>Me>If Phargentes is just ruling Tarsh under the Empire then why the
> >name change? Why would the Lunar Empire seek to call
> >themselves the Good Empire when most of them don't believe
> >that Empires are evil?
>No reason is given. It could, however, be propaganda for external
>use - or it might be that the current Emperor is less influenced by
>Dara Happan concerns.
And this conflicts with my suggestion of the Good Empire in what way?
>However according to Argrath's Saga the name
>change happens when Argrath is ruling Tarsh, not Phargentes.
Whereas the CHDP calls it the Lunar Empire after the conquest of Tarsh and knows nothing of about any Good Empire. So you can't use Argrath's Saga to refute the theory that the Good Empire is Tarsh.
> >So there was a temporary setback in the creation of the Good Empire.
> >Argrath's conquest of Tarsh is not permanent as he is ousted after
> >the battle of Yoran while the CHDP is silent on whether he retains
> >control over Tarsh after Dwenapple.
>But the name change occurs during Argrath's occupation of Tarsh.
No, it doesn't. All you have is the name change being mentioned at the beginning of one part of the Saga. No internal evidence within that part exists for Argrath ruling Tarsh when the Good Empire comes into existence. Given that the entire first half of part 4 is probably about another Argrath and that the CHDP knows nothing about any Good Empire when it covers the occupation of Tarsh, the possibility is strong that the ur-Saga compiler made a mistake.
>And
>the Good Empire forces seem to be drawn from Sylila, Oraya and
>possibly Dara Happa (according to CHDP Pardidas commands "the
>iron-bound hoplites who could crush an enemy wall under their feet).
Sylila lies within South Peloria which is what I speculated the Good Empire would seek to rule over. There is no evidence for the Good Empire containing Oraya or Dara Happa as the battle of Dwernapple in the CHDP does not mention the Good Empire.
> >There has been talk that this refers to an Argrath of Saird
> >who unites the Orlanthi of South Peloria under his leadership. So
> >when the Good Empire attacks Filich Kwan, it's actually Tarsh's
> >Empire attacking it from the West rather than Dara Happa attacking
> >it from the north.
>It really doesn't matter which Argrath it is.
Yes, it does. If the story of Argrath's rock belongs to a different Argrath then the argument that the Good Empire name change occurs when Argrath rules Tarsh vanishes. The narrative of the Good Empire formation and the story of Argrath's rock do not require that Argrath rules Tarsh. We are given the appearance that Argrath is ruling Tarsh from the previous chapter but we are also given the impression from the Saga that Kallyr never existed.
> >The Red Emperor is mentioned in Part 4 not leading the army but in the
> >following paragraphs where a feud between him and Argrath is spoken of
> >and also where he sends the River Oslir against Argrath. Thus the Saga
> >compiler felt that he was leading the Good Empire at the time.
>Yet at the start of Part 5 we are told that the Red Emperor "decided
>to lead the next army himself".
A Saga compiler's interpretation. The Ur-Saga is not an iron-cast history but a hodge-podge of anecdotes woven together into a single narrative. The Saga writer knows that at one point the Emperor lead a march on Tarsh but he is simply making a wild guess as to when it took place.
Now at the battle of Yoran, virtually nothing is said about the composition of the Imperial Forces save for the presence of broos, cavalry and hellhounds. We are not told about the enemy commander although we are told about the composition of forces at Dwernapple. So the Saga mention of the Red Emperor (actually Emperor 78) leading the forces himself could be a reference to Yoran for all we know.
>Whether lead by Jarr-eel, Pardidas
>or Phargentes the army of part 4 was not lead by the Red Emperor,
>indicating that Phargentes was not the Emperor.
The first half of part 4 of the ur-Saga only mentions that JarEel was present (it's ambiguous as to whether she led). The leadership of the army as represented by the Northern and Southern versions are at best guesses as to who was leading the army that sacked Fillich Kwan. As it is, it's not strong evidence that Phargentes was not Good Emperor at the time.
In the second half of part 4, you are on much stronger grounds in claiming that Phargentes is not Good Emperor for we also have the evidence of the CHDP. But I don't claim the Good Empire was in existence then.
> >That's the battle of Dwernapple which is not the battle of KoS p29.
