GT: Nobles

[flykiller]

That's more your cultural conditioning speaking than what the game material says. I don't see any reason why the titles used by an interstellar realm three thousand years from now should have more than a passing resemblance to what they mean on 21st Century Terra

one might point out that that cultural conditioning is exactly why those words are used in the first place - to convey the concepts being described.

having read so much that the imperium was somewhat based on the roman empire it seems surprising that roman political terms and concepts weren't used - they would serve very well. speaking of which, since the terrans had no extant noble structure, while the vilani had thousands of years of detailed feudal practice, does anyone use vilani terms and concepts to describe their imperial nobility?

 

[etherflyer]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
hrmm. I wonder if the things that RainOfSteel mentioned above would have made it through if the book had been given a proper, open playtest on JTAS. As it was, it had a closed playtest that people had to sign up for. Maybe this is a bad sign?

Only closed in that you had to sign up. They accepted everyone who applied.

Of course, I didn't have a chance to follow the playtest that much :-( -- family matters took up all my time during the playtest period.

 

[Elliot]

Rain of Steel said

'My preference for Margrave over Marquis is personal, really. That, and the English version is usually spelled Marquess and pronounced “Mark-weiss”. It’s pure prejudice on my part that I like neither the spelling nor the pronunciation.'

Your preference, ok, and you're right as to spelling - the English word is Marquess. It derives (via the Normans) from the latin title Marcio (hence female Marquis = Marchioness) meaning one (i.e. Lord) of the March (i.e frontier)

By the way, a great book on nobles is John Selden's Titles of Honour - Probably only available to historians/academics with access to EEBO as it was published in 1685 or so.

In England today (and for a long time) Viscount is a title largely (but not always) given to a high ranking but non hereditary Lord such as a judge, a military general/admiral or governour. Which if adopted in Traveller would solve alot of problems concerning the longevity of local ruling dynasties (i.e the title and fief dies with the holder). Maybe Loren and Jon were thinking of this when they wrote GT: N

 

[RainOfSteel]

ranke,

[Note: I’m dumping the previous quote wrappers, as four levels were getting cumbersome to manage.]


I fully recognize that in the OTU, Dukes in charge of subsectors are the “way it is”. What I was expressing is that I believe this creates numerous problems and incongruities, although I must admit, it doesn’t quite “snap the suspenders of disbelief” so much as irritate me like a small sharp rock in my shoe.

Changing it in canon would have been a wonderful thing, I’ll admit. I also freely admit I had no expectation that it was going to happen. That doesn’t mean that a turning point chance wasn’t missed.

It has always been within the power of the Great Old Ones to hammer out the rough spots in the OTU, though largely speaking, this has almost never happened. Hope springs eternal though, and I’ll keep hoping.

Originally posted by rancke:
What I?ve always assumed (and I know this goes quite a bit beyond what canon actually says), is that the duchy is the first level of interstellar government.

I’d always assumed the first level of interstellar government was a Member World, though I can see where that might not be considered the case. However, I do not see an immediate jump from Member World to Duchy as reasonable.

If there is no need to equate ancient usages with regards to titles and apparent power levels and estate sizes, then why does the order of ranking of the titles remain the same in the 57th Century as it was 11th to 21st Century AD: Emperor/King, Archduke, Duke, Marquess (14th Century on), Count, Viscount, Baron, Baronet, Knight? If, under this system, Dukes start out small, I guess Baronets get very, very small indeed, and as for Knights, would anyone even notice (“You’re Knight who of where? Bah! It matters not. Knights are so insignificant that they’re meaningless!”)? But since the modern usages and forms and meanings have changed from the ancient, why don’t we have Barons running Domains instead of Archdukes? In true medieval Europe, whether someone was a Duke or a Baron was meaningless beside the core facts of their arable acreage and personal army size. IMO, it is because the original usages and forms and meanings are of incredible importance. The nobility of the OTU Imperium are, at the least, supremely self-confident, and at the worst, arrogant, high handed, and snobby. The old families all take great pride in their family lines, and more than a few of them spend inordinate amounts of time tracing their heritage back into the early years of the Sylean Federation, and more than a few of that group try to trace their “nobility” itself all the way back to pre-spaceflight Terra. It’s going to be painfully obvious that at times, many Dukes were, in fact, quite powerful. In the case of France, the Dukes there were, in some periods, more powerful than the King. That’s going to stick in the craw of the pride of all those little Imperial Dukes, forever doomed to irrelevance on the stage of Charted Space. Propriety in the adherence to ancient usages and forms, that, I believe, is what is going to be important. And that would dictate that Dukes be powerful nobles (reasonably less powerful than the Emperor, of course) in charge of largish chunks of the Imperium.

