<GRAYHAWK> Greyhawk parallel nations and races
Adrian Frost
The Flannes the part of Greyhawk most players are familiar with parallels
Europe between 1400 and 1550. This was a time of great exploration and new
science. Below is a list of nations and their nearest European parallels at
the time. This list is meant as a springboard to provide mental hooks for
the players and create a sense of familiarity with the world. There
are some gaps and I would appreciate any comments you may have.
AMEDIO JUNGLE, South America
HOLD OF THE SEA PRINCES, The west Indies
THE YEOMANRY, Southern England
KINGDOM OF KEOLAND, England
COUNTY OF ULEK, Cornwall
DUCHY OF ULEK, Ireland
PRINCIPALITY OF ULEK, Wales
GRAN MARCH, Scotland
EARLDOM OF STERICH, Germany
GRAND DUCHY OF GEOFF, Austria
MARCH OF BISSEL, Switzerland
ARCHCLERICY OF VELUNA, Papal Italy
KINGDOM OF FURYONDY, France
SHIELD LANDS, Teutonic Knights
KET, Ottoman Empire
TUSMIT, Ottoman Empire
EKBIR, CALIPHATE OF, Ottoman Empire
SULTANATE OF ZEIF, Ottoman Empire
PLAINS OF THE PAYNIMS (TRIBES OF), Ottoman Empire
ULL, Ottoman Empire
PERRENLAND, Transylvania
TIGER NOMADS(CHAKYIK), Mongols
WOLF NOMADS (WEGWIUR), Mongols
LAND OF IUZ, Russia (Ivan the Terrible)
BANDIT KINGDOMS, Part of Russian empire
HORNED SOCIETY, Part of Russian empire
BLACKMOOR Siberia
SNOW BARBARIANS(SCHNAI), Conan style Viking Barbarians (Netherlands)
ICE BARBARIANS (CRUSKI), Conan style Viking Barbarians (Netherlands)
FROST BARBARIANS, Conan style Viking Barbarians (Netherlands)
DUCHY OF TENH, Bohemia
THEOCRACY OF PALE, Inquisition
GREAT KINGDOM (THE KINGDOM OF AERDY) Holy Roman Empire
FREE CITY OF GREYHAWK, Italian City state.
NYROND, Denmark?
SCARLET BROTHERHOOD, India Thugies
HEMPOMONOLAND, Africa, in its northern quarter is peopled by fair skinned
people, south of this black skinned people dwell
These areas of the flannes I could not place, heres where I need the most
help, Guys and Gals.
ALMOR ????
BONE MARCH ????
CELENE, KINGDOM OF, Tolken's Elves (Gladrel ?)
DYVERS, FREE AND INDEPENDENT CITY ???
HIGHFOLK, (INDEPENDENT TOWN) ????
HIGHFOLK (VALLEY OF THE VELVERDYVA) ????
IDEE ????
FREE CITY OF IRONGATE, ????
LORDSHIP OF THE ISLES (PRINCIPALITY), MEMBER OF THE IRON LEAGUE ???
MEDEGIA, ????
FREE STATE OF ONNWALL, ????
POMARJ ????
ARCHBARONY OF RATIK, ????
CITY OF REL ASTRA, ????
SEA BARONS ????
SOUTH PROVINCE ????
SPINDRIFT ISLES ????
COUNTY OF URNST, ????
DUCHY OF URNST, ????
VALLEY OF THE MAGE ????
VISCOUNTY AND TOWN OF VERBOBONC, ????
WILD COAST ????
HOLD OF STONEFIST, ????
ROVERS OF THE BARRENS, ????
COUNTY OF SUNNDI, ????
If The World of Greyhawk follows European History large parts of the Globe
are due to be discovered, In the 1996 Dragon Annual a map of Greyhawk was
published although it is criticised as very unimaginative, it includes the
following nations and places.
Nippon: A densely populated island nation of fishermen, warriors, and poets.
