[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Poster: Lance Harrop <email@example.com>
Lady Annara, you write:
> I have a hard time supporting Principalities, when the Crown tourney in
> Atlantia draws, at most, 30-odd fighters. (I valiently refrain from going
> off-topic in that direction! ;) Besides, it's not just population, it's Peers
> and structure, too.
I don't think it is necessarily true that if Atlantia had four
principalities, they would draw only eight fighters each simply because
Crown draws 18 to 30. I know a number of very good fighters, and very
good people, who would be happy to compete in a Coronet Tourney, but who
no longer wish to compete in Crown. And frankly, I don't think Atlantia is
Peer poor. I believe that in truth we have far to little for our peers
to do, which is why so many are inactive. Finally, we have many of the
structures we need for principalities. Look in the Regium and count the
number of Regional Deputies (Seneschal, Exchequer, Marshal and Warlord).
> In my opinion, Principalities would only serve to divide people more.
> if more Northern folks traveled South and more Southern folks traveled North,
> there would be less of a feeling of need for a Principality.
We also need to cross Kingdom boundries, do we not? At least
inter-principality wars would give us a reason to travel outside our
> So staying a shire or canton, even if the group is big enough to
> be a barony, is quite an acceptable alternative to me. It should be up
> to the group. If they want to be a barony, fine. If not, fine. Unless
> I live there at the time, it's nothing to me. Neither form of group has
> an advantage or disadvantage over the other.
Well, baronies have definate advantages over shires, a titled head of the
group to rally around.
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
Admin. requests: firstname.lastname@example.org