06-21-2011, 09:01 PM
Brought this over from the other thread because the discussion is productive but as Havard says is derailing the thread and counterproductive to its purpose.
Well, the simple answer is I'm a logical guy Havard and reasoning that runs something like A is B, and A is C, therefore B must equate to C is a logical fallacy (Illicit Major). Actually, I’m a little puzzled why you are so resistant to the later date idea since it opens up some real design possibilities.
Follow me here:
The Castle and Crusades society war games on an imaginary map made up of multiple Kingdoms.
The map is generally referred to as the map of the Great kingdom.
The Great Kingdom (later Thonia) is roughly laid out on the American Midwest, including cities which are analogs to Chicago Illinois, Lake Geneva Wisconsin, and other places.
Rob Kuntz is King of the Castle and Crusades society.
Rob Kuntz Lives in Lake Geneva.
Rob Kuntz is given a tributary role in Blackmoor as Robert I the King of Geneva.
Therefore:
Geneva = the Great kingdom, or
Therefore
Robert the Ist King of Geneva is the founder of the Great kingdom
Obviously, neither conclusion is either supported or excluded by the premises. They aren’t proper conclusions at all. But, as Geneva would, by all appearances (both meta and in game) appear to be a kingdom within the borders of the Great Kingdom map, it does not seems likely King Robert Ist was intended as anything more grand than king of Geneva and founder of Blackmoor. Because Rob Kuntz is King of the C&C society does make Robert a king, but it does not make him either king or founder of Thonia. Further, the implication in the FFC is that of someone who’s existence was not so far distant in time and nothing in the FFC is beyond circa 500 years.
Now in fairness to Ross and to the 4e timeline where it copies him here, it is not entirely clear that Ross really intended to place Robert 1st definitively at year 0. There is no year directly across from the statement and it appears right before the year 500. Given the sense of the FFC info given above, that could be read as “sometime after 0, sometime close to 500”, without too much trouble.
Its far simpler (occams razor) and truer to the text to treat Robert 1st not as founder of the Thonian empire (that’s Rafe’s idea I think – its not written anywhere), but as a king of a kingdom or empire called Geneva and as the founder of Blackmoor as a fief in the circa 400 - 450 range than it is to explain 400+ years of nearly empty Blackmoor timeline.
Really, I’m not trying to say that no one should have Robert 1st as the founder of the Great Empire in their games if that’s the way you like it, – all I’m trying to point out is that there is another way of looking at it that is better grounded in and more fundamental to the texts and introduces a new bit of potentially interesting geography (kingdom of Geneva).
I spent every free moment I had every day for more than a month checking and double checking Ross’s work, all the source material cited, reading all the relevant new books and weblore all the published timelines I had access to. Etc, I’ve put less effort into grad school term papers and far, far, more time than I should have spent on this. Even so I’ve attempted to maintain a balance between unbridled passion and fairness to alternative views. At times passion may have had an edge, but if I’ve exaggerated it isn’t by much. I know you think so Havard, but I’d invite you to look closer – show me what is exaggerated.
I have meant to be relatively kind to Ross, because I respect the effort he went to, but frankly, I get the sense that nobody has checked Ross work - Not closely or line by line as I did. It is, after all tedious work, but not something I’m unaccustomed to - it is literally my business to research and analyze ethnohistoric data, and I’ll say this plainly, I’m very certain I’m neither confused or lacking of understand of Ross’ reasoning. There’s no secret curtain of information. I know for example, that he arbitrarily and regardless of the source material changed his start date from 1000 to 1025 to 1035 to make things fit as he thought they should. To me, those kinds of hidden monkeyshines, accidental or not, don’t get a free pass in a work that purports to be “accurate”.
Honestly though if you really think any particular reference is wrong, please check the work, cite a reference or offer a more logical bit of reasoning or compelling narrative and we can talk about it. It is what I was hoping would happen when I posted it. The kind of back and forth that leads to polished text. I was hoping to spark all kinds of debate and commentary from you guys ‘cause this is fun stuff. Instead it’s like Ross timeline is being treated as textus receptus or carved in stone or something.
Havard Wrote:Aldarron Wrote:Right, well I dunno what's in Domesday #13 but haven't seen that mentioned before. Would be "proof" enough to suit me if it does say Robert I, is either a ruler or founder of the great empire. Intriguing possibility though. As it stands, I still see no reason, and perhaps especially on a meta level, to equate FFC's Geneva with great Kingdome. Its like equating the king of england with the ceasar of the roman empire. - meaning Geneva may at times be a part of a greater whole but is not a substitute for it. As it stands I prefer not to somehow read "founder of Thonia" into "king of all Geneva" - two very seperate centitiess, it seems to me.
Fun little puzle though.
I find it very puzzling that you are so resistant to this idea. Here is how it worked. The C&C Society world map was based partially on North America. Different Refrees were assigned different parts of the realm. The heart of the C&C Society was in the area corresponding to Lake Geneva. The King of the C&C Society was Rob Kuntz, as demonstrated here. The reference to Robert I in the FFC is a nod to Kuntz and the C&C Society.
Well, the simple answer is I'm a logical guy Havard and reasoning that runs something like A is B, and A is C, therefore B must equate to C is a logical fallacy (Illicit Major). Actually, I’m a little puzzled why you are so resistant to the later date idea since it opens up some real design possibilities.
Follow me here:
The Castle and Crusades society war games on an imaginary map made up of multiple Kingdoms.
The map is generally referred to as the map of the Great kingdom.
The Great Kingdom (later Thonia) is roughly laid out on the American Midwest, including cities which are analogs to Chicago Illinois, Lake Geneva Wisconsin, and other places.
Rob Kuntz is King of the Castle and Crusades society.
Rob Kuntz Lives in Lake Geneva.
Rob Kuntz is given a tributary role in Blackmoor as Robert I the King of Geneva.
Therefore:
Geneva = the Great kingdom, or
Therefore
Robert the Ist King of Geneva is the founder of the Great kingdom
Obviously, neither conclusion is either supported or excluded by the premises. They aren’t proper conclusions at all. But, as Geneva would, by all appearances (both meta and in game) appear to be a kingdom within the borders of the Great Kingdom map, it does not seems likely King Robert Ist was intended as anything more grand than king of Geneva and founder of Blackmoor. Because Rob Kuntz is King of the C&C society does make Robert a king, but it does not make him either king or founder of Thonia. Further, the implication in the FFC is that of someone who’s existence was not so far distant in time and nothing in the FFC is beyond circa 500 years.
Now in fairness to Ross and to the 4e timeline where it copies him here, it is not entirely clear that Ross really intended to place Robert 1st definitively at year 0. There is no year directly across from the statement and it appears right before the year 500. Given the sense of the FFC info given above, that could be read as “sometime after 0, sometime close to 500”, without too much trouble.
Its far simpler (occams razor) and truer to the text to treat Robert 1st not as founder of the Thonian empire (that’s Rafe’s idea I think – its not written anywhere), but as a king of a kingdom or empire called Geneva and as the founder of Blackmoor as a fief in the circa 400 - 450 range than it is to explain 400+ years of nearly empty Blackmoor timeline.
Really, I’m not trying to say that no one should have Robert 1st as the founder of the Great Empire in their games if that’s the way you like it, – all I’m trying to point out is that there is another way of looking at it that is better grounded in and more fundamental to the texts and introduces a new bit of potentially interesting geography (kingdom of Geneva).
Havard Wrote:My point was that I think the criticism of Ross' work is exaggerated and that even if we dont understand all of his reasoning, that doesnt mean he doesnt have his reasons for what he writes.
-Havard
I spent every free moment I had every day for more than a month checking and double checking Ross’s work, all the source material cited, reading all the relevant new books and weblore all the published timelines I had access to. Etc, I’ve put less effort into grad school term papers and far, far, more time than I should have spent on this. Even so I’ve attempted to maintain a balance between unbridled passion and fairness to alternative views. At times passion may have had an edge, but if I’ve exaggerated it isn’t by much. I know you think so Havard, but I’d invite you to look closer – show me what is exaggerated.
I have meant to be relatively kind to Ross, because I respect the effort he went to, but frankly, I get the sense that nobody has checked Ross work - Not closely or line by line as I did. It is, after all tedious work, but not something I’m unaccustomed to - it is literally my business to research and analyze ethnohistoric data, and I’ll say this plainly, I’m very certain I’m neither confused or lacking of understand of Ross’ reasoning. There’s no secret curtain of information. I know for example, that he arbitrarily and regardless of the source material changed his start date from 1000 to 1025 to 1035 to make things fit as he thought they should. To me, those kinds of hidden monkeyshines, accidental or not, don’t get a free pass in a work that purports to be “accurate”.
Honestly though if you really think any particular reference is wrong, please check the work, cite a reference or offer a more logical bit of reasoning or compelling narrative and we can talk about it. It is what I was hoping would happen when I posted it. The kind of back and forth that leads to polished text. I was hoping to spark all kinds of debate and commentary from you guys ‘cause this is fun stuff. Instead it’s like Ross timeline is being treated as textus receptus or carved in stone or something.