King of the Northern Marches

[aldarron]

Ironically, it is unfortunate that David Ross’s work appears so thorough, because this has seemingly resulted in the acceptance of his conclusions without much scrutiny. In looking more closely at his timeline in particular, I have found more than one instance of faulty sources, and unwarranted or unexplained alterations. One example is his conclusion that the references in the FFC to a “king” are either a mistake or somehow meant to mean the emperor of the Great Empire.

Unlike Ross, I’m not so quick to dismiss the FFC as faulty whenever I don’t like what it says. Thus I believe Arneson meant “king” when he wrote “king”. The only single instance in the FFC where I think a mistake like this was actually made is in the reference to second “coot” invasion regarding “the Weasel” because it seems wrong in context and is anyway to contradictory to other material – as eslwhere discussed.

Anyhow, here’s some examples

In 1973, The blue rider “carried the word to the king.” P16

Svenny is “along time pal of the king… the king always calls…” p17

“Ra-All was promoted to king of Vestfold”p21

“undertake missions for the king.”p52

And this one from the Garbage pits of Despair:

“Slavery has been officially abolished by the king and the council of regents” (DW42:m4)

So there clearly was a king and somebody – almost certainly Dave himself – was the “king” in Blackmoor. Interestingly Dave might very well have promoted himself “Ra-all” (god of all)”the wise” to give the position of Baron of Blackmoor to one of his players.

The next named king we know of seems to be Bakula (probably another Dave character and a pun on Dracula). Bakula is a member of the council, but his title is not “councillor” it is Co-Regent, meaning he is one of several “kings”

The conflict is that Uther is supposed to be the first king of the kingdom of Blackmoor. But this really isn’t such a problem as it might seem. Here is how I choose to see it.

When Robert the First conquers the north, he creates a handful of new dukedoms organized into a new province. Since this is a frontier province and a united defense is necessary, he further gives one of his new dukes the title “King of the Northern Marches”. The duke holding this title has no authority over the other dukes in normal circumstance, but is expected to organize the defense of the province. The other dukes are expected to defer to the king in military matters but are otherwise independent. The position is not hereditary, but is bestowed by the emperor. Nevertheless, the title has tended to stay within a family for several generations.

The first king of the Northern Marches is one Unguul, a mercenary from the jungles of Tangor and long time companions of Roberts, who began his military career as a spearman in the armies of Kalastro, but when that civilization met volcanic destruction, Unguul escaped into the Great kingdom where he eventually hooked up with Robert. Unguul, of course, is the founder of a royal house in Blackmoor…

[Havard]

I'm with Ross on this one. Remember that within the FFC system of reference Blackmoor is part of the Great Kingdom, its ruler being the King.

Even if the title King had been used by a provincial leader in the North, he would be a subject of the ruler of the Northern Kingdom, so that only causes confusion. Also, I don't like the idea of too much independence in the North prior to Uther because it diminishes Uther's role as the one who made Blackmoor independent.

-Havard

[aldarron]

I'm with Ross on this one. Remember that within the FFC system of reference Blackmoor is part of the Great Kingdom, its ruler being the King.

I can't agree Havard, regardless of the title held by the leader of the Great Kingdom, the quotes show immediacy, a king who is within the borders of the Northern Marches, a person who is a great friend of Svenny and is trusted by the Blue rider. This is not some distant potentate in a faraway capital. The great Kingdom was always a far distant place in the FFC, where the players hardly ever went.

Even if the title King had been used by a provincial leader in the North, he would be a subject of the ruler of the Northern Kingdom, so that only causes confusion.

If ther leader of the Great Kingdom is called a king too you mean? Likely his title was always emperor or great king or some such. There is no record of it. I don't see that as being much of an issue though especially in a mish mash massive empire. Titles get handed out for all sorts of reasons and don't necessarily imply parity. Look at the Hapsburgs for example with any number of kings princes, potentates and burgomeisters all under one banner, or for a fictional example, all the kings, dukes, lords etc. who were all loyal subjects of King Arthur.

Also, I don't like the idea of too much independence in the North prior to Uther because it diminishes Uther's role as the one who made Blackmoor independent.
-Havard

Sounds good too me. I don't imagine they were very independant either, except maybe during the mage wars.

[Havard]

I'm with Ross on this one. Remember that within the FFC system of reference Blackmoor is part of the Great Kingdom, its ruler being the King.

I can't agree Havard, regardless of the title held by the leader of the Great Kingdom, the quotes show immediacy, a king who is within the borders of the Northern Marches, a person who is a great friend of Svenny and is trusted by the Blue rider. This is not some distant potentate in a faraway capital. The great Kingdom was always a far distant place in the FFC, where the players hardly ever went.

I agree that the individual referred to is a local one. I think the "King" mentioned is in fact Baron Fant. It's just that Arneson didn't apply a very systematic system of noble titles. Baron, Duke, King, Earl. They are all used without much thought to which fits where. We could perhaps blame this on Judges Guild who were supposed to clean things up.

In the FFC, King could even be a leftover title from the war gaming days, with the King being the leader of each side.

Sounds good too me. I don't imagine they were very independant either, except maybe during the mage wars.

At least we are in agreement on this, which is the main point.
I have worked to restructure the ranks of nobility in my writeups, with each smaller realm becoming a Barony, and Earl being the title held in Vestfold prior to Uther's rebellion.

-Havard

[aldarron]

I'm with Ross on this one. Remember that within the FFC system of reference Blackmoor is part of the Great Kingdom, its ruler being the King.

I can't agree Havard, regardless of the title held by the leader of the Great Kingdom, the quotes show immediacy, a king who is within the borders of the Northern Marches, a person who is a great friend of Svenny and is trusted by the Blue rider. This is not some distant potentate in a faraway capital. The great Kingdom was always a far distant place in the FFC, where the players hardly ever went.

I agree that the individual referred to is a local one. I think the "King" mentioned is in fact Baron Fant. It's just that Arneson didn't apply a very systematic system of noble titles. Baron, Duke, King, Earl. They are all used without much thought to which fits where. We could perhaps blame this on Judges Guild who were supposed to clean things up.

In the FFC, King could even be a leftover title from the war gaming days, with the King being the leader of each side.

I'm sure that you're right. They played fast and loose with titles and the political structure was probably vague at best. Fant is an interesting theory for a couple of those references. I do think Dave meant himself when he said svenny was a great pal to the king.

Its just that I'm looking at the text as canon and trying to fit in reasonable explanations for what it could be. I'm thinking of "king" in as a kind of battle leader connotation, not as a strong political position.