Who was the First King of Blackmoor? (Split from Erwin Andah

[aldarron]

If Maragaine was a queen, she had to have succeeded Uther, since he was Blackmoor's first monarch.

Not so. Ra-all is king before Uther (FFC80:21) and there are many references to "the king" in the FFC and in the CotT. I delved in to where I thought she fit best a bit more in this Piazza thread:http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/bb/viewtopic...24&t=10910

[Havard]

If Maragaine was a queen, she had to have succeeded Uther, since he was Blackmoor's first monarch.

Not so. Ra-all is king before Uther (FFC80:21) and there are many references to "the king" in the FFC and in the CotT. I delved in to where I thought she fit best a bit more in this Piazza thread:http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/bb/viewtopic...24&t=10910

I think the reference to Ra-All being king is problematic. The entire point of Uther's story, as I see it, is that Uther leads a rebellion that leads to Blackmoor becoming an independent kingdom of the Thonian Empire. How would you reconcile this story with the idea of Ra-All being king before Uther?

Now, it is possible that the DA modules retconned parts of the original campaign to set up the position of Uther as the first king. Another possibility is that the original campaign was simply inconsistent when it came to titles and political structures. It is however, my impression that Blackmoor was part of the Great Kingdom throughout the period detailed in the FFC, so it seems strange that Blackmoor would have kings who were not kings of the Great Kingdom itself in this period. King Robert I is the founder of Blackmoor, but we know that he was also the King of the Great Kingdom.

What is your take?

-Havard

[Greg]

Yeah, that would make sense. I used to think that Uther's lack of heirs would send the Kingdom into chaos, but now it looks like he may have a whole host of relatives, at least within the MMRPG continuity...

Having relatives with a potential claim to the throne certainly doesn't prevent a kingdom devolving into chaos. Check out the real world Plantagenets and many other cases for historical examples. :twisted:

Now, it is possible that the DA modules retconned parts of the original campaign to set up the position of Uther as the first king. Another possibility is that the original campaign was simply inconsistent when it came to titles and political structures. It is however, my impression that Blackmoor was part of the Great Kingdom throughout the period detailed in the FFC, so it seems strange that Blackmoor would have kings who were not kings of the Great Kingdom itself in this period. King Robert I is the founder of Blackmoor, but we know that he was also the King of the Great Kingdom.

I am going to wade into this discussion even though I'm not really qualified to have an opinion. It's possible that there could have been a vassal king in Blackmoor. In other words, Blackmoor was part of the Great Kingdom, but someone such as Ra-All might have been granted the local title of king while still owing fealty to the King of the Great Kingdom.

However, this seems unlikely because a king would not want someone else bearing the same title. It creates a potential rival or usurper. Also, as you speculated, I suspect that there was inconsistency in the original campaign or that the DA modules retconned things to set up Uther as the first king. The latter certainly makes for a better story, especially with the burgeoning Kingdom of Blackmoor facing many threats to its survival.

[aldarron]

I think the reference to Ra-All being king is problematic. The entire point of Uther's story, as I see it, is that Uther leads a rebellion that leads to Blackmoor becoming an independent kingdom of the Thonian Empire. How would you reconcile this story with the idea of Ra-All being king before Uther?

Now, it is possible that the DA modules retconned parts of the original campaign to set up the position of Uther as the first king. Another possibility is that the original campaign was simply inconsistent when it came to titles and political structures. It is however, my impression that Blackmoor was part of the Great Kingdom throughout the period detailed in the FFC, so it seems strange that Blackmoor would have kings who were not kings of the Great Kingdom itself in this period. King Robert I is the founder of Blackmoor, but we know that he was also the King of the Great Kingdom.

What is your take?

-Havard

To some extent how any of us resolves grey areas will depend upon the scaffolding we storybuild off of. For me, I start with the FFC and only contradict what it says if there appears to be a real mistake. Since "the king" is mentioned a fair amount of times there and in other early stuff, that is something I would hold as foundational scaffolding. The other thing I would look to is the ZG material where it goes into greater detail than the DA material or where it might contradict the DA material. This is because the ZG material is more recent, and because it was produced under the direct oversite of Arneson unlike the DA material that had largely been taken out of his hands. This is not to say that Arneson is the only voice for Blackmoor by any means, but to me it makes sense to favor his vision over others for the setting he created.

