This is news to the chronicler of CHDP.
The same guy who didn't tell anything about the Volsaxi at all when describing Tarkalor.
>Nor is there any hint
>of reopened trade routes during Tarkalor's time.
Nor of any roads built by Tarkalor. CHDP isn't the most complete or correct source, only the most fluently readable history of the Principality of Sartar.
(It took some effort to get the fact that Moirades lived past 1610 into print...)
>Secondly Sartar only made friends with the ducks because he needed
>someplace to establish a city and the Colymar didn't want it.
That's his only reason? Or did he want to cement the peace of 1380 by giving them ducks a defined role in his tribal confederation, just as he had done with the Telmori?
[King Rikard's reformation]
>>[Rikard] can hardly have founded the Kingdom of New Malkonwal
>>without [a state church].
>There was no state church in Jerusalem when the Crusaders
>came yet they established a kingdom there.
As well as four or five independent states with less grand titles but more real estate. The main difference between Rikard's Holy Country and Outremer is the previous presence of a Jerusalem in Outremer - Rikard still has to build his.
>The same goes for Hernan Cortez when he conquered the Mexicans.
Hernan Cortez established a crown colony, not an independent kingdom.
>I don't believe there was anything like an organized
>church hierarchy for Heortland in Pharaonic times.
Talking about the Aeolians, there is a history of bishops regulating the church.
>For one thing, it sits oddly with the Orlanthi religion
>which had changed very little.
The Andrini mainly became pagan subjects for what little time Rikard had. A situation Oswald and Oswiu of Northumberland faced when they were Bretwalda.
And then Heortland had suffered less Alakoringism than other Heortlings, so the priests remained fairly powerful in the tradition of Harmast (, the EWF and Lokamayadon).
>>>Secondly by declaring the Kingdom of Malkonwal, Rikard has gone
>>>beyond simply being the head of existing institutions or allowing
>>>his underlings free reign, he is instituting a reform from above.
>>Yes. But honestly, how much of a religious reformer will a mercenary
>>adventurer be?
>What makes you think he was just a mercenary adventurer?
Greg's texts. Rikard was a mercenary adventurer who took the opportunity to make himself something greater. He was in the right place at the right time. Reminds me of the Dux Aremoricae in early Frankish Gaul as much as the Franks themselves.
>Secondly I wasn't speaking of religious reforms, but rather
>the remaking of the kingdom into a Malkioni equivalent.
>Establishing a state church is a much lower priority than
>kicking people's heads in to make them swear obedience.
Obedience is secondary, dealing with commoners is left to his nobles, whose fealty is important. Kicking heads is his craft, anyway.
>>His reform will be of a similar style as Henry VIII's
>>disavowing of Roman Catholicism.
>Hardly. Henry VIII was an reigning king whose regal
>authority was undisputed and the kingdom was fighting
>no wars. Even with the aid of willing accomplices
>within an established ecclesiastical hierarchy, it took
>him some years to make the break with Rome.
He had a strong, organized opposition in Rome, and as far as I remember his re-marriage was made possible in fairly short time.
>Whereas Rikard is a foreigner who becomes King after the
>Pharaoh's disappearance and has a scant three years to
>in which to do anything. Much of his energy is devoted
>to subjugating two earldoms leaving scant time for
>unleashing any sweeping religious reforms among the general
>masses.
That's why leaders have followers.
>>Details in the rites, apart from naming
>>the king as head of the church, will have been left to the clergy.
>What clergy?
The liturgists and whatever literates the community has to read the holy texts.
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail