Re: Putting the 'Anal' into Analogies

From: Stewart Stansfield <stu_stansfield_at_pRLZ8S0FR0S2nz5u7lz-2_mQLg34TEH_oFHzCKoRrTmWbRR7uGkO8iaMzClB2>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:58:22 -0000


>From my perspective, my biggest problem with the Lunars/Romans
analogy and/or muse is not what it brings to my game/Glorantha... but what it seems to end up precluding. Latin, Graeco-Latin, "Leek Gratín" and Roman influences have built up among the Lunars, no problem. And against this corpus you have to be a bit careful of what you add. But even so...

I would love to introduce the word "legate" for sub-commanders in the Lunar Army, when a Warlord, say, delegates some part of his mandate (that's me stealing Mark's stuff and applying it to the Lunar Army). Not because "they're Roman," but because I think the process is applicable*; and because Glorantha-as-published is an English-language game, and I'm a Briton, I tend to use my own language.

But any attempts to do so presage "Carry On Up the Tiber"-itis.

In a nominative sense (an associated plural aside) "legate" is anglicised Latin, yes, but English all the same. There are papal legates. There are administrative legates. There is no better word in the English language that I can think of that better illustrates a deputy with delegated power (and sounds as good). "Legate" was not simply a 'rank' in the Roman army (of whatever indeterminate period, and never mind provincial administration, but forget that). But "Oh yes it is!"

Mind you, I would like to have Lunar vicars, too, but that confuses people no end...

Cheerio,

Stu.

*I think the issues of proxy, mandate and imperium mesh quite well at times. I see a Warlord's mandate to command an army in the nonpermanent  senior structure of the Lunar Army as having certain similarities with imperium (especially its delegation). It's just a shame that general concepts like this tend to be hit with the Roman stick.            

Powered by hypermail