> > 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 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.
So you were attacking a strawman rather than what I wrote?
> > Why _must_ [the recapture of Tarsh] be inferred [after Dwernapple]?
>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.
But that's not what you originally wrote. You wrote to the effect that since there is no explicit mention of Tarsh being reconquered in Part 4, the reconquest _must_ be inferred. By using "must" instead of "can", you created the impression of arguing for a dogmatic interpretation of Agrath's Saga.
> > 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 ?
You could do yourself a favour by looking at the original posts instead of posing quick "gotcha" questions that only add heat and not light. I said there was an "implied" one at the end of part IV - the reason for it being implied was that at the beginning of part V, the Red Emperor leads a huge army that attacks Tarsh.
> > 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.
You are getting confused between two things a) what the Saga appears to say and b) my interpretation of what actually happened in the events that the Saga purports to describe. Hence:
So yes, I can and do claim that there is an implicit conquest of Tarsh in part IV and I can and do use it as an example of a doublet. That I deny that there were ever two Sartarite conquests of Tarsh does not make it impossible for me to argue that the Saga depicts, on a plain reading, two Sartarite conquests of Tarsh.
> > 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.
I do not require explicit support from Argrath's Saga for my theory about the Good Empire because it is a theory about the events that the Saga purports to describe.
>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.
Wrong. What I said was that there were two apparent formations. The first one, which you agree, is at the beginning of Part 4. The second is at the beginning of Part 5 and is an _apparent_ formation because the name of the empire is given again unnecessarily.
>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.
You haven't made it perfectly clear that you have no objection to making things up and your argument that you are only objecting to claims about canonical sources sits rather oddly with your past assertions that I need explicit support for my ideas from King of Sartar and related silly statements.
> > 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 ?
Do you have a reference to it in 1621? No. What does your answer gives us in terms of interesting things to see and do?
--Peter Metcalfe
End of Glorantha Digest, Vol 11, Issue 251
Powered by hypermail