>I don't know well about RW european legend and idealized chivalry so much as
>you.
>But I think in RW, both in the world of reality and tales like Arthurian
>Legend, or Amadis de Gaula, knighthood was from necessity in the downfall of
>West Roman Empire the mixture of customs of Rome, Celt and Germans that
>Feudalism and armed independent landowners began their life, and was later
>idealized by poetry and stories.
>
>But such circumstance wasn't in IDEALLY URBANIZED Danmalastan, and prophet
>Hrestol was the apparent founder of Chivalry and it straightly attached to
>his spiritual / mystical / religious / anti-zzaburismic concept "Joy of the
>Heart".
>
It's true, of course, that there are differences between the way that
knighthood works in the Malkioni lands and the way that it did in the
real world. In some ways, it looks more like the way that authors such
as Mallory and Lull thought it *ought* to have worked than the way it
actually did. And, of course, different Malkioni sects have different
views, none of which directly correspond to medieval Christian ones. As
Peter says, the caste structure (most evident, perhaps, in places such
as Seshnela) isn't something from RW European feudalism.
><<NEW HRESTOLI
>"Soldier" is *almost* in the Farmer rather than the Knight class. Not sure I
>agree that Knights are the social elite, when there are two classes above
>them.>>
>
>Originally, "Horal" is not knight, but Soldier. And I don't know Jamie will
>agree with you or not. About the concept of Chivalry and the necessity of
>distinction between soldier and knight, see below.
>
>
Yeah, I do tend to think of the Loskalmi Soldiers as being more in the
way of Farmers in training for Knighthood than Warriors in training for
cavalry status. (Of course, many soldiers never advance to Knighthood,
nor wish to, but that's a seprate issue). But, IMO, its actually rather
blurred and could be validly looked at either way, or as if the Loskalmi
actually had five social classes. Of course, the Loskalmi are so weird
from the POV of other Malkioni that this blurring between the two
classes is just one more thing to get annoyed about.
><<ROKARI table: wot no Bishops? Should be
>
>Baron <=> Abbot (etc.)
>Count <=> Bishop
>Duke <=> Archbishop (if any)
>King <=> Pope>>
>
>I don't know well about the connection between "Pope or Pappas, or more
>romanly, Pontifex Maximus" and rather sounding greekish "Ecclesiarch" even
>after I stopped calling you by that title : ).
>
To all intents and purposes, they are synonyms. "Ecclesiarch" would be
Greek for "ruler of the Church" ('ecclesia archon') and it was probably
felt better to use this than the term 'Pope' in Glorantha, because the
latter is specifically associated with the head of the Roman Catholic
Church on Earth, and is not a generic title. But in our games, we can
call them what we like :-)
><<NEW HRESTOLI table: [snip] Also, in the RMM account there'd be no such
>thing as a "New Hrestoli Bishop" -- these were all "Cardinals" in HtWwO.>>
>
Here I'll disagree with Nick. In my personal view, there are bishops
ranking between the Cardinals and the local vicars, as Loskalm seems
large enough for this to make sense, but this is not supported by any
canonical evidence that I can recall.
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ --__--__--
Powered by hypermail