Japan (Oriental adventures)
Nippon Dominion: A protectorate only recently conquered by the warriors of
Nippon. Korea
Zindia: A tropical land where rich cities rise from steaming jungles. India
Celestial Imperium: A vast nation peopled with a hard-working peasantry
ruled by a complex bureaucracy. China (Oriental adventures)
Wall of Tsian: A massive fortification separating the Celestial Imperium
from Orcreich, a formidable deterrent to anyone but the king of Orcreich.
The Imperium has begun another, even grander wall farther west. Great Wall
of China
High Khanate: An and land peopled by two tribes of sturdy nomads. Mongols
again
Low Khanate: A companion realm to the High Khanate; named more for its
location in a deep vale below the mountains than for any inferior status. A
hidden valley reputedly contains the tombs of khans from both realms. More
Mongols
Erypt: An arid land ruled by a dynasty of priest kings. Ancient Egypt.
Orientals, Asians, Chinese and Japanese can now be added to your GH
Champaign with impunity. We already have the Baklundi who are very obvious
Arabs (AQ) and the Olmen who are a parallel Central American Indian.
Doc Mindie
Adrian Frost <frro...@frrosties.screaming.net> wrote in message
news:3915...@news.server.worldonline.co.uk...
Netherlands??????????????????
The Vikings came from Scandinavia (Norway and Denmark travelled west and
south in Europe, and Sweden, which travelled up the Russian Rivers). It
might be that the SOCIETY of the Snow, Ice and Frost Barbarians resembles
the netherlands, but then they won't be Vikings.
SundanceKG
>style Viking Barbarians (Netherlands)
>Excuse me, but since WHEN did the Vikings come from the
>Netherlands??????????????????
>The Vikings came from Scandinavia (Norway and Denmark travelled west and
>south in Europe, and Sweden, which travelled up the Russian Rivers). It
>might be that the SOCIETY of the Snow, Ice and Frost Barbarians resembles
>the netherlands, but then they won't be Vikings.
Actually...the Vikings/Norse peoples were very widespread. The languages spoken
in the Netherlands are an offshoot of those spoken in Norway, Sweden,
Denmark..that is, the pre languages spoken by the same tribes.Heck, Normandy
comes from the term Northman, because it was settled by Vikings to protect the
coast from raiders. Ireland and parts of Britain/Angleland were also conquered
by the Vikings.
I don't know whether the Netherlanders were Barbarians, but then, neither were
the Vikings. Time Magazine just ran a grewat article on the Vikings, and in
many ways they were more advanced then the so called civilized peoples.
Conan style barbarians are more akin to the Picts, Celts, Gauls etc fought by
the Romans.
SundanceKG
EARLDOM OF STERICH, Germany
> GRAND DUCHY OF GEOFF, Austria
Way way off....in fact you contradict yourself later on. Holy Roman Empire was
Germany. I don't have my lists, but Sterich and Geoff are not Germanic. IMHO,
the "Holy Roman Empire" of GH strecched from Furyondy to Nyrond to the Great
Kingdom. As it disintegrated, Furyondy became the French part, Nyrond the
German, and the GK an Austrian/East Germany/Russian hybrid.
> MARCH OF BISSEL, Switzerland
> ARCHCLERICY OF VELUNA, Papal Italy
> KINGDOM OF FURYONDY, France
> SHIELD LANDS, Teutonic Knights
> KET, Ottoman Empire
> TUSMIT, Ottoman Empire
> EKBIR, CALIPHATE OF, Ottoman Empire
> SULTANATE OF ZEIF, Ottoman Empire
> PLAINS OF THE PAYNIMS (TRIBES OF), Ottoman Empire
> ULL, Ottoman Empire
Hmmm Ottoman Empire..I usually think of Turkey...but some of these are more
akin to Baghdadish Arabian sultantes.
> PERRENLAND, Transylvania
Perrenalnd is definitly Switzerland.