Or at least, that’s my take on it. I realize that this isn’t the OTU take on the situation. But it is MTU’s take on it.


As for the remarks related to “cultural conditioning”, I’ll let the majority of that slide, except to say:

Since the nobility of the OTU have accepted the “culture” of the ancient titles of a an ancient nobility, it can be drawn directly from this that an “acceptance” of one usage and form and meaning of an ancient cultures leads directly to acceptance of many of the usages, forms, and meanings of that ancient culture. Yes, it is possible to pick and dance the way among them, but since the aforementioned nobility are looking to make themselves paragons of “noble” accuracy (at least public faces of noble accuracy), in order to reinforce their status as nobles in the first place (the game of “I’m more noble than *you* are!”), it is also easy to see where the game would lead directly to an attempt to mirror as much as possible.

Originally posted by rancke:
But we don?t. A sector duke is a subsector duke with a few extra duties. That?s all.

GT:Nobles (page 17) agrees, in that a sector duke is a subsector duke who is “administratively” in charge of the Imperial Government in the Sector. I put it to you though, that this is more than just a “few” extra duties. It’s tons and tons of extra duties.

However, later on, GT:Nobles (page 58) says: “In theory, every Imperial sector has a duke (known as the sector duke) in overall control . . .”

On Page 60, under Authority, it says: “A noble with the Imperial Mandate over a given territory has the far-reaching authority to command all Imperial activities and personnel within his demesne.”

So, it would seem, that among those “few extra duties” a sector duke possesses, it total authority over the lesser Imperial Nobility within the sector; again OTU-wise.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Elliot:
Rain of Steel said

'My preference for Margrave over Marquis is personal, really. That, and the English version is usually spelled Marquess and pronounced “Mark-weiss”. It’s pure prejudice on my part that I like neither the spelling nor the pronunciation.'

Your preference, ok, and you're right as to spelling - the English word is Marquess. It derives (via the Normans) from the latin title Marcio (hence female Marquis = Marchioness) meaning one (i.e. Lord) of the March (i.e frontier)

By the way, a great book on nobles is John Selden's Titles of Honour - Probably only available to historians/academics with access to EEBO as it was published in 1685 or so.

In England today (and for a long time) Viscount is a title largely (but not always) given to a high ranking but non hereditary Lord such as a judge, a military general/admiral or governour. Which if adopted in Traveller would solve alot of problems concerning the longevity of local ruling dynasties (i.e the title and fief dies with the holder). Maybe Loren and Jon were thinking of this when they wrote GT: N

Yes, but they should have said it in the book. Or provided a download website linke for a one or two appendix freebie PDF full of everything that couldn't make it into the book. I wouldn't have cared a wit about formatting or fanciness, just blocked text would do.

 

[GBoyett]

I also got confused about including Viscount the first time I read Chapter 2. So I reread both sections and discovered an important difference.

Viscount - A viscount's demesne is two or three star systems within a subsector... The cluster of star systems rarely contains any important, high-population worlds.

Count - A count has a demesne of two or three star systems within a subsector... A count's demesne usually includes at least one important, high-population worlds.
(pg. 16-17)(italics added for emphasis)

The conclusion I have during the beginnings of the Imperium there was a need to distinquish between average/backwater clusters and clusters that were important trade and industrial powerhouse. It was probaly a way to placate a newly promoted leader, of an assimilated pocket empire, compared to a colonisation leader bringing civilization to primitives. In other words, politics forced Cleon's hand.

This distinction seemed to have become irrelevant, as the title viscount "is most common in the Imperial, and is rare in more recently settled regions as the Spinward Marches."(pg. 16).

That's my take with the wording of those pages.