In the FFC, Blackmoor is nominally a province of the Great Kingdom, but the Great Kingdom is clearly not in direct control. Blackmoor is what you might call a vassal state. This is why the local barons etc raise armies independently. If you look at the 2nd and 3rd Coot invasion, The Great Kingdom is essentially another polity allied with the good guys but not in control of them and not responsible for managing the defense.

So, turning to the ZG timeline, Thonia conquers Blackmoor in year 0, but later looses control, at least by the time of the Mage Lords who are clearly not at all vassals of the Great Kingdom. According to the excellent historical summary in The Wizards Cabal (The only ZG book where Arneson has a direct writing credit) on page 7, the "wizard king" Raddan is in full defiance of the Great Kingdom who withdraw completely from the area. Later, after the Mage Wars end with Skelfer and the Wizards Cabal in control, Skellfer makes a new treaty with the Great Kingdom, forming a mutual defense alliance. As in the FFC, it is clear the Great Kingdom is not in direct control of Blackmoor, but the treaty could imply Blackmoor is entering a satellite state arrangement, with taxes and some fealty being owed in return for military aid.

Uther, per the timeline of the 4e sourcebook, p148, breaks this alliance in 1015 - not for the purpose of declaring himself king - but because he supports Han Aleford in defiance of the emperor. There is no reason to suppose, per this material that there wasn't a king (or queen, as I proposed with Maragaine) before him.

So that's how I see it makeing sense, but like I said it depends on your preferred scaffolding and what vision of Blackmoor you like best - if you prioritize the DA material over the FFC or ZG/MMRPG stuff you are going to get a different outcome. Having said that, I'm not sure that the DA material strongly contradicts the above scenerio. What I mean is that, in DA1 at least, Uther is depicted as fighting a war of independance, as you said, but I'm not sure how much control the Great Kingdom was supposed to have over Blackmoor before Uther. Perhaps Blackmoor could have had a "mutual defense" arrangement like that depicted in the ZG books?

[Greg]

Aldarron, I think you might be right, and it turns out that my "vassal king" suggestion might not have been as far-fetched as I thought.

If we look at the Blackmoor timeline in the 4E campaign setting, along with a line from the Kingdom of Blackmoor section, it sounds like there was a king before Uther. But it's strange that this king is never mentioned by name and is never referenced in the timeline until 1007. Here are some selected quotes from the timeline:

998 Elf adventurers successfully take Blackmoor. The orcs are driven to the deeper dungeons. Svenson slays Funk I. Svenson later rebuilds Freehold, deciding to steer clear of Blackmoor politics.

1005 Uther’s father killed in battle against Skandaharians. –Uther becomes Baron of Blackmoor.

1007 Blackmoor Castle is subdued enough that the king may reside there again.

1015 The Northern Revolt. King Uther is backed by Bascom Ungulian and Han Aleford.

There are no other mentions of a "king" of Blackmoor. The first reference is in the 1007 entry.

However,, according to these entries, elves retook Blackmoor and the orcs were driven to the deeper dungeons. Later, Uther becomes Baron of Blackmoor and then Blackmoor Castle is subdued enough that the king may reside there again. This clearly implies that there was a king who had resided there previously. And eight years later, "King Uther" is backed by Bascom Ungulian.

In the context of the 4E FC, this leaves us with two possibilities.

1) Uther became king between 1005 (when he was named Baron of Blackmoor) and 1007 (when Blackmoor castle was subdued enough for the king to return);

or

2) There was a king before Uther who is unnamed in the timeline and is not referenced before the 1007 entry.


However, in the Kingdom of Blackmoor section on p. 149, we have this line:

In light of Uther’s impressive leadership, the region’s other barons supported his claim to Blackmoor’s throne.

This implies that there was an existing throne to which Uther was making his claim. Otherwise, they wouldn't be supporting a claim to the throne: they would be supporting his desire to be crowned king: the first king of Blackmoor.

But all of this is still a bit confusing when you consider the passage you quoted from p. 21 of the FFC. Yes, Ra-All was promoted to king, but it was King of Vestfold. Isn't Vestfold only an earldom in the Blackmoor setting? Or was it possibly a separate kingdom or the seat of power while Blackmoor was overrun? The 4E timeline says Vestfold was the center of Blackmoor politics for a time, but there's no mention of a king residing there.

