>Me>I never made such a claim and I've pointed out the examples of
> >Fimbulwinter and the Battle of Iceland to demonstrate why I
> >do not need explicit support in King of Sartar.
>But you made explicit references to Phargentes and the Good Empire
>which are found only in KoS. Why rely on contentious readings of KoS
>when you don't need them ?
I'm using Argrath's Saga as a _source of ideas_. In doing so, I am not obliged to follow a strict reading of Argrath's Saga that you think I should make.
> >I'm not interested in following closely to what Argrath's Saga
> >says since I do not believe it to be an accurate version of
> >events of the Hero Wars in Dragon Pass. Many of the
> >statements that it makes are false (such as Argrath summoning
> >Gryphons at Corflu) so it is best used as a source of
> >ideas for what happens rather than a strict guide.
>Then why bother to argue against other interpretations of it ?
I'm not arguing against other interpretations of it. I really couldn't care less about Jeff's hadith from Greg that Argrath did indeed conquer the provinces. What I was doing was putting forward a _suggestion_ whereas you said it could not be because it deviated from the hallowed writ of the Argrath's Saga (or arguments to that effect). In response, I showed that my theory was a valid interpretation of King of Sartar.
If anybody is arguing against other interpretations, _you_ are arguing against mine.
> >No, they are not. There is no conquest of Tarsh after the
> >battle of Dwernapple in the CHDP. The CHDP finishes
> >with Argrath's victory at Dwernapple but leaves out any
> >description of his domains after the event. Thus it
> >conveys an impression that Argrath has recovered Tarsh
> >but it does not actually say so.
>Likewise Argrath's Saga makes no such explicit reference. In both
>cases we have a major victory at Dwernapple and a recapture of Tarsh
>must be inferred.
Why _must_ it be inferred? Since even the CHDP demonstrable distorts the historical record to further glorify a megomaniacal Argrath, I don't see a need to infer that Argrath recaptured Tarsh after Dwernapple. At best, the recapture of Tarsh _can_ be inferred after Dwernapple but it does not automatically follow.
> The only difference is that Argrath's Saga
>continues and in Part 5 Argrath is in control of Tarsh again.
He is? If you are refering to the beginning of Part 5, then my interpretation of that is the battle of Yoran. Hence there is no "again" in my view. If you are going to continue to try and prove that my interpretation is wrong (as you seem insistent on doing) then don't use arguments based on strict readings of Argrath's Saga because I don't believe the Saga is reliable even in the sequence of events.
> >Why does the information have to be repeated in Part 5
> >when it has already been described in Part 3?
>It doesn't HAVE to be given the current structure.
Therefore supporting my argument that a duplication has occurred in the text and that is because the ur-Saga writer failed to recognize that two anecdotes referred to the same event.
>But even if I
>grant you everything you've said all you have is the "formation" of
>the Good Empire (as described simply a change of name) appearing in
>Part 4. Maybe that belongs somewhere else but there's still no
>"formation" in Part 5.
So what? I don't require explicit support from Argrath's Saga. I've even gone so far as to outline how and why Argrath's Saga is not reliable and furthermore point out two further events that Argrath's Saga does not mention. I don't know why you think I should need explicit support from Argrath's Saga for my suggestion of the Good Empire.
>All we can say is that the Good Empire exists
>prior to Argrath's defeat of Phargentes
If and only if, we are confining ourselves (unnecessarily) to statements that have explicit support in King of Sartar. But because I do not accept such a restriction, I feel quite free to say far more.
>And perhaps the "Good Empire" is just a name used in some of those
>sources which the saga writer has mistaken for an official name.
A valid suggestion. For it to become a full-blown theory, you might want to explain a) why the name "the Good Empire" crops up in the near future given that nobody has heard of it as of 1621 and b) what this gives us in terms of interesting things to see and do?
Then responding to Jeff Richard,
>There are some pretty good reasons for inferring a reconquest of
>Tarsh, at least. Tarsh sits right between Holay and Sartar (which
>makes it strategically important to Argrath).
If the events of Holay don't refer to Argrath of Saird. It's not improbable that the compiler of the CHDP should imply that Argrath of Sartar was responsible for heroic deeds there given that he has already implied that Argrath of Sartar is the responsible for the heroic deeds of Argrath White Bull and Queen Kallyr.
> And CHDP has Argrath's
>forces moving North from Dragon Pass to Holay - presumably moving
>through Tarsh.
For starters, the CHDP has Argrath's forces moving into Holay during the first (and IMO only) conquest of Tarsh. Even if there does turn up further evidence of Argrath's troop movements in Saird after Dwernapple, then there is the alternative route of a Pass ruled by a Giant who fought alongside Argrath at the battle of Dwernapple.
>Even in the worst case for Argrath, Tarsh is ripe for the plucking
>and too important to leave alone.
I dispute "ripe for the plucking" and I have never suggested Argrath leaves Tarsh alone.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail