Gotha date; RH

 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Ancient Empires of Anaria
10-04-2018, 05:55 PM
Post: #41
RE: The Ancient Empires of Anaria
(10-02-2018 09:35 PM)August Dux Wrote:  
TeamBattleaxe Wrote:Arne > Anar, ia = Later Dragar suffix
P(a) = Of, Arne = Anaria, Thi = Derived from (roughly).

I like your thinking! And your etymology is very nicely put together. You have the classicist's approval. Perhaps one of the foundation myths of their people was a migration of sorts from Anaria? We will perhaps avoid a foundation myth based around a bunch of refugees fleeing a burning city after a twenty-year war somewhere in Anaria (that's been done before - a lot!)

I'm thinking that the Parnethi in reality just migrated to Anaria Minor from either the North or East in pursuit of resources during the initial period of Anario-Jorven migrations. Maybe they crossed from Thultannia or Pastana via a land bridge which sank due to a 'Great Flood' or originated from a land that was flooded by the Medio Sea? Referencing Atlantis here....

(10-02-2018 09:35 PM)August Dux Wrote:  This etymology, however, would need to be a much later development than "Anaria" - i.e. the name "Anaria" would most likely have had to saturate itself in non-Stoldavic languages so it would be widely known as Anaria. Unless their myth comes from Thultannia or somewhere? But I like this idea!

The Parnethi would certainly have made an impact though. I could imagine that, like in the RW, continental definitions are rather subjective. The nations of Thultannia and Stoldavia would probably consider themselves distinct from Anaria itself culturally and geographically. From the time of the Orkanan Realm the mainland would have been known as the lands of the Parnethian Empire. Significant inter-cultural contact between the Dragar and Achlt peoples during the early Orkanan era would would popularise the name Anaria. The naming convention is similar to that applied by Rome to Africa.

I'm think the Parnethi adopted the name first, then through diplomatic exchanges reaches the Achlt who still go on to apply it after the conversion of the Dragar to Orkananism and their independence. Thus the name Anaria is naturalised.
Quote
10-04-2018, 09:55 PM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2018 10:13 PM by August Dux.)
Post: #42
RE: The Ancient Empires of Anaria
TeamBattleaxe Wrote:I've always like the name or epithet 'Sandaro' which is Greek in origin and means 'Protector of the People'. It's used as a given name in Greece today for both sexes.

I can't seem to find 'Sandaro' or any variation in my Ancient Greek dictionary or on wiktionary. I have a feeling that the name may have actually come via Italian, i.e. is a shortened form of Alessandro - Sandro - Sandaro... (Alexander has been taken to mean 'Protector of the People' or variations on that because of Alexander the Great). That connection to the Greek is very tenuous if that is the case, and I personally don't think that works. It's reverse engineering. I just want to avoid anything to do with Alexander if I can avoid it. But, if you can point me in the direction of the original Greek, I'll be happy to reconsider it.

TeamBattleaxe Wrote:We could further Hellenise it into 'Sandaros the Great' and there you have a name for the conqueror, founder of the Sandarian Dynasty which would rule Parnethia for most of its history.

Naturally with a Greek speaking military genius conqueror of nations, it is going to be hard to avoid parallels with Alexander. However, I think we should avoid obvious similarities where we can - i.e. calling him 'the Great'. I know it makes sense, but I think we can be a bit more inventive. What about 'the Conqueror'; we can use it as an epithet which he gained, such as Νικητής (Nikitis; Conqueror/Victor), which was then transliterated and understood by non-Parnethians to be a surname. Thus he could be called Firstname Nikitis, which in Parnethi means Firstname the Conqueror, but to Hallish speakers, it's the dynasty name? Not too dissimilar to the names of famous Viking warriors.

TeamBattleaxe Wrote:I'd prefer a story similar to the one told of Shaka Zulu, who had to deal with hardship and ostracism as a youngster and had to assert power though a mix of gravitas and force.