[Havard]

To some extent how any of us resolves grey areas will depend upon the scaffolding we storybuild off of. For me, I start with the FFC and only contradict what it says if there appears to be a real mistake. Since "the king" is mentioned a fair amount of times there and in other early stuff, that is something I would hold as foundational scaffolding. The other thing I would look to is the ZG material where it goes into greater detail than the DA material or where it might contradict the DA material. This is because the ZG material is more recent, and because it was produced under the direct oversite of Arneson unlike the DA material that had largely been taken out of his hands. This is not to say that Arneson is the only voice for Blackmoor by any means, but to me it makes sense to favor his vision over others for the setting he created.

Agreed. The way I have always treated this is to distinguish between Blackmoor as a published setting and Blackmoor as the original campaign.

This is a bit like Greyhawk having very little to do with Gary and Rob Kuntz' original campaign. Published Blackmoor is probably closer to Dave Arneson's campaign, but unlike a campaign created through play that is organic, sometimes inconsistent and constantly evolving, the published campaign is prepared for others to make use of.

I consider the FFC as part of the documentation of the original campaign, while the DA modules and the 3E and 4E material are the foundations of the published campaign.

Now, the relationship between the DA modules on the one hand and the ZGG 3E and 4E books on the other is interesting. If you compare the two, the vast majority of information in the ZGG books are lifted from the DA modules. Where they differ are for the most part linked to either a) changes made to accomodate the new rulesets, MMRPG play etc and b) material lifted from a fan known as Zimriel. This might sound a bit harsh towards the ZGG desigers and freelancers and I am not saying there isn't more to their contributions than that, but I think the last part is going to help us out in this specific discussion.

For those who aren't familiar with Zimriel's work on Blackmoor, download his gazetteer here. What Zimriel did was to incorporate elements from the DA modules, the FFC and whatever other sources were available to him from the original campaign. If you compare Zimriel's timeline to the timelines inthe ZGG 3E and ZGG 4E books, you will find that there are only minor differences.

Looking at Ra-All in particular I found the following:

995-1000 First Fantasy Campaign Season.
995 Ra-All is “promoted to [Earl] of Vestfold”, succeeded in Blackmoor by a contemptible fellow known to posterity as “the Weasel”. The Weasel is, of course, no Andahar.

Now, the footnote is what is the most revealing:

Thonia was famed for its irresponsibility towards its northern frontier; but I doubt they would elevate their nobles to client-kingdom status. There is slight confusion about whether Vestfold was a Kingdom (JG p. 16, 21) or an Earldom (JG p. 4, 6, 13). JG p. 16 was written long after the fact, and does not explicitly refer to Vestfold. It could refer to the “Great King”, i.e. the Emperor. JG p. 21 was written around 1974 (after the war, but before the Wizard of the Wood died) and is probably a slip-up.

So it seems that Zimriel discovered that the FFC was inconsistent to the status of Vestfold and reconciled this as making Ra-All an Earl, but he does adress the posibility of a Vassal Kingdom as suggested by you (Aldarron and Greg) in this thread!

It is interesting though that the 3E and 4E books decided to go with Zimriel's interpretation.

Anyway, I am glad I went back to Zimriel's work on this matter. His footnotes are well worth a read for further analysis of this and other research into the pre ZGG material.

More later, I just had to get this off my chest after I found it!


-Havard

[aldarron]

1007 Blackmoor Castle is subdued enough that the king may reside there again.

In the context of the 4E FC, this leaves us with two possibilities.

1) Uther became king between 1005 (when he was named Baron of Blackmoor) and 1007 (when Blackmoor castle was subdued enough for the king to return);

or

2) There was a king before Uther who is unnamed in the timeline and is not referenced before the 1007 entry.

heh, well to argue against myself, there is a third possibility; the writer might have assumed Uther had grown up in Blackmoor castle, and simply referred to him anachronistially as "king". But yeah it is a good observantion and this:

However, in the Kingdom of Blackmoor section on p. 149, we have this line:

In light of Uther’s impressive leadership, the region’s other barons supported his claim to Blackmoor’s throne.