> >Dwernapple is the Battle of Gargantuans which is described over
> >the page on KoS p30. Phargentes' absence at this battle is not
> >evidence that he was not present at the initial incursion against Filich
> >Kwan nor is it evidence that he was not leading the Good Empire
> >when the battle of Dwernapple took place.
>Assumign that CHDP is basically reliable on the chronology what
>appears to have happened is this:
>Argrath's Saga omits much of the invasion leading up to Yoran and
>most of the following years and inserts the story of Argraths Rock.
This makes the huge assumption that Argrath's Saga is reliable in the _sequence_ of events. I don't make that assumption and hence feel free to portray the beginning of part 5 as being the lead-up to the Battle of Yoran even though it appears in the Saga after Dwenapple.
>Phargentes is only named as leader by the Southern version which also
>calls him "son of Jareel" - it is the Northern version which names
>him as "son of Moirades", but places "the King of Jillaro"
>(presumably Pardidas) in command. The Northern version has access to
>Lunar sources and is more likely to be accurate on this point (and
>appears to be so on the matter of Phargentes parentage). Given the
>similarities it is likely that the description of the army given near
>the start of Part 4 is based on the forces that took part at
>Dwernapple.
Again I disagree. From elsewhere in KoS, we know that Phargentes is probably Moirades' grandson. Secondly the northern and southern versions have the extra text inserted in where the compilers think they should go, *not* where they should have belonged.
Thus the northern and southern versions of the army leadership that fought Argrath at Dwernapple are placed in the descriptions of the army that attacked Fillich Kwan. Even assuming this is part of the leadup to Yoran, there's a gap of three years to the batle of Dwernapple (from the CHDP). Since we know that the composition of troops has changed between Yoran and Dwernapple, the assumption that the leadership has remained unchanged is untenable.
> >However in the CHDP, the reconquest of Tarsh is the battle of Yoran
> >which comes _before_ the battle of Dwernapple/Gargantuans that
> >was mentioned in the previous part.
>This relies on the assumption that the reconquest mentioned in the
>saga is that in the CHDP. However it appears to represent a later
>event, occuring after the end of CHDP.
It only appears so because the Saga depicts it as such. If the Saga is understood as unreliable in terms of chronology and sequencing, then the appearance becomes far less convincing.
When analysing ancient histories in the real world, scholars often come across what appears to be two similar events taking place. These apparent duplicates are often understood as a single event which has become repeated through the ancient historian's misunderstanding or ineptitude.
So it is with Argrath's Saga. We have two apparent formations of the Good Empire (one when Argrath seemingly rules Tarsh at the beginning of Part IV and the other when he returns from the LBQ in part V) and, two conquests of Tarsh (one at the end of part III and an implied one at the end of part IV). If these doublets are understood as the same event being described different ways then many of the seeming gaps that occur when you try and match Argrath's Saga with the CHDP vanish.
>I agree that that King is Phargentes. However it is best read as
>indicating that Phargentes is King of Tarsh under the Good Empire,
I disagree. It can be read that Phargentes is King of Tarsh under the Good Empire but it can also be read that Phargentes is the Good Emperor. As a result we get a juicy plot involving High Treason in the Tarshite Court.
> >So to sum up, the Good Empire being born out of Moirades'
> >evil genius is something that comes into being after the battle
> >of Yoran and is destroyed when Argrath returns from the LBQ.
>But you have no evidence for this.
Why should I need explicit evidence in King of Sartar given that there's no evidence whatsoever for the Fimbulwinter and the Battle of Iceland?
>The Good Empire is never connected to Moirades,
I have made the connection and written up about it before.
>according to Argrath's
>saga the Good Empire is replaced by Sheng Seleris' New Moon Empire.
On the other hand, it could simply mean that after Argrath destroys the Good Empire of Tarsh and the Provinces (by killing King Phargentes), he then struggles with the intact New Moon Empire that controls the Heartlands.
> >There is an official timeline for King of Sartar?
>Not IN King of Sartar, but I would bet that there is an unpublished
>timeline which deals with much of this (even if it is mainly in
>Greg's head).
If it exists mainly in Greg's head, it's been gregged .
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail