Re: Arguments about Moirades' Empire

From: Paul Andrew King <paul_at_morat.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:05:16 +0100


>Paul Andrew King:
>
>> > 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?

No, all along I've been saying that KoS doesn't support your claims, but that anyone who likes the idea should feel free to go along with it.

>
>> > 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.

It's not what I wrote word-for-word - but it isn't possible to explain and clarify a statement simply by repeating it.

> 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.

To be strictly correct, you inferred that reading as opposed to the one I meant. But now I've explained it.

>
>> > 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.

Well if when read the earlier posts I find that I made this comment in response to your insistence that we should NOT infer this second conquest.

>
>> > 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.

In context again, I was discussing how _you_ could claim to infer a second conquest in the saga without doing the same in CHDP. Thus it is an a) topic. If your response assumes that it is a b) topic then the confusion would appear to be on your part.

> Hence:
>
>a) The Saga depicts an explicit conquest of Tarsh in Part III. A
> second conquest is implied in the events of Dwernapple
> (in part IV) and the beginning of Part V.
>
>b) Argrath only conquered Tarsh once (which appears in the
> Saga at the end of Part III). He was kicked out of
> Dragon Pass by the Lunar Empire at the battle of
> Yoran (which appears at the beginning of Part V) and
> only regained Sartar after Dwernapple (which appears
> at the end of part VI).

Dwernapple appears at the end of Part 4.

>
>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.

Except that it isn't really a doublet, because there isn't a description of the conquest of Part 6. If there is a real doublet it would be the attacks at the start of Part 4 and Part 5.

> 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.

The problem being that you confused the issue by attacking that very reading, - when it was not relevant to the point under discussion.

>
>> > 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.

And it would be a better theory if it had a stronger basis in what the saga does say. And that is a separate topic from whether it would be a good idea in a game.

>
>>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.

But it isn't even an apparent formation. All we know is that the Good Empire was formed some time before.

>
>>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.

Haven't I ? Perhaps you should read earlier messages where you will find comments like:

"I'll start by repeating that I have no problem with choosing an idea that makes a juicy plot-point. My objection is limited to the claim that support for this idea is to be found in KoS"

>
>> > 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.

And how does that prove that nobody had heard of it ?

> What does your
>answer gives us in terms of interesting things to see and do?

Since you chose to cut the answer from your reply I see no need to repeat it.

-- 
--
"The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of 
immortality.  More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals 
in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala 
Guide to Taoism_

Paul K.


------------------------------

End of Glorantha Digest, Vol 11, Issue 253
******************************************

Powered by hypermail