 

[Ben W Bell]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
Well, proofraeading-wise, I notice on Page 54 there is a title in charge of the Office of the Emperor, named the "Imperial Major-domestic".

I wonder if that should have been Imperial Major-Domo.

What do you think Major-Domo means? Major-Domestic is another way of putting it, granted it's a way that's not often used but it is used occassionally.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rancke:
What I've always assumed [...] is that the duchy is the first level of interstellar government.

I?d always assumed the first level of interstellar government was a Member World, though I can see where that might not be considered the case. However, I do not see an immediate jump from Member World to Duchy as reasonable.</font>[/QUOTE]It addresses the role of the counties. One might easily expect them to be the lowest level. However, we have a specific statement somewhere in Library Data to the effect that the duchy is the lowest level.

If there is no need to equate ancient usages with regards to titles and apparent power levels and estate sizes, then why does the order of ranking of the titles remain the same in the 57th Century as it was 11th to 21st Century AD: Emperor/King, Archduke, Duke, Marquess (14th Century on), Count, Viscount, Baron, Baronet, Knight? If, under this system, Dukes start out small, I guess Baronets get very, very small indeed, and as for Knights, would anyone even notice (?You?re Knight who of where? Bah! It matters not. Knights are so insignificant that they?re meaningless!?)?

The order is not the same. The marquis (which, incidentally is a perfectly proper Emglish word) comes between the count (and, apparently, the vicount) and the baron whereas in the English system he comes between the duke and the Earl.

As for dukes starting out small: They rule (or at least reign) over several dozen worlds. That makes them more powerful than any emperor in recorded Earth history. A mere marquis would be entitled to patronize any ruler on Earth today.

But since the modern usages and forms and meanings have changed from the ancient, why don?t we have Barons running Domains instead of Archdukes?

An accident of history.

It?s going to be painfully obvious that at times, many Dukes were, in fact, quite powerful.

Powerful? Tribal leaders of a few million low-tech savages?

In the case of France, the Dukes there were, in some periods, more powerful than the King.

"King? Oh, one of those archaic titles they used on Old Terra. (I believe some of the member worlds have 'kings' too, by the way). Did you know they also had so-called 'emperors' back then? I kid you not. There was one guy named Napoli or something like that who ruled over no more than half a continent and he still called himself 'emperor'. Gave me a good giggle when first I heard about that."

-- An Imperial baron

Or at least, that?s my take on it. I realize that this isn?t the OTU take on the situation. But it is MTU?s take on it.

Oh, IYTU! Well, some things are different IMTU too. (IMTU an Imperial baron is SL 24 an the Emperor is SL 33, for instance). What does that have to do with how things are in the OTU?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rancke:
But we don't. A sector duke is a subsector duke with a few extra duties. That's all.

GT:Nobles (page 17) agrees, in that a sector duke is a subsector duke who is ?administratively? in charge of the Imperial Government in the Sector. I put it to you though, that this is more than just a ?few? extra duties. It?s tons and tons of extra duties.</font>[/QUOTE]The main difference is that (IMO) the sector duke does not have legislative powers over the areas ruled by his fellow dukes, only administrative.

However, later on, GT:Nobles (page 58) says: ?In theory, every Imperial sector has a duke (known as the sector duke) in overall control . . .?

On Page 60, under Authority, it says: ?A noble with the Imperial Mandate over a given territory has the far-reaching authority to command all Imperial activities and personnel within his demesne.?

So, it would seem, that among those ?few extra duties? a sector duke possesses, it total authority over the lesser Imperial Nobility within the sector; again OTU-wise.

I did say that I haven't seen GT:Nobles yet. But since it is crystal clear that the subsector dukes are not vassals of the sector duke, their Imperial mandates would seem to conflict. I also think that it is highly significant that the sector duke specifically does not have a different title.