> TIGER NOMADS(CHAKYIK), Mongols
> WOLF NOMADS (WEGWIUR), Mongols
> LAND OF IUZ, Russia (Ivan the Terrible)
> BANDIT KINGDOMS, Part of Russian empire
> HORNED SOCIETY, Part of Russian empire
Iuz is the Sauron of GH, not Ivan the Terrible.
> BLACKMOOR Siberia
> SNOW BARBARIANS(SCHNAI), Conan style Viking Barbarians (Netherlands)
> ICE BARBARIANS (CRUSKI), Conan style Viking Barbarians (Netherlands)
> FROST BARBARIANS, Conan style Viking Barbarians (Netherlands)
Excuse me, but since WHEN did the Vikings come from the
Netherlands??????????????????
The Vikings came from Scandinavia (Norway and Denmark travelled west and
south in Europe, and Sweden, which travelled up the Russian Rivers). It
might be that the SOCIETY of the Snow, Ice and Frost Barbarians resembles
the netherlands, but then they won't be Vikings.
> DUCHY OF TENH, Bohemia
Doc Mindie
SundanceKG <sunda...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000508194317...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
> >From: "Doc Mindie" mind...@sensewave.com
>
> >style Viking Barbarians (Netherlands)
> >Excuse me, but since WHEN did the Vikings come from the
> >Netherlands??????????????????
> >The Vikings came from Scandinavia (Norway and Denmark travelled west and
> >south in Europe, and Sweden, which travelled up the Russian Rivers). It
> >might be that the SOCIETY of the Snow, Ice and Frost Barbarians resembles
> >the netherlands, but then they won't be Vikings.
>
spoken
> in the Netherlands are an offshoot of those spoken in Norway, Sweden,
> Denmark..that is, the pre languages spoken by the same tribes.Heck,
Normandy
> comes from the term Northman, because it was settled by Vikings to protect
the
> coast from raiders. Ireland and parts of Britain/Angleland were also
conquered
> by the Vikings.
>
> I don't know whether the Netherlanders were Barbarians, but then, neither
were
> the Vikings. Time Magazine just ran a grewat article on the Vikings, and
in
> many ways they were more advanced then the so called civilized peoples.
>
> Conan style barbarians are more akin to the Picts, Celts, Gauls etc fought
by
> the Romans.
from Norway, I believe I have my country's history pinpointed. The Vikings
were also the first to discover America, Leiv Eirikson came to what he
called "Vinland" more than 450 years before Columbus re-discovered America.
It is also believed that mr. Columbus knew about Leiv Eirikson, and wanted
to find the land that the Viking chief had discovered almost half a
millennium before.
If you read some of the files on the subject, you will find that some of the
british or the french (right now I don't remember which of the two) great
discoverers, met Indians with BLUE eyes, in the Canadian forests. (Since it
is in Canada, I do believe the men that went in there were french).
As we all know, Indians has dark brown eyes. These Indians had blue, as the
scandinavian people has always had.
And, todays Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, English and German languages, all
derives from ancient German, in one form or another.
Regards, Doc Mindie
Staffan Johansson
>
> from Norway, I believe I have my country's history pinpointed. The Vikings
> were also the first to discover America, Leiv Eirikson came to what he
I think the Indians (or is Native Americans the term in vogue these
days?) would like to disagree with that.
--
Staffan Johansson (bal...@crosswinds.net)
http://www.crosswinds.net/~baloosj
"Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time."
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
Peter Seebach
Staffan Johansson <bal...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>Doc Mindie wrote:
>>
>> from Norway, I believe I have my country's history pinpointed. The Vikings
>> were also the first to discover America, Leiv Eirikson came to what he
>I think the Indians (or is Native Americans the term in vogue these
>days?) would like to disagree with that.
Yes, but it's really hard to tell; both groups were here *long* before the
1400's, at least once. No One Knows.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
Staffan Johansson
>
> In article <391B359A...@crosswinds.net>,
> Staffan Johansson <bal...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
> >Doc Mindie wrote:
> >>
> >> from Norway, I believe I have my country's history pinpointed. The Vikings
> >> were also the first to discover America, Leiv Eirikson came to what he
>
> >I think the Indians (or is Native Americans the term in vogue these
> >days?) would like to disagree with that.
>
> Yes, but it's really hard to tell; both groups were here *long* before the
> 1400's, at least once. No One Knows.
AFAIK, Vikings first set foot in the Americas around 800-1000 AD (or
so). Indians had been there for a thousand years or so (maybe more)
before that.
kurt63
>AD (or so). Indians had been there for a thousand years or so
>(maybe more) before that.
Actually, some research now is beginning to suggest that the so-
called "Native-Americans" were not the original discoverers of
the Americas either. An old skeleton in Chile seems to have the
same characteristics as Australian Aborigines, and some others
might be of a different racial group, similar to the Japanese
Anu.
Mind you, it's all VERY controversial at this point. (I just
love spearing sacred cows, though!)
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Peter Seebach
kurt63 <kurt63N...@altavista.net.invalid> wrote:
>Actually, some research now is beginning to suggest that the so-
>called "Native-Americans" were not the original discoverers of
>the Americas either. An old skeleton in Chile seems to have the
>same characteristics as Australian Aborigines, and some others
>might be of a different racial group, similar to the Japanese
>Anu.
>Mind you, it's all VERY controversial at this point. (I just
>love spearing sacred cows, though!)
Yes. They've even got a couple skeletons over 9k years old that appear to
be Caucasian.
Obviously, this is politically troublesome. That's the problem with science.
kurt63
>appear to be Caucasian.
>
>Obviously, this is politically troublesome. That's the problem
>with science.
Yes, I hate it when reality interferes with my agenda. :-)
Steve Miller
(And there's even a GH parallel to them! :) )
Steve Miller
Writer of Stuff
And Jesus, he knows me, and he knows I'm right.
I've been talking to Jesus all my life.
--Genesis, "Jesus He Knows Me"
scott
<kurt63N...@altavista.net.invalid> wrote:
> >AFAIK, Vikings first set foot in the Americas around 800-1000
> >AD (or so). Indians had been there for a thousand years or so
> >(maybe more) before that.
>
> Actually, some research now is beginning to suggest that the so-
> called "Native-Americans" were not the original discoverers of
> the Americas either. An old skeleton in Chile seems to have the
> same characteristics as Australian Aborigines, and some others
> might be of a different racial group, similar to the Japanese
> Anu.
>
> Mind you, it's all VERY controversial at this point. (I just
> love spearing sacred cows, though!)
There is also some interesting "archeological evidence" that the
vikings weren't the first European's to find the Americas. I recently
finished a book by Farley Mowatt called _The Farfarers_ that explores
the idea that a group of people he calls the alba were the first
Europeans to reach Iceland, Norway, and Canada. And there may even have
been transatlantic trade before the Vikings reached Canada.
Dragar Steelepoint
Master of the Blade
______________________________________________________________________
The World of Irial, The Grimoire Arcana, The World Shapers' Page, & My
AD&D Page at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/1820/
"Putting the F U in FUN."
kurt63
>Americans!
>
>(And there's even a GH parallel to them! :) )
Why, thank you for writing, Mr. Von Daniken.
kurt63
>>>AD (or so). Indians had been there for a thousand years or so
>>>(maybe more) before that.
>>
>>Actually, some research now is beginning to suggest that the
>>so- called "Native-Americans" were not the original
>>discoverers of the Americas either. An old skeleton in Chile
>>seems to have the same characteristics as Australian
>>Aborigines, and some others might be of a different racial
>>group, similar to the Japanese Anu.
>>Mind you, it's all VERY controversial at this point. (I just
>>love spearing sacred cows, though!)
>
>There is also some interesting "archeological evidence" that
>the vikings weren't the first European's to find the Americas.
>I recently finished a book by Farley Mowatt called _The
>Farfarers_ that explores the idea that a group of people he
>calls the alba were the first Europeans to reach Iceland,
>Norway, and Canada. And there may even have been transatlantic
>trade before the Vikings reached Canada.
What a coincidence, I just finished that book last week. I found
it intriguing in general, but I thought he went WAY too far out
on a limb. In particular, his rewriting of the Icelandic sagas
struck me as odd.
Nonetheless, it is becoming obvious that there is more out there
than was covered in the history books they handed me as a kid.
Doc Mindie
kurt63 <kurt63N...@altavista.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:2d2ae7c4...@usw-ex0103-018.remarq.com...
> >>>AFAIK, Vikings first set foot in the Americas around 800-1000
> >>>AD (or so). Indians had been there for a thousand years or so
> >>>(maybe more) before that.
> >>
> >>Actually, some research now is beginning to suggest that the
> >>so- called "Native-Americans" were not the original
> >>discoverers of the Americas either. An old skeleton in Chile
> >>seems to have the same characteristics as Australian
> >>Aborigines, and some others might be of a different racial
> >>group, similar to the Japanese Anu.
> >>Mind you, it's all VERY controversial at this point. (I just
> >>love spearing sacred cows, though!)
> >
> >There is also some interesting "archeological evidence" that
> >the vikings weren't the first European's to find the Americas.
> >I recently finished a book by Farley Mowatt called _The
> >Farfarers_ that explores the idea that a group of people he
> >calls the alba were the first Europeans to reach Iceland,
> >Norway, and Canada. And there may even have been transatlantic
> >trade before the Vikings reached Canada.
>
> What a coincidence, I just finished that book last week. I found
> it intriguing in general, but I thought he went WAY too far out
> on a limb. In particular, his rewriting of the Icelandic sagas
> struck me as odd.
>
> Nonetheless, it is becoming obvious that there is more out there
> than was covered in the history books they handed me as a kid.
>
to Canada, are the Norwegian Vikings. I must add that I have not read _the
farfarers_, and in the foreseeable future, I don't think I am able to read
it either. :=( But thanks for the hint, anyway.
And for the Indian/Viking "who came first": Leiv Eiriksson wrote that he met
people in "Vinland" (his name of the "newfound" land), that lived in the
woods. He is definitely talking about the Indians.
As for the Aboriginals: I haven't heard of that, so I won't comment on it
until then
kurt63
>wrote that he met people in "Vinland" (his name of
>the "newfound" land), that lived in the woods. He is definitely
>talking about the Indians.
LOL. As far as I know, NOBODY is suggesting that the Vikings got
here before the indians!
Peter Seebach
kurt63 <kurt63N...@altavista.net.invalid> wrote:
>>And for the Indian/Viking "who came first": Leiv Eiriksson
>>wrote that he met people in "Vinland" (his name of
>>the "newfound" land), that lived in the woods. He is definitely
>>talking about the Indians.
>LOL. As far as I know, NOBODY is suggesting that the Vikings got
>here before the indians!
Uhm, Kennewick Man. 9,300 years ago, does not look to be related to the
"Indians" either in skeletal structure or genetic material. The problem
is, it's politically damaging for people who were here a long time ago
not to be from that ethnic group, so lawsuits are always filed to "reclaim"
the bones and hide them, before anyone gets conclusive evidence that, say,
the body actually belongs to someone with different ancestry.
There's a fair bit of other reason to suspect that some of the earliest
inhabitants were not from Asia at all, originally... Which, of course,
confuses everyone.
Do some more research.
Adrian Frost
I posted this to reveal any flaws, I got a bit mixed up with Scandinavia and
the Netherlands thanks for pointing this out it will be corrected. Bissell
and Perrenland should be swapped Transylvania and Swisserland. Sterich
should be Prussia not Germany. I don't think it contradicts its self, this
is Greyhawk and fitting real places and nations into the map should be taken
with a huge pinch of salt. It has already been pointed out that I am over
200 years ahead in my estimate of period, but elements of Greyhawk run from
the dark ages to early renaissance. I will compile an updated list and I
appreciate your input. Again thanks guys.