This would be a fine narrative to create, but if the Parnethian Kingdom had been around for a bit beforehand, we need a good reason why this ostracism should be the case. The younger brother of a jealous and paranoid tyrant? Banished him to secure his throne?

TeamBattleaxe Wrote:Cavalry was not as key a component of early feudalism as one may think. Indeed 'knights in shining armour' are 1) associated with the high and late middle ages anyway 2) were relatively rare due to the money and resources required kit a knight out and 3) we less effective as units outside specific battlefield conditions.
[...]
In the early middle ages Cavalry was mostly light and mobile and used sparingly.

Sorry, I didn't explain myself properly. I wasn't arguing that knights were the only form of fighting - what I meant was, they were the centre point, the locus around which fighting happened in a socio-political as well as military sense. I'm more concerned with the implications for feudal land tenure.

But first, I have a few issues with your above statements:

1) Knights in shining armour were certainly not associated mostly with the Late Middle Ages - by the 14th and 15th centuries, the chivalric form of war (from the Old French chevalier, meaning 'knight') was considered hugely archaic and purely traditional. The invention of the crossbow put a stop to knights' usefulness on the battlefield. I can assure you, it having come up in my lectures last week, that the knight is of early feudal origin; the romantic idea we have inherited of the 'knight in shining armour', however, is largely a nostalgic invention of the Late Middle Ages when the nobility were mourning the loss of the functionality of their beloved form of warfare.

2) Just because they were rare does not diminish their fundamental importance to the institution of feudal government and warfare. Yes they were few in number, precisely because they were so expensive, but in early feudal Europe, knights dominated battlefields because they were essentially tanks in an infantry battle. They could outclass anybody who wasn't a knight themselves. If you are arguing that because they were expensive they were not as important as one might expect, you have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of feudalism - the entire economic system of these feudal kingdoms was designed to outfit these knights for battle.

3) An invalid point. Like I said, knights weren't just military tools but they were also the ruling classes of a kingdom. Whether on or off the battlefield, they were of vital importance to the functioning of the kingdom - they ruled it!

The whole reason for a feudal set up was that a centralised ruler could not control his/her vassals because the ruler became increasingly reliant on those vassals for military service. Contrast this with the Byzantine model, which was a deeply centralised administration and military machine. Although other models could work, the need for a knight to spend all of his time training required him to have an income - hence the distribution of land to a ruler's vassals. Low crop yields during the Early Middle Ages resulted in not much room for taxation - there was not much surplus to tax. Hence the feudal land tenure system provided vassals with just enough income to fund their military service - the hugely expensive horse, armour, and weapons etc.

Of course, most of the actual fighting in terms of percentage of men on the field were foot soldiers. But knights during this period are perhaps better thought of as tanks - a military machine which requires considerable amount of 'crew' and money to operate and upkeep (squires, armourers, pages etc.). Think also in Homeric terms, where the battle rages around, but knights seek one another out to fight. This was the basis of early medieval warfare, to put it crudely.

Feudalism is a form of government, and back then there was no distinction made between those who ruled and those who fought. I am just trying to say that the 'knight in shining armour' concept is so intrinsic to European feudalism, that without the stirrup (fundamentally vital for heavy cavalry), I would struggle to see how it could come together and actually be feudalism. If it's cheap to outfit a noble horseman, why does the king need to give him vast estates?

Quote
10-04-2018, 09:59 PM
Post: #43
RE: The Ancient Empires of Anaria
TeamBattleaxe Wrote:Maybe they crossed from Thultannia or Pastana via a land bridge which sank due to a 'Great Flood' or originated from a land that was flooded by the Medio Sea? Referencing Atlantis here....

A Median Altantis - an interesting idea! Big Grin

TeamBattleaxe Wrote:I'm think the Parnethi adopted the name first, then through diplomatic exchanges reaches the Achlt who still go on to apply it after the conversion of the Dragar to Orkananism and their independence. Thus the name Anaria is naturalised.

But we already agreed that the etymology of Anaria was Old Achltic and meant 'the other place'? I.e. the Old Achltic etymology has to develop first.

Quote


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)