Hans

 

[PVernon]

RE: Viscounts,

Someone asked over on the JTAS boards

---------------------------------------------
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:35:40 +0000 (UTC), wanderduff@Yahoo.co.uk
(Paul Duffy) wrote:
> Just got my copy and thoroughly enjoyed it, well done Jon and Loren
> for helping to fill out the government of the 3I. Two things
> intrigued me though, one was the introduction of Viscounts

Marc insisted we include them. Repeat after me: "There have always
been viscounts. We just never mentioned them before . . . "

Loren Wiseman
SJ Games Traveller Guru-in-residence
loren@sjgames.com, gdwgames@aol.com
http://www.lorenwiseman.com
http://www.irbw.com
-------------------------------------------

 

[Elliot]

I have to say, GTN doesn't seem to have resolved the flames wars and hot debates. Which, I suppose is good.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Elliot:
I have to say, GTN doesn't seem to have resolved the flames wars and hot debates. Which, I suppose is good.

You say this as if any Traveller book has ever resolved the flamewars and hot debates...

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ranke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rancke:
What I?ve always assumed [...] is that the duchy is the first level of interstellar government.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
I’d always assumed the first level of interstellar government was a Member World, though I can see where that might not be considered the case. However, I do not see an immediate jump from Member World to Duchy as reasonable.

</font>[/QUOTE]It addresses the role of the counties. One might easily expect them to be the lowest level. However, we have a specific statement somewhere in Library Data to the effect that the duchy is the lowest level.

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
If there is no need to equate ancient usages with regards to titles and apparent power levels and estate sizes, then why does the order of ranking of the titles remain the same in the 57th Century as it was 11th to 21st Century AD: Emperor/King, Archduke, Duke, Marquess (14th Century on), Count, Viscount, Baron, Baronet, Knight? If, under this system, Dukes start out small, I guess Baronets get very, very small indeed, and as for Knights, would anyone even notice (“You’re Knight who of where? Bah! It matters not. Knights are so insignificant that they’re meaningless!”)?

</font>[/QUOTE]The order is not the same. The marquis (which, incidentally is a perfectly proper Emglish word) comes between the count (and, apparently, the vicount) and the baron whereas in the English system he comes between the duke and the Earl.
</font>[/QUOTE]Ok, you got me, the position of one title was moved by the Imperium. Looks like they totally and completely changed it into something that can’t be authoritatively linked back to the original.

Originally posted by rancke:
As for dukes starting out small: They rule (or at least reign) over several dozen worlds. That makes them more powerful than any emperor in recorded Earth history. A mere marquis would be entitled to patronize any ruler on Earth today.

And what would entitle him to that privilege? Some obscure form of Noblesse Oblige would give him leave to heap dishonor upon others and himself via assuming a patronizing behavior toward those 3000+ years in the past and 11+ TLs down the scale?

We are discussing comparative terms here. The Imperium is a Nation. England is a nation. The Duchy of Cornwall is a big piece of England, and a duchy of the OTU is a tiny piece of the Imperium. This is where the break in comparison occurs.

An Imperial Duke may rule over 40+ worlds, but that’s still less than 1/2% of the Imperium, and in the big picture of the whole Imperium, he is nothing. The Duke of Burgundy in France (I forget the year, exactly) could look into a crystal ball of the future, see all the Imperial Duke of the future oversaw, and laugh, stating he’d rather be his own sovereign man than the little runt-nosed nobody of an Imperial Duke, regardless of the wealth and territory overseen. And in the circles of the movers and shakers, those who are ambitious and handle power well, I think I know who would be the more admired.

Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
But since the modern usages and forms and meanings have changed from the ancient, why don’t we have Barons running Domains instead of Archdukes?

An accident of history.

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
It’s going to be painfully obvious that at times, many Dukes were, in fact, quite powerful.

Powerful? Tribal leaders of a few million low-tech savages?

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
In the case of France, the Dukes there were, in some periods, more powerful than the King.

?King? Oh, one of those archaic titles they used on Old Terra. (I believe some of the member worlds have ?kings? too, by the way). Did you know they also had so-called ?emperors? back then? I kid you not. There was one guy named Napoli or something like that who ruled over no more than half a continent and he still called himself ?emperor?. Gave me a good giggle when first I heard about that.?


-- An Imperial baron
</font>[/QUOTE]Apparently the baron has misconceptions of the nobility and noble titles. This baron can misunderstand the comparison between his own power and the comparatively similar power of nobles in the past as much as he wishes to, but by doing so, he belittles his own title; especially given that his title and the very nature of his *nobility* (the supposed *core* of his being) is derived from the lives and times of those he is belittling. Or, better known as, trumpeting a reason to have himself divested of his title by threatening the importance and reverence the nobility feel all titles should be held in.

Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
Or at least, that’s my take on it. I realize that this isn’t the OTU take on the situation. But it is MTU’s take on it.

Oh, IYTU! Well, some things are different IMTU too. (IMTU an Imperial baron is SL 24 an the Emperor is SL 33, for instance). What does that have to do with how things are in the OTU?
</font>[/QUOTE]It has everything to do with it. My original criticism was that in GT:Nobles a “turning point” was missed, an opportunity to lay down more consistent and reasonable canon over the top of some of the patchwork of what was done before. It is a legitimate criticism. I was not arguing that canon wasn’t canon, I was arguing that here was a nice chance to alter canon. It would have set a nice precedent on canon-alteration to pave the way for other such changes, ones that might be more necessary.

I don’t get to make the decisions behind keeping the old and bringing in the new, that is the job of the Great Old Ones. What I am is a player of the game, a buyer of product, and I’m possessed of one of those nasty opinion things. If I feel that if something is better off one way or another, I’ll say it. That is all. I raise MTU issues, naturally, because I feel they are more consistent and logical/reasonable (in that instance). You raise the point that things don’t have to work logically or reasonably in the real world, and since the OTU is supposed to inherit as many of the characteristics of the real world as possible, that this be so. There’s nothing really I can say about that, other than Cleon I designed the whole noble ranks shebang, and in my conception of the OTU, it would have required *him* sitting around and thinking, “Why, today I think I’m going to create the divisions and organization of space and nobility in my upcoming Imperium. Hmmm, I guess I’ll take a title that historically has been reserved for the nobles who are second in power only to the sovereign (or even more powerful than the sovereign), and put it in charge of a relatively small area of space, and I’ll make lots of lots of them, so many I’ll never be able to manage them all. Then, I’ll pick one among each group, and name him senior, and he’ll manage his group so I only have to manage the seniors (even though I realize that’s guaranteed to confuse everyone in Charted Space and cause dynasty-change and sector-capital move problems). Dukes will govern subsectors and Dukes will govern sectors. Hmm, now that’s well organized!” Somehow, I don’t think he’d have done that, and I don’t think it would have been delegated to someone else. But then, that’s me projecting intelligence and brilliance onto Cleon I. Cleon I and those specific bits of canon came out after the order of nobility had been decided on. Just because it was decided on one way, doesn’t mean it can’t be changed for the better.

Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rancke:
But we don?t. A sector duke is a subsector duke with a few extra duties. That?s all.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
GT:Nobles (page 17) agrees, in that a sector duke is a subsector duke who is “administratively” in charge of the Imperial Government in the Sector. I put it to you though, that this is more than just a “few” extra duties. It’s tons and tons of extra duties.

</font>[/QUOTE]The main difference is that (IMO) the sector duke does not have legislative powers over the areas ruled by his fellow dukes, only administrative.

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
However, later on, GT:Nobles (page 58) says: “In theory, every Imperial sector has a duke (known as the sector duke) in overall control . . .”

On Page 60, under Authority, it says: “A noble with the Imperial Mandate over a given territory has the far-reaching authority to command all Imperial activities and personnel within his demesne.”

So, it would seem, that among those “few extra duties” a sector duke possesses, it total authority over the lesser Imperial Nobility within the sector; again OTU-wise.

I did say that I haven?t seen GT:Nobles yet. But since it is crystal clear that the subsector dukes are not vassals of the sector duke, their Imperial mandates would seem to conflict. I also think that it is highly significant that the sector duke specifically does not have a different title.

Hans
</font>[/QUOTE]I’d say vassalage is irrelevant. “Total authority” means the Subsector Dukes have to do everything the Sector Duke tells them, everything.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Elliot:
I have to say, GTN doesn't seem to have resolved the flames wars and hot debates. Which, I suppose is good.

You say this as if any Traveller book has ever resolved the flamewars and hot debates...

</font>[/QUOTE]What? What good would that be?

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You say this as if any Traveller book has ever resolved the flamewars and hot debates...

What? What good would that be?