EARLDOM OF STERICH, Germany
> GRAND DUCHY OF GEOFF, Austria
Way way off....in fact you contradict yourself later on. Holy Roman Empire
was
Germany. I don't have my lists, but Sterich and Geoff are not Germanic.
IMHO,
the "Holy Roman Empire" of GH stretched from Furyondy to Nyrond to the Great
Kingdom. As it disintegrated, Furyondy became the French part, Nyrond the
German, and the GK an Austrian/East Germany/Russian hybrid.
> MARCH OF BISSEL, Switzerland
> ARCHCLERICY OF VELUNA, Papal Italy
> KINGDOM OF FURYONDY, France
> SHIELD LANDS, Teutonic Knights
> KET, Ottoman Empire
> TUSMIT, Ottoman Empire
> EKBIR, CALIPHATE OF, Ottoman Empire
> SULTANATE OF ZEIF, Ottoman Empire
> PLAINS OF THE PAYNIMS (TRIBES OF), Ottoman Empire
> ULL, Ottoman Empire
Hmmm Ottoman Empire..I usually think of Turkey...but some of these are more
akin to Baghdadish Arabian sultanates.
> PERRENLAND, Transylvania
Perrenland is definitely Switzerland.
> TIGER NOMADS(CHAKYIK), Mongols
> WOLF NOMADS (WEGWIUR), Mongols
> LAND OF IUZ, Russia (Ivan the Terrible)
> BANDIT KINGDOMS, Part of Russian empire
> HORNED SOCIETY, Part of Russian empire
Iuz is the Sauron of GH, not Ivan the Terrible.
> BLACKMOOR Siberia
> SNOW BARBARIANS(SCHNAI), Conan style Viking Barbarians (Netherlands)
> ICE BARBARIANS (CRUSKI), Conan style Viking Barbarians (Netherlands)
> FROST BARBARIANS, Conan style Viking Barbarians (Netherlands)
Excuse me, but since WHEN did the Vikings come from the
Netherlands??????????????????
The Vikings came from Scandinavia (Norway and Denmark travelled west and
south in Europe, and Sweden, which travelled up the Russian Rivers). It
might be that the SOCIETY of the Snow, Ice and Frost Barbarians resembles
the Netherlands, but then they won't be Vikings.
> DUCHY OF TENH, Bohemia
> THEOCRACY OF PALE, Inquisition
> GREAT KINGDOM (THE KINGDOM OF AERDY) Holy Roman Empire
> FREE CITY OF GREYHAWK, Italian City state.
> NYROND, Denmark?
> SCARLET BROTHERHOOD, India Thugies
> HEMPOMONOLAND, Africa, in its northern quarter is peopled by fair skinned
> people, south of this black skinned people dwell
>
"Doc Mindie" <mind...@sensewave.com> wrote in message
news:8f75jt$7lp$1...@news.ost.eltele.no...
>
> Adrian Frost <frro...@frrosties.screaming.net> wrote in message
> news:3915...@news.server.worldonline.co.uk...
> > Greyhawk parallel nations and races
> >
> > The Flannes the part of Greyhawk most players are familiar with
parallels
> > Europe between 1400 and 1550. This was a time of great exploration and
new
> > science. Below is a list of nations and their nearest European parallels
> at
> > the time. This list is meant as a springboard to provide mental hooks
for
> > the players and create a sense of familiarity with the world. There
> > are some gaps and I would appreciate any comments you may have.
