NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/org/sca/17253

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-01 | 3.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!chnews!chnews!doconnor
From: [e-mail] (Dennis O'Connor)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Period calendar; Nonfighter kings; Drachenwald ideas
Date: 1 Jan 93 10:13:30
Organization: Intel i960(tm) Architecture
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.intel.com
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:11:06 GMT


[e-mail] ("]ke Eldberg") writes:
] Dennis O'Connor suggests that rulers be chosen by:
] >Civil War. This could be great fun. Monarch wanna-bees would go out
] >and solicit fighters for their cause. Then a series of battles would
] >be fought,
]
] Neat concept. However, I think that it would be less a matter of non-
] fighting wannabes soliciting fighters, than of fighters banding
] together to champion a popular person whom they wanted to make King.

I don't think you'd get fighters spontaneously banding together.
More likely respected Knights, Masters, and Baron(ess)s would decide
who they would support, and bring their Squires and followers with
them to their side. If this were not they way most fighters chose
who to support, it would still probably be how most war-trained
units decided. And units that train together for war are usually
more effective man-for-man than random collections of fighters.

Of coure, a side affect of this interneccine warfare would be
a general rise, I think, in war-making capability. A kingdom
that chose it's monarchs by war would probably be more potent
when engaged in inter-kingdom war than one that did not.

[ WRT long reigns ]
] I do not believe that such long reigns would be possible with the
] present style of rulership. It would require a different role for the
] monarchs, with fewer duties. As has been pointed out, ruling is both
] expensive and tiresome. If a reign was 3 years, we would need a very
] developed royal administration to take some of the burdens off the
] King & Queen.

Except that I feel the primary duties of the Monarchs is to get
around, visit their domain, see that their Kingdom is healthy
in every corner of it. By having a single couple do all this
visiting, a cohesive vision of the Kingdom can be aquired. I
personally don't feel that sending ministers out quite accomplishes
the same thing. So I'd rather we had short back-breaking reigns
rather than long figure-headish ones.

] A mechanism for unseating bad Royalty without resorting to nasty
] stuff like Courts of Chivalry or Board action, should be possible
] to invent. For example, we could have an annual Civil War where the
] King summons all his people to put down all rebels, with the
] provision that if the King loses that war, he also loses the crown.
] A popular King will of course win, and retain the throne; if the
] people are not satisfied, he will be ousted.

I like this, but think it should be more often. But then, I'n
from the any-excuse-for-a-war camp.
--
Dennis O'Connor            [e-mail]