</font>[/QUOTE]It's a conspiracy I tell you!! Marc Miller's been in cahoots with the people that run mailing lists and discussion boards for years!! He writes the books and they er... get subscribers and people typing lots of stuff on their computers!

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
It's a conspiracy I tell you!! Marc Miller's been in cahoots with the people that run mailing lists and discussion boards for years!! He writes the books and they er... get subscribers and people typing lots of stuff on their computers!

Gasp! Whatever shall we do?

"When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout!"

I know! We should start a conspiracy mailing list about mailing list conspiracies!

 

[kafka47]

Conspiracies abound...

Is it any coincidence that the Great Old Ones address one another as Ancients. I think we have latched onto something...

I also remember that in the early 1980s when I never heard ARPNET, a certain MWM fuelled my imagination with Library Data being aviable from World Wide Computer Data Nets. This sounds like he was onto something big...

 

[rancke]

Rain (may I call you Rain?), please trim your quotes down to the bits you respond to.

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rancke:
The order is not the same. The marquis comes between the count (and, apparently, the vicount) and the baron whereas in the English system he comes between the duke and the Earl.

Ok, you got me, the position of one title was moved by the Imperium. Looks like they totally and completely changed it into something that can?t be authoritatively linked back to the original.</font>[/QUOTE]That's probably because it wasn't meant to be linked back to what you call 'the original' (which isn't anything of the sort). "Historically" it builds on the system that existed in the Sylean Federation at the time the Imperium was founded. Presumably the Sylean system was patterned on an earlier system that can be traced back to Old Terra (but evidently not England).

Note that Sylean Federation nobles seems to've been closer to your concept of the proper scope for the various titles. (And they even had the marquis above the count).

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rancke:
As for dukes starting out small: They rule (or at least reign) over several dozen worlds. That makes them more powerful than any emperor in recorded Earth history. A mere marquis would be entitled to patronize any ruler on Earth today.

And what would entitle him to that privilege? Some obscure form of Noblesse Oblige would give him leave to heap dishonor upon others and himself via assuming a patronizing behavior toward those 3000+ years in the past and 11+ TLs down the scale?</font>[/QUOTE]If he was in a position to do so, i.e. if the Earth of today was a member world of the Imperium. Let me restate my point: If a world with roughly similar population, tech level, and political setup (but not, of course, history) was a member of the Imperium, then an Imperial marquis would have a higher precedence than the Queen of pesudo-England and the presidents of the pseudo-USA and pseudo-Russia, the Chairman of pseudo-China, and any other head of state of pseudo-Earth you can think of. Why? Bacause he ranks higher than they do. A half dozen of the most powerful heads of state may be Imperial barons themselves, but I doubt any of them would rate a marquisate.

We are discussing comparative terms here. The Imperium is a Nation. England is a nation. The Duchy of Cornwall is a big piece of England, and a duchy of the OTU is a tiny piece of the Imperium. This is where the break in comparison occurs.

That's because the comparison is invalid. It is no more warranted than comparing the meaning of 'duke' today to it's original meaning and complaining that dukes today don't lead armies.

Also note that Imperial nobles are different in nature than European nobles. The Imperium is not a nation. It is an empire. I don't think any empire on Earth has been so big that it was necessary to subdivide it into clusters of nations (You do realize that the member system are sovereign and that they are the equivalent of nations?) An Imperial duke is not the equivalent of the Duke of Cornwall. He is the equivalent of, say, the Viceroy of Europe in a fictive setup where all the nations of Earth were members of a world-spanning empire.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />?King? Oh, one of those archaic titles they used on Old Terra. (I believe some of the member worlds have ?kings? too, by the way). Did you know they also had so-called ?emperors? back then? I kid you not. There was one guy named Napoli or something like that who ruled over no more than half a continent and he still called himself ?emperor?. Gave me a good giggle when first I heard about that."


-- An Imperial baron

Apparently the baron has misconceptions of the nobility and noble titles.</font>[/QUOTE]Not really. He is just a product of his time. A time 3000 years removed from your time where the meaning of 'baron' (or at least 'Imperial baron') has changed from what it meant 3000 years earlier.

This baron can misunderstand the comparison between his own power and the comparatively similar power of nobles in the past as much as he wishes to, but by doing so, he belittles his own title; especially given that his title and the very nature of his *nobility* (the supposed *core* of his being) is derived from the lives and times of those he is belittling.

The nature of his nobility flows from the Emperor of the Imperium. It has as little to do with the nature of Old Earth nobles as the nobility of a European duke has anything to do with the power and majesty of the Roman Republic.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rancke:
Oh, IYTU! Well, some things are different IMTU too. (IMTU an Imperial baron is SL 24 an the Emperor is SL 33, for instance). What does that have to do with how things are in the OTU?

It has everything to do with it. My original criticism was that in GT:Nobles a ?turning point? was missed, an opportunity to lay down more consistent and reasonable canon over the top of some of the patchwork of what was done before. It is a legitimate criticism.</font>[/QUOTE]Certainly it is legitimate criticism. I just disagree with your reasoning. Which is, I hope, equally legitimate.

To recapitulate my own position: There are a lot of bits in the OTU that would benefit from a retcon (I myself have my own problems with OTU nobles, and from what Loren has hinted I'm not going to get my drutthers, alas But I don't agree with you that the discrepancy between the relative powers of a European duke and an Imperial duke is one of them.

I was not arguing that canon wasn?t canon, I was arguing that here was a nice chance to alter canon.

I got that. And I was arguing that this particular bit of canon didn't need to be changed.

...There?s nothing really I can say about that, other than Cleon I designed the whole noble ranks shebang, and in my conception of the OTU, it would have required *him* sitting around and thinking,

But didn't Cleon inherit the noble ranks from the Sylean Federation? In any case Cleon didn't desing the end result. His Imperium started out around the size of a sector or perhaps a bit more than that. Back then a subsector was a substantial part of the Imperium. The whole setup grew organically as the Imperium expanded to its present size.

See, it all makes perfect sense.

I?d say vassalage is irrelevant. ?Total authority? means the Subsector Dukes have to do everything the Sector Duke tells them, everything.

OK, since I don't have the book yet (and apparently won't get it for a month or more), I'll make one of my rare appeals to authority: Jon and/or Loren: Did you intend to imply that a sector duke has total authority over the other dukes in his sector, and did you intend to imply that the counties are a distinct administrative unit of the Imperial government?


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
Ah! Then you?ve located cites earlier than I have. Good. Library Supplement 11 (page 6) indicates it occurred after the Civil War. Which source are you referring to?

My books are at home and for some reason I can't find the Library Data here on CotI, but I think it was either in the description of the domains or somewhere in MT. Or perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe Chris can help?


Hans</font>[/QUOTE]I've been trying to track down the references I thought I'd seen, and evidently I was mistaken. The domains were not de-emphasised until after the Civil War. Sorry about that.


Hans

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by rancke:
Rain (may I call you Rain?), please trim your quotes down to the bits you respond to.

Of course you may shorten it to Rain. After two years on Diablo II West and East servers, everyone over there had shortened it as well (especially since my accounts went RainOfSteel, RainOfFire, RainOfAshes, RainOfFear, RainOfDust, etc.), so it’s quite familiar.

As to content, I sort of thought I was responding to the entirety of it. But in any event, I can cut down.

In return, I’d also ask that you stop altering the content of the material I post. It’s extremely irritating. I thought the few subtle hints I dropped would make the point, but apparently, they did not.

I’d also ask that you cease removing quotation attributions, or if you clip and rearrange, that you add quotation attribution.

Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
We are discussing comparative terms here. The Imperium is a Nation. England is a nation. The Duchy of Cornwall is a big piece of England, and a duchy of the OTU is a tiny piece of the Imperium. This is where the break in comparison occurs.

That's because the comparison is invalid. It is no more warranted than comparing the meaning of 'duke' today to it's original meaning and complaining that dukes today don't lead armies.
</font>[/QUOTE]I rather think otherwise. My comparison is spot-on. A nation is a nation. Two nations of dissimilar size may be compared to each other if one takes into account the passage of time objectively. If one takes the entire milieu of AD 1300 (or AD 1100, or AD 1700, or whatever) vs. IC 0 or IC 1100 or whatever, one must make the comparative adjustment for time. Terra of AD 1300 was an entire milieu with nations, wars, great/vast distances between the nations, long communications times, strikingly similar to a certain nation we all know about in IC 1100 (perhaps strikingly similar to all of Charted Space). The milieu of 3000 years later has gotten bigger . . . but that’s it. It is otherwise largely the same.

Attempting to state that expansion due to 3000 years of advancing time and knowledge make the nobles of the future somehow better or higher on the “precedence” list is wrong. The 3000 year difference must be “accounted” for. Either the modern nobles must be “rolled back”, or the ancient nobles must be “rolled forward” (for the comparison to be seen correctly). That’s why it’s “comparative”.

It’s true that in IC 1100, any Member World noble or national leader of that era possessing the same power levels as a noble or national leader of AD 1300 Terra would be insignificant, you have stated this and I agree . . . but since this isn’t the case, and I’m not talking about that situation, then I feel that comparison itself is what takes on invalid characteristics. How can one fail to properly account for the 3000 year gap? The two eras cannot be directly compared because of the gap, but only compared after the adjustment for the gap in time is allowed for.

Example: Cy Young is widely regarded as one (not the only one, certainly) of baseball’s greatest pitchers. The Cy Young Award is each year’s highest award for any pitcher. In his day, it was dangerous to face him (true, like any pitcher, he had his bad years). In the modern game today, Cy Young would get wasted by modern batters used to higher speed pitches and fresh late game relief pitchers. In Cy’s day, there were no formal relief pitchers; he completed so many games (906 games played, completed 749, winning 511) that no pitcher today has any hope of achieving a similar stat. Can we downcheck modern pitchers because they can’t complete anywhere near 749 games in an entire career because Cy Young could? On top of this, the official ball used has been changed twice, making the whole throwing and batting scene completely different. Cy Young’s accomplishments in baseball cannot be correctly viewed in the modern context without taking these factors into account (the changes in individual skill development, the ball, etc.), i.e. we must “account” for the passage of time.

So, attempting to compare Cy Young’s accomplishments to modern pitchers (Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, etc.) by teleporting him into the present day to face modern batters to see if Cy could do as well as modern pitchers today would be wrong.

Attempting to do the same with AD 1300 nobles and IC 1100 nobles would be equally wrong.

Originally posted by rancke:
The nature of his nobility flows from the Emperor of the Imperium. It has as little to do with the nature of Old Earth nobles as the nobility of a European duke has anything to do with the power and majesty of the Roman Republic.

Then what were the sections in GT:Nobles describing the history of Solomani and Vilani nobility?

In any event, that structure, “power flowing” out of the prime ruler, is the same set-up as England (and many others) had from the beginning, something about the “Divine Right of Kings”, or something like that.

I think I see where we differ. I believe there is a major link to the past in the nature and essence of modern Imperial nobility, you do not. Haarumpf!?! What do we do about that?

Hmm. I have this thought running around in my head. I don’t own M0, so I don’t know for sure, but I was a part of many and varied discussions on the TML last year about nobility and the Imperium in general, and blasted if I can’t remember reading something about Cleon locating documents from early Sylea that backed a claim that he was a legitimate descendant (in some manner or other) of the Emperors of the Second Imperium, and therefore the logical choice as Emperor of the Third. Am I smoking crack?

Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
It has everything to do with it. My original criticism was that in GT:Nobles a ?turning point? was missed, an opportunity to lay down more consistent and reasonable canon over the top of some of the patchwork of what was done before. It is a legitimate criticism.

Certainly it is legitimate criticism. I just disagree with your reasoning. Which is, I hope, equally legitimate.
</font>[/QUOTE]Absolutely. As long as you stop altering my single and double quotes into question marks (see example above vs. original content shown immediately below), I’ll be happy.

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
It has everything to do with it. My original criticism was that in GT:Nobles a “turning point” was missed, an opportunity to lay down more consistent and reasonable canon over the top of some of the patchwork of what was done before. It is a legitimate criticism.

 

[Malenfant]

Absolutely. As long as you stop altering my single and double quotes into question marks (see example above vs. original content shown immediately below), I’ll be happy.

To be fair, that may not be Hans' fault, it's more likely down to different keyboard mappings or character sets or somesuch. (in fact, I'm pretty certain that this is the case).