> >
> > AMEDIO JUNGLE, South America
> > HOLD OF THE SEA PRINCES, The west Indies
> > THE YEOMANRY, Southern England
> > KINGDOM OF KEOLAND, England
> > COUNTY OF ULEK, Cornwall
> > DUCHY OF ULEK, Ireland
> > PRINCIPALITY OF ULEK, Wales
> > GRAN MARCH, Scotland
> > EARLDOM OF STERICH, Germany
> > GRAND DUCHY OF GEOFF, Austria
> > MARCH OF BISSEL, Switzerland
> > ARCHCLERICY OF VELUNA, Papal Italy
> > KINGDOM OF FURYONDY, France
> > SHIELD LANDS, Teutonic Knights
> > KET, Ottoman Empire
> > TUSMIT, Ottoman Empire
> > EKBIR, CALIPHATE OF, Ottoman Empire
> > SULTANATE OF ZEIF, Ottoman Empire
> > PLAINS OF THE PAYNIMS (TRIBES OF), Ottoman Empire
> > ULL, Ottoman Empire
> > PERRENLAND, Transylvania
> > TIGER NOMADS(CHAKYIK), Mongols
> > WOLF NOMADS (WEGWIUR), Mongols
> > LAND OF IUZ, Russia (Ivan the Terrible)
> > BANDIT KINGDOMS, Part of Russian empire
> > HORNED SOCIETY, Part of Russian empire
> > BLACKMOOR Siberia
> > SNOW BARBARIANS(SCHNAI), Conan style Viking Barbarians (Netherlands)
> > ICE BARBARIANS (CRUSKI), Conan style Viking Barbarians (Netherlands)
> > FROST BARBARIANS, Conan style Viking Barbarians (Netherlands)
> Excuse me, but since WHEN did the Vikings come from the
> Netherlands??????????????????
> The Vikings came from Scandinavia (Norway and Denmark travelled west and
> south in Europe, and Sweden, which travelled up the Russian Rivers). It
> might be that the SOCIETY of the Snow, Ice and Frost Barbarians resembles
> the netherlands, but then they won't be Vikings.
>
> > DUCHY OF TENH, Bohemia
> > THEOCRACY OF PALE, Inquisition
> > GREAT KINGDOM (THE KINGDOM OF AERDY) Holy Roman Empire
> > FREE CITY OF GREYHAWK, Italian City state.
> > NYROND, Denmark?
> > SCARLET BROTHERHOOD, India Thugies
> > HEMPOMONOLAND, Africa, in its northern quarter is peopled by fair
skinned
> > people, south of this black skinned people dwell
> >
SundanceKG
>Thanks for replying guys I thought this thread was dead.
>I posted this to reveal any flaws, I got a bit mixed up with Scandinavia and
>the Netherlands thanks for pointing this out it will be corrected. Bissell
>and Perrenland should be swapped Transylvania and Swisserland. Sterich
>should be Prussia not Germany. I don't think it contradicts its self, this
>is Greyhawk and fitting real places and nations into the map should be taken
>with a huge pinch of salt. It has already been pointed out that I am over
>200 years ahead in my estimate of period, but elements of Greyhawk run from
>the dark ages to early renaissance. I will compile an updated list and I
>appreciate your input. Again thanks guys.
Hmmmm How about Poland instead of Prussia??? Or maybe something else entirely.
why? because if your trace the influx of the Oeridians, the Suel and mix in the
Flan and a pinch of the Baklunish, you will get cultures next door to one
another that are simialr yet different. Furyondy is to France that Veluna is to
Spain that GH is to Italy....similar languages and cultures, but not the same
as the English group down south with keoland, yeomanry, etc.
I even traced the language roots so that they would make sense....mix Suel and
Oeridian and you get German...Mix Suel and Oeridian and Flan and you get
English.....mix Oeridian and Flan and you get the "Romance" languages.
Just sticking Sterich as a Germanic/Slavic state in the middle of the
"English/Briton" areas doesn;t sit. Of course its a made up fantasy world, but
players will appreciate that things make sense....
kurt63
>>got here before the indians!
>
>Uhm, Kennewick Man. 9,300 years ago, does not look to be
>related to the "Indians" either in skeletal structure or
>genetic material. The problem is, it's politically damaging for
>people who were here a long time ago not to be from that ethnic
>group, so lawsuits are always filed to "reclaim"
>the bones and hide them, before anyone gets conclusive evidence
>that, say, the body actually belongs to someone with different
>ancestry.
