Re: Re: Gloranthan maps

From: Light Castle <light_castle_at_...>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:35:22 -0400

RR. Accepted. Points are more important than the lines on the map. But you draw your map to encompass those points. Again, some small sense of where people think the border is (or who they belong to) would be useful even if it is incomplete, unfixed, and contradictory. (As we would expect it to be, methinks.)

LC

On 19 May 2004 at 18:59, Roderick and Ellen Robertson wrote:

>
> No, actually, various places are important (towns, holy sites, mines, etc),
> but the idea of a "Border" isn't. I can own (control, have troops in, get
> taxes from/however you want to determine "ownership") this town, that temple
> and that one over there, and you might own that other temple, and a couple
> towns over thataway, but frankly, the land inbetween doesn't concern us -
> the towns might sqaubbble over who has grazing rights in the forest, but as
> long as the town pays my taxes, *I* don't really care. There's not so much
> of a "this is the border, - this side is mine, that side is yours" as "This
> town owes me taxes, and that one will just as soon as I move my troops into
> it."
> If one of your towns gets too greedy and steals grazing lands from my town,
> they can complain to me and I might actually get off my duff and do
> something, or I might just say "too bad, but I'm not reducing your taxes,
> fix it yourself". Control of specific points is more important than "all the
> land on this side of the line".
>
> Contrast this to modern geopolitical thought, where a line drawn on a map
> dilineates an actual boundary that armed troops cannot pass without a
> declaration of war (by one side or the other...).
>
>
> RR
> It is by my order and for the good of the state that the bearer of this has
> done what he has done.
> - Richelieu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>