This implies that there was an existing throne to which Uther was making his claim. Otherwise, they wouldn't be supporting a claim to the throne: they would be supporting his desire to be crowned king: the first king of Blackmoor.

is a really nice observation and great point!

But all of this is still a bit confusing when you consider the passage you quoted from p. 21 of the FFC. Yes, Ra-All was promoted to king, but it was King of Vestfold. Isn't Vestfold only an earldom in the Blackmoor setting? Or was it possibly a separate kingdom or the seat of power while Blackmoor was overrun? The 4E timeline says Vestfold was the center of Blackmoor politics for a time, but there's no mention of a king residing there.

Oh, I'll discuss that a bit below.

[aldarron]

I consider the FFC as part of the documentation of the original campaign, while the DA modules and the 3E and 4E material are the foundations of the published campaign.

Righto, different scaffolding, and I'm sure there are some who ignore the ZG stuff altogether or the FFC or what have you. I would say that I don't think it's quite fair to exclude the FFC from published (official?) material though - at least not the whole of it. Certainly "Facts about Blackmoor." was written as an official published piece (where the Ra-all reference is), originally published in the Domesday book.

The other thing I would say about that is that there are very few direct contradictions between the FFC and the ZG material. In fact there is only one clear contradiction I can think of: the dating of the third Coot invasion. In the FFC campaign that took place in 1973, or Blackmoor year 997, whereas the ZG timeline places it impossibly late at 1005.

The only other contradiction is somewhat self manufactured, and that is the "40 years ago" business for when Ra-all completes the black hall. That date is prolly 20 years too far back if you accept that Alvarez was baron in 985 when Uther was born according to the ZG timeline.

I will note there is a "mistake" in that section in the FFC - the events described are known to have been part of what we now call the First Coot Invasion, not what we now call the Second. I think at the time he wrote that, Arneson might have been thinking of an earlier wargame as the First Invasion, or else it is just a mistake.

Now, the relationship between the DA modules on the one hand and the ZGG 3E and 4E books on the other is interesting. If you compare the two, the vast majority of information in the ZGG books are lifted from the DA modules. Where they differ are for the most part linked to either a) changes made to accomodate the new rulesets, MMRPG play etc and b) material lifted from a fan known as Zimriel. This might sound a bit harsh towards the ZGG desigers and freelancers and I am not saying there isn't more to their contributions than that, but I think the last part is going to help us out in this specific discussion.

Basically I'd agree, but not entirely. I think there is a noticeable tension in the ZG books between new material and DA sourced material. I think if you look at it closely you can see quite of lot of differences, especially in color material. I get the sense that the writers were listening to Dave and his stories and the way he characterized things and that influence is noticeable and notable. I could point to any number of details, like the description of Blackmoor castle with it's moat of black goo, or the Pirate Insurection that is given as the reason for foundation of the Duchy of Ten. These sort of characterizations present a Blackmoor that is sometimes subtly and sometimes openly altered from the DA series.

For those who aren't familiar with Zimriel's work on Blackmoor, download his gazetteer here. What Zimriel did was to incorporate elements from the DA modules, the FFC and whatever other sources were available to him from the original campaign. If you compare Zimriel's timeline to the timelines inthe ZGG 3E and ZGG 4E books, you will find that there are only minor differences.

Looking at Ra-All in particular I found the following:

995-1000 First Fantasy Campaign Season.
995 Ra-All is “promoted to [Earl] of Vestfold”, succeeded in Blackmoor by a contemptible fellow known to posterity as “the Weasel”. The Weasel is, of course, no Andahar.

Now, the footnote is what is the most revealing:

Thonia was famed for its irresponsibility towards its northern frontier; but I doubt they would elevate their nobles to client-kingdom status. There is slight confusion about whether Vestfold was a Kingdom (JG p. 16, 21) or an Earldom (JG p. 4, 6, 13). JG p. 16 was written long after the fact, and does not explicitly refer to Vestfold. It could refer to the “Great King”, i.e. the Emperor. JG p. 21 was written around 1974 (after the war, but before the Wizard of the Wood died) and is probably a slip-up.

So it seems that Zimriel discovered that the FFC was inconsistent to the status of Vestfold and reconciled this as making Ra-All an Earl, but he does adress the posibility of a Vassal Kingdom as suggested by you (Aldarron and Greg) in this thread!

It is interesting though that the 3E and 4E books decided to go with Zimriel's interpretation.

Anyway, I am glad I went back to Zimriel's work on this matter. His footnotes are well worth a read for further analysis of this and other research into the pre ZGG material.
-Havard

Zimriel's work was generally good for it's time I suppose, but not without it's flaws - the passage you site being one of them. Leaving aside the information we've gotten since he wrote that, his conclusion that Arneson's writing was confused in this regard was never tenable. It wasn't Arneson who was confused. The facts are actually not even that complicated. Vestfold is the capital city of Blackmoor - that has always been the case. As the main city it is therefore an earldom of higher rank than the baronages. The ruler of Vestfold holds the higher title of Earl.

When Ra-all is "promoted to king of Vestfold" he is naturally moving to the seat of power in Blackmoor- from the Barony of Blackmoor to the Earldom of Vestfold. That move doesn't magically erase the earldom. There is still an Earl of Vestfold, and there is a King of Blackmoor in Vestfold, just as there is a queen in London and a Mayor in London. For convenience, we have supposed that Ra-all has assumed both titles because he could have and because we don't have a name for the earl, but we probably should keep these personages separate. What we shouldn't do, is assume "king" is a mistake when there is no good reason to.

Zimriel sites p16, where Bill, the mechanical horse "pulled his master to safety during the retreat" from the siege of Blackmoor and "carried the word of the battle to the King"

Strangely, in his timeline, Zimriels turns the above statement into a rescue mission for Baron Fant! Apparently Zimriel mistakes the horse for William and assumes "the master" must be Fant. Leaving that aside, Zimriel asserts Arneson must be wrong here because "JG p. 16 was written long after the fact, and does not explicitly refer to Vestfold." Huh? The FFC was published in 1977. Arneson's campaign had only ended 2 years earlier, and that assumes that this particular piece was written late. I don't see how this makes the references to the king somehow invalid. His further speculation that "It could refer to the “Great King”, i.e. the Emperor." is grasping at straws and hard to take seriously.

Further Zimriel ignores the very next page where (17) the king is referenced again. Svenny was indeed a "Long time pal of the King and First Paladin of the Kingdom " who "the King always calis upon".

Of course, in reality we know exactly who the "king" was - Dave Arneson. Ra-all (the all seeing god) is likely an avatar of Dave just as Uther is.

Zimriel was simply wrong here, not Arneson. That was always demonstrably the case, but now, of course, we've also got CotTs to be even more sure with references to "the King".

[Greg]

I'm sure that Aldarron and Havard are already aware of this, but I wanted to add this to the discussion. I managed to find a passage on p. 5 of DA1 that seems to contradict the 4E timeline and some of my previous evidence that there was a king before Uther.

A council of barons meeting in Vestfold tried to open negotiations with the emperor to end the strife ...

A fortnight later, Uther ended forever the question of the North's allegiance. Declaring himself King of Blackmoor, he raised his standard and began forming an army to fight the empire ...

The Baron of Glendower and the Baron of the Lakes immediately rallied to his call. They were soon joined by a handful of other men, some noble, some mere adventurers, who swore to defend the new crown unto death.

Here, unlike in the 4E timeline, there isn't a "claim to the throne." Uther declares himself king, and the last sentence refers to it as the "new crown."

This implies that Uther has declared himself the first King of Blackmoor. As added evidence, there is no mention of a king in any of the description leading up to this.

Two paragraphs above this passage in DA1, it is stated that the Northern Barons threw the whole of their strength into stopping the Afridhi invasion. The barons were scattered in the battle, but the Afridhi were shaken and retreated west.

Having heard news of a new imperial army moving north "to put down the baronial revolt," the barons sought to avoid the looming civil war. That's when the barons met and tried to open negotiations by sending two messengers.

There is no mention of a king in any of this, so clearly the DA1 background has taken the stance that there was no king before Uther. There were only the barons, and Uther was among them.

This may still be a retcon compared to the FFC. I wonder whether it came from Dave Arneson's notes or was a creation of David Ritchie to either clean up continuity problems dating back to the FFC or create a more compelling backstory for DA1.

