>>
I never said that you were. What I do say is that IF you want to claim that Argrath's Saga supports your views then it should actually support your views. And I certainly haven't claimed that the Saga is highly reliable - only that what it does say tends to argue against your ideas.
[...]
>
> > >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?
Because that's the only way to find it in Part 4 of Argrath's Saga. There is no explicit statement that Tarsh is reconquered. If you want a conquest of Tarsh there - as you do - you have to infer it.
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.
So you are now saying that there isn't a conquest of Tarsh in Part 4 of Argrath's Saga ? Why argue that this non-existent conquest is a duplicate of the conquest at the end of Part 3, then ?
>
> > 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.
Then you can't use that to support a claim that there is a conquest of Tarsh at the end of Part 4 of the Saga.
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.
You really are tying yourself in knots ! I wasn't using it as an argument. I was pointing it out as about the only difference between CHDP and Argrath's Saga you could use to argue that there was a reconquest of Tarsh in the Saga but not in CHDP. I raised it only to show that it WASN'T a good argument for YOUR position !
[...]
>
> >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.
When the question is one of what Argrath's Saga actually says I am afraid that you do. If you claim that there are two "formations" of the Good Empire in Argrath's Saga then there need to be two formations of the Good Empire in Argrath's Saga. And there aren't.
[...]
>
> >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.
>
I've already made it perfectly clear that I have no objection to your making things up. My objection is to claims of support from canonical sources which do not stand up to scrutiny.
> >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?
How do you know that nobody has heard of it in 1621 ? It could be in common use amongst Lunarised "Orlanthi" (i.e. people from "Orlanthi" cultures - not worshippers of Orlanth) to distinguish the "Good" Lunar Empire from the "Evil" Solar Empire. And a bit of local colour is quite enough to expect from one not-every-interesting name.
Powered by hypermail