From: "Chris Anderson"
To: "Marc-Tizoc González"
Cc: greytalk@canonfire.com
I've always envisioned Ket as being culturally like the Seljuk Turks. Tusmit, Ekbir, and Zeif would be more like the Arabic cultures of Baghdad circa 800-1000AD. Ull is the Mongol equivalent (I confess ... the city of Ilkhan did that for me) and the Paynims are the moral equivalent of the Empire of Tamerlane for me, sans Samarkand.
For me, Ket, Bissel, and Veluna would have much the same tensions that Byzantium and the Turks had... not because of religion, but because of competing cultures. Which would make Bissel the Outremer of Keoland... except that we have no crusades. :-)
Personally, I think the idea of a Crusade from the Flanaess into Baklunish lands is silly, unless somehow the Suloise remembered their history, got organized, and got seriously mad. Mad in both meanings of the term, too.
So, it would never happen.
-- Chris
On 3/19/07, Marc-Tizoc González
Thanks to all for responding. This level of historical information is one of GreyTalk's strengths.
Rafu mentioned that the comparison between civilized Bakluna and the Ottoman Empire is off and suggested comparing the Baklunish to pre-Ottoman Arabs is better.
He and Chris Anderson also distinguished the factors of Earth's Crusades and the sociopolitical situation between the Kingdom of Keoland, Veluna, and Ket. It's interesting that an Oerthly crusade seems unlikely given Keoland's failure to hold what it tried to conquer during its historical expansionism.
In contrast, the uncivilized Bakluni nomads have twice invaded substantial regions of the Flanaess.
MTG
Raffaele Manzo < raffaele.manzo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why did many of the Crusades seem to originate in kingdoms of France and
> England? Is that historically inaccurate?
Historically accurate or not, I think we tend to get such an impression because those two kingdoms were the two largest unified political entities within Roman Catholic Europe during most of the Middle Ages (the two which stand out resembling "nations" to our modern eyes).
As an aside, since you mentioned the Crusades... I believe the Knights of the Watch have something of the (historical Crusades-era) Templars. Templar Knights were "soldier monks" tasked with defending the small Christian "kingdoms" in the Holy Land - a shard of Western Europe surrounded by Arab nations. In a sense, if you think of "greater Keoland area" states as a Western Europe, and of Bakluni as Arabs, then you've got Western Europe and Near East sharing a long border - longer than any Holy Land kingdom was large (though nearly impassable mountain ranges do help) - and the Watchers patrolling it. Of course, you can only draw so much similarities... You won't have any "Crusades" in the Flanaess, at least not "Watcher-nations vs
Baklunish states" Crusades. Real world Crusades were born from politically opposed peoples *not* sharing a geographical border, but sharing a distant cultural heritage which brought both sides to hold a certain place as "holy". If you look ad Baklunish states vs. Gran March, Keoland etc. you're looking at politically opposed peoples who
*do* share a border, but having no common cultural heritage whatsoever (a much more common situation in the majority of real-world conflicts as well).
Oh, yes... and I would *not* liken the Bakluni to the Ottoman Empire. Pre-Ottoman Arabs is a much closer call, I believe.
____
Rafu
(the gamer formerly known as "Lord Raphael")
http://victordraconem.blogspot.com
1 comment:
-in my world, their is a semi-crusade into Ket and the regions, partiallly for religious reasons Rao and Al-can (the True Faith) do not get along, or at least their worshipers do not, despite both being good and lawful, thought the true faith is more neutral. It is much like the tension Pholtus has with all other gods since he is the "Only" God. The true faith are dualists; believing there god is the only Good god, and to deny this is to serve evil, perhaps by ignorance, but to serve evil
Of course economic factors really drive the war(s). Ket is rich
Post a Comment