> >>[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.
But there was still no state church, right?
> >The same goes for Hernan Cortez when he conquered the Mexicans.
>Hernan Cortez established a crown colony, not an independent kingdom.
The difference is very slight considering that Hernan didn't have any support from spain and his local superior wanted to clap Hernan in chains.
> >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.
But we are talking about the state church of Heortland. The Aeolians as a religious minority are not part of the Hendreiki religion.
> >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.
The Hendreiki were always pagans for the entire period of the Pharaoh's reign.
>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).
What priests are we talking about? The Larnsti aren't priests.
> >>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.
So he was not _just_ a mercenary adventurer, was he?
> >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.
There was no strong, organized opposition in Rome. The only reason why the Pope didn't grant an annulment was that Catherine of Aragorn was the niece of Charles V. The same Charles had allowed Lutherans to run amok in Rome and at the time of the divorce, the Pope was in no position to piss him off by dishonoring his favourite auntie.
Secondly the fact of papal refusal meant diddly squat to most of the english clergy who were far more concerned about what the king would do to them if they said no. So Henry VIII had no strong opposition within his kingdom.
i.e. a totally different situation to what Rikard faced.
> >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.
I'm sorry but I honestly don't see the relevance. It's one thing to sack the temples of the opponents as punishment, it's another to alienate your own troops by forcing them to convert and all that.
> >>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.
But the community are pagans so there is no clergy for them.
--Peter Metcalfe
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail