OOC thread

[dmronny]

I was trying to press "R" on my keyboard for rocket launcher. It didn't really work how I wanted but it was enough to get the frustrations out.

Also slightly belated merry Christmas to all, if I manage to make it through the 4th it will be my first decent holiday season in forever.

MERGE: When wikipedia fails to satisfy you go to other sources. The source in this case being Oamp. Hopefully you'll know or I'll just have to go on being curious and or make something up.

Was slavery practiced in the middle ages? I know that serfs are little more than slaves themselves but would their have been actual straight up slaves in Europe. I would imagine so, at least in the Mediterranean since they needed someone to pull the oars on the galleys.

Secondly would the Byzantine cataphracts have followed a form of chivalry. Despite their similarities I still don't really picture them in the same light as an actual knight, but perhaps they would have some kind of code they followed.

Finally do you happen to know what the name of the leper order of knights was. I know there was one and I can find a huge list of military orders but I don't feel like searching through them all to find the right one.

 

[OAMP]

Re: OOC thread

Well, I'll admit, I do have some more in depth knowledge, though probably not in depth enough. Also, unfortunately, it's hard to explain anything without taking the looooooong view of history too. To understand slavery you have to have a global view and look at the past 2 millennium as kind of an evolutionary practice. The big problem is that "slaves", up until around 1500, weren't "slaves" as we think of today. While for all intents and purposes it could be nigh impossible to get out of slavery, in theory being a slave wasn't a permanent thing. Theoretically it would only be for 7-10 years or so and then you'd be able to buy your freedom or something of that arrangement. This was more or less a product of Europe's very "contract-centric" feudal structure. The serfs are a perfect example of this. We think of them as basically bound to do mindless hard labor for their entire existence, and that's not an unwarranted view so far removed, but in theory serfdom was a contract. Nobles obviously can't farm all their land, even if they own it. They need people to do that for them. Serfs basically made a contract that they would do that work, in exchange for some of the food and the protection of the noble's military strength. The reason serfdom is so close to slavery is because the contract was hereditary. A lot of feudal contracts were, which is why when a Duke died and his son became Duke he was still under the same King (unless they had a war about it which of course happened ). Also a lot of the serfs were probably put into these contracts under duress, which is another issue.

However, all of this is a rather large departure from Roman style slavery, which was a lot less likely to be hereditary and more likely to be akin to "indenture servants" as we'd think of them. Hell, it wasn't uncommon for someone to sell *themselves* into slavery to get the benefits of it. Furthermore, at least up until the later part of the Middle Ages, Byzantium in general was very distinct from the other European traditions. They clung onto their professional army and navy model quite hard. In the end they eventually became more feudal, but it was a long long long process of many centuries. Of course, the events of 1205 threw everything out the window too (and why I have a raging hatred for Venice, the most insolent of provinces). In later years, too, they relied more and more on mercenaries because of a lot of lingering wealth but the lack of an actual base to support an army, of any sort. All of this said, my experience with Byzantium is more accurate for the time period around 600-900 or so, before the game period. In general though the Byzantine's military operations were very callous towards local populations. One of the main points of my paper on the subject was that the Muslim conquest of Egypt and the Holy Land in large part succeeded because the Byzantines completely disregarded restraint when causing collateral damage/casualties among locals who might otherwise be willing to support them. This attitude was prevalent in the 7th Century, and if the contemporary writings on the 1st Crusade are any indication it didn't dissipate any by then, heh.

For the last question, I believe it's this one:

You must be registered to see the links

 

[OAMP]

Re: OOC thread

Also side fact, because once again had to look this up. Right "now" in game time is basically the last chance for the Byzantine Senate to be relevant. It lost a lot of power, but with the rise of Alexius I it pretty much faded into complete irrelevance, aside from a tax revolt in 1197.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: OOC thread

I've seen mentions in my own researches into the time periods of slaves. The Norse often took slaves from their raids, and I've seen some references to them in the Middle East (Which being Islamic might spread through North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula). There was also some laws in the Scandinavian countries about servitude to repay debts and/or get into and out of bankruptcy which is how some Norsemen got into the situation. The use of the word might very well come from translation issues, seeing as so much history for the Norse was oral and not written.

However, I've yet to see the word used directly when it came to most of Christian Europe. Didn't mean it didn't happen, just that they probly used a different name. Early forms of PR.

 

[OAMP]

Re: OOC thread

Yeah, if we want to extend it down that ways a bit we have even more interesting subjects to talk about. The mass trade of slaves started in that region and more to do with "Hey, we want to buy some of your food, but can't pay you. Will you accept people in the trade?" That went similar to the indentured servant line, but eventually those people would also be assimilated into larger tribes. It was very much a system that worked in a tribal/large extended family setting. It eventually morphed into the type we typically see as the modern definition through a healthy dose of "Hey, we can get rich off this too!".

Back to Europe though, PR is a good way to put it. Western Europe has always been big on lip service while whatever is the subject of the day still carried on behind closed doors. Like how peasants were theoretically free but in practice severely limited. It was a large, well maintained facade.

 

[dmronny]

Re: OOC thread

Yep, that sure looks like the right order, all I really remembered was the green Maltese cross.

So basically slavery did exist just not quite in the form one would picture in a more modern context. More along the lines of serf's and indentured servitude than walking down to the slave market and checking out the new stock. So the Byzantines basically lost Egypt and the middle east because they were dicks. Makes you wonder if there's something in the water in Turkey.

I believe the Celtic peoples also took slaves much like the Norse, though that would have been at an earlier age than the game takes place in. More the dark ages period than the middle ages period we're playing in. And yes Christians have a better PR machine, or at least they do in predominantly Christian countries.

Also as a side note. I find Byzantine history annoying for one reason. Every time I find a cool event to use for the game it either occurred much earlier or much later than I set the game. Darn you for existing forever.

 

[OAMP]

Re: OOC thread

Well, the Empire also didn't start out in the best of conditions either. I would like it to France circa 1919. They just won a Great War. Rome had just scored a Pyrrhic, final victory over Persia in a conflict that lasted over 20 years and saw Constantinople seized just a few years before the end in a last ditch effort by Persia when they allied with pretty much the entirety of the Balkans and the people who were in the modern Ukraine area. They technically won, but it might have been less painful if they lost. This was compounded by the fact that there was a plague at the time second only to the Black Death, and in fact because of a lack of records might have actually been worse than the Black Death. High estimates put the death toll for the Empire at 50% from the plague alone. Largely due to these factors, a large debt and lack of people, the people that were left were literally being taxed at greater than 100% via forced loans to try and keep the Empire together. When the Muslims marched in for the first wave they found little to no resistance, and a population that would very gladly accept the new Muslim taxes. It wasn't beyond hope for Rome though, but when their counterattacks basically cut down anyone who was outside, or even hiding indoors when they took cities back, most of the local populations decided to start actively supporting Muslim rule. While Manzikert is the traditional "final nail" that made the Empire's days numbered, the loss of Egypt was surely the first. When I did my research I found a way to put it in modern terms. Losing Egypt, practically overnight mind you, would be the equivalent of the Empire losing somewhere between 25 and 40 percent of its GDP, to say nothing about the losses in the Holy Land either. It's also worth noting that after about 20 years of this the Islamic world had a rather large Civil War and the Empire was unable to counter attack and take advantage of that at all, to show how thrown for a loop they were, heh.

 

[dmronny]

Re: OOC thread

Yeah the Justinian plague would probably be enough to bring any empire to their knees. Especially when you consider the reason that the empire got split in the first place. So it's more like they were screwed from the start and they were dicks, which led to them dying very slowly.

It's kind of funny in my opinion, on one hand you have to admire how long they lasted. On the other hand you have to wonder how they could constantly screw up so badly. You know like forgetting to close the back gate when the Venetians arrived.

Personally I would say the loss of Egypt was far worse than losing at Manzikert. Egypt would have more than likely been the breadbasket of the entire empire.

 

[OAMP]

Re: OOC thread

Egypt was important, but central Turkey was no slouch either, heh.

Also, fun fact, Manzikert only happened because the Emperor at the time had a bad case of whatever the Roman version of "'Mercia!" was, renewed a peace treaty with the Turks *as a diversion* to backstabbing them, was so incompetent he got captured, and then the leader of the turks had the foresight to realize that treating him with mercy would be so embarrassing that it would trigger a civil war with the other powerful families, which the Emperor walked right into, heh.

 

[dmronny]

Re: OOC thread

Like I said it makes you wonder how they really lasted for so long while using the three stooges to design their strategic plans.

 

[OAMP]

Re: OOC thread

They had bouts of competence. Justinian, etc. I tend to call Alexios a fool, but he did somehow manage to strengthen the Empire in other ways.

BTW, what would you say the fastest way, IC, is to determine someone's generation an clan. Asking for someone in another adventure.

 

[dmronny]

Re: OOC thread

Well I am kind of picking on them at the moment, it's not like any other country is was or is a bastion of brilliant ideas.

The only thing that really comes to mind would be the level 1 power of the thaumaturgic path of blood. I'm not sure if it can tell you which clan a vampire belongs to but it would help with determining generation and previous diablerie.

If you don't have a Tremere handy, I honestly can't think of a surefire way to determine the information. Aside from asking them and hoping they don't lie.

 

[OAMP]

Re: OOC thread

Sounds like it will work, excellent.

 

[dmronny]

Re: OOC thread

Well, good because the only other thing I can think of would likely not be that quick. Which would be using forgetful mind from dominate to basically pry into their mind, like an illithid without the tentacles. Well actually there might be tentacles if your a Lasombra.

 

[OAMP]

Re: OOC thread

Well the other proposed solutions weren't available. "Ask" has problems beyond rudeness when your sire up and vanishes. The other idea was "fully drink some mortals and see how long it takes to fill up".

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: OOC thread

Somehow an Illithid doesn't seem as fun without tentacles.

 

[dmronny]

Re: OOC thread

If it were a Sabbat game, the seeing how long it takes to fill up on mortals would have been my choice.

And that's why the Lasombra are best, we get tentacles and mind control powers.

 

[Ranger Princess]

Re: OOC thread

Eliza would make sure it's fun. For her. >.>

 

[dmronny]

Re: OOC thread

I'm sure she would.

I needeth some ideas if anyone has some. I've been trying to come up with different origin myths for vampires. Possibly for use in this game, though it's more because I wonder about weird things when I'm bored. So can anyone think of any ancient cultures or even newer cultures that seem to be perfect for any of the clans. Or any myths that make you think of certain clans?

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: OOC thread

Well I know the Lhiannon just scream Pagan Celts. Hell, Lhiannon Shee is already a vampiric like fae from the Isle of Man (Called Leannan sith in Scottish Gaelic, or Leanan Sidhe in more common Irish Gaelic, the first I posted as in Manx, a language from the Isle of Man).

The Leanhaun Shee (fairy mistress) seeks the love of mortals. If they refuse, she must be their slave; if they consent, they are hers, and can only escape by finding another to take their place. The fairy lives on their life, and they waste away. Death is no escape from her. She is the Gaelic muse, for she gives inspiration to those she persecutes. The Gaelic poets die young, for she is restless, and will not let them remain long on earth—this malignant phantom.

There's a handful of other Celtic vampire like entities. Including Droch-fhola (pronounced Droc-ola) which means Evil Blood. Seem a little familiar?