But it's still strange that two passaages in the 4E timeline imply the existence of an unnamed king before Uther and an existing crown to which Uther made his claim. Given that ZGG was trying to maintain continuity with not only the FFC but the DA modules, I now suspect these were mistakes.

Ultimately, if you choose the FFC as your strict basis for Blackmoor history, you'd be inclined to maintain that there was a king in Vestfold at some point, and this king may have continued to reign until Uther became king or simply died and left the throne vacant until Uther claimed it. But then you have to ignore or rewrite a fair bit of DA1 history. And Uther's claim to the throne in DA1 would not only be a rebellion against Thonia but a rebellion against the reigning king of Blackmoor, whether he was a vassal king or not.

If you're looking for overall continuity between the FFC, the DA modules and the ZGG publications, the simpler choice is to declare the reference to Ra-All as King of Vestfold as invalid. Maybe Ra-All's rise happened in the original campaign but was later forgotten or retconned out of the setting. Whatever the case may be, Uther being the first King of Blackmoor seems to require the least effort or retconning and offers the better continuity with everything that followed the FFC.

That's what I would choosem but ultimately there's no right or wrong answer.

[aldarron]

I'm sure that Aldarron and Havard are already aware of this, but I wanted to add this to the discussion. I managed to find a passage on p. 5 of DA1 that seems to contradict the 4E timeline and some of my previous evidence that there was a king before Uther....
There is no mention of a king in any of this, so clearly the DA1 background has taken the stance that there was no king before Uther. There were only the barons, and Uther was among them.

Yep - that's why I talked about scaffolding. If you prioritize the DA material, you will arrive at a different framework.

This may still be a retcon compared to the FFC.

Yes, I'd say so. It's also contradictory to ZG Blackmoor.

I wonder whether it came from Dave Arneson's notes or was a creation of David Ritchie to either clean up continuity problems dating back to the FFC or create a more compelling backstory for DA1.

Well.... Arneson had written some material for a project called "The Blackmoor Chronicles". These materials were sent to TSR where they were heavily reworked into the DA series modules 1-3 (DA 4 was wholly produced by TSR). Arneson had no input in the changes made, which included placing Blackmoor into the distant past of the Mystara setting and creating the whole backstory of the setting. So any continuity problems were self created by TSR when they choose to recast Arneson's material.

But it's still strange that two passaages in the 4E timeline imply the existence of an unnamed king before Uther and an existing crown to which Uther made his claim. Given that ZGG was trying to maintain continuity with not only the FFC but the DA modules, I now suspect these were mistakes.

Not really. ZG generally, and Arneson parrticularly, didn't feel constrained by what TSR or anybody else had done with Blackmoor, but did decide that from a marketing standpoint it made sense to be in general conformity to the DA series. Somewhere around here IIRC Dustin Clingman talked a bit about that.

Ultimately, if you choose the FFC as your strict basis for Blackmoor history, you'd be inclined to maintain that there was a king in Vestfold at some point, and this king may have continued to reign until Uther became king or simply died and left the throne vacant until Uther claimed it. But then you have to ignore or rewrite a fair bit of DA1 history.

That's correct. Scaffolding again. You have to ignore or "correct" some points of "history" no matter which product line you favor.

And Uther's claim to the throne in DA1 would not only be a rebellion against Thonia but a rebellion against the reigning king of Blackmoor, whether he was a vassal king or not.

Not at all. If the previous ruler is dead as is entirely possible, Uther is not rebelling against Blackmoor. IMC timeline I posit that Queen Maragaine dies without heir, leaving Uther as the leading candidate.

If you're looking for overall continuity between the FFC, the DA modules and the ZGG publications, the simpler choice is to declare the reference to Ra-All as King of Vestfold as invalid. Maybe Ra-All's rise happened in the original campaign but was later forgotten or retconned out of the setting. Whatever the case may be, Uther being the first King of Blackmoor seems to require the least effort or retconning and offers the better continuity with everything that followed the FFC.

I'd strongly encourage you to follow whatever take on Blackmoor you find the most fun! Having said that I wouldn't think that's the simplest solution of least effort, because when you get into the ZG material you will still find a whole lot of contradiction to the DA stuff (hello mage kings!). The simplest solution overall is to pick one "history" and ignore the others - but maybe that's not the most fun either! heh.