>
>There's a fair bit of other reason to suspect that some of the
>earliest inhabitants were not from Asia at all, originally...
>Which, of course, confuses everyone.
>
>Do some more research.
I made the same point about Indians days ago. However, the
Vikings are usually considered to be Nordic people who began
raiding in the 8th century. In general, it is not correct to
consider pre-8th century Scandinavians Vikings, as "Viking"
meant piratical raiding.
Indeed, if you go back some 3000 years, you will find a people
living in Scandinavia probably spoke a different language than
the later Vikings and were probably from a different set of
tribes. Some old legends speak of the Scandinavians coming from
central Russia, perhaps being from the same area as the Goths.
I would suggest that you are the one in need of more research.
(A recent show on TLC suggested that Kennewick Man might have
been from the same genetic group as the Anu, a rather Caucasoid-
looking group found now in Japan.)
Adrian Frost
> >appreciate your input. Again thanks guys.
>
entirely.
>
> why? because if your trace the influx of the Oeridians, the Suel and mix
in the
> Flan and a pinch of the Baklunish, you will get cultures next door to one
> another that are simialr yet different. Furyondy is to France that Veluna
is to
> Spain that GH is to Italy....similar languages and cultures, but not the
same
> as the English group down south with keoland, yeomanry, etc.
>
> I even traced the language roots so that they would make sense....mix Suel
and
> Oeridian and you get German...Mix Suel and Oeridian and Flan and you get
> English.....mix Oeridian and Flan and you get the "Romance" languages.
>
> Just sticking Sterich as a Germanic/Slavic state in the middle of the
> "English/Briton" areas doesn;t sit. Of course its a made up fantasy world,
but
> players will appreciate that things make sense....
Thanks SundanceKG this is just the kind of impute I wanted. I suppose in my
treatment of the list I left out allot of detail and had nations I wanted to
put somewhere. The main unconscious point that flavours my thinking is
Fantasy and Fairy Tail fictional traditions of certain cultures, not true
historical realities. When I say Germany for sterich I associate Germanic
legend and lore with the region. I'm thinking Wargner, Dwarfs and Giants
tall heroic fighters rich beer in huge flagons a nation influenced by its
Giantish and Dwalfen mountain neighbours.
Fantasy is a key element I have overlooked in my previous treatments of the
subject, I should probably tack litary notation next to the countries
assigned.
As examples only.
Sterich: Germany/ Wargner ring cycle
Geoff: Austria/ Brothers Grimm
Bissell: Transylvania/ Dracula/ werewolves/ Frankenstein / Hammer Horror.
Ulek: Ireland / Celtic / Bards / Druids / wee folk / Irish culture legends
and music etc
What do you think?
The whole list was meant as an ideas engine.
I am just trying to get some general consensus and agreement on its very
wide principals.
I felt to add to much detail and rational behind the decisions made would
stamp to much of my own personality and failings on the whole project.
Feel free to add amend and cut to fit the whole cloth to fit your own taste.
Was this list of any use to anyone?
Thanks for reading
Frostie
SundanceKG
>What do you think?
>
>The whole list was meant as an ideas engine.
>I am just trying to get some general consensus and agreement on its very
>wide principals.
>I felt to add to much detail and rational behind the decisions made would
>stamp to much of my own personality and failings on the whole project.
>Feel free to add amend and cut to fit the whole cloth to fit your own taste.
>
>Was this list of any use to anyone?
>
>Thanks for reading
>Frostie
>
>
>
Very interesting! What I hoped to show you was that things are gonna be there
for a reason, not because it just got plopped down there....
Doc Mindie
kurt63 <kurt63N...@altavista.net.invalid> wrote in message
> >>LOL. As far as I know, NOBODY is suggesting that the Vikings
> >>got here before the indians!
> >
> >Uhm, Kennewick Man. 9,300 years ago, does not look to be
> >related to the "Indians" either in skeletal structure or
> >genetic material. The problem is, it's politically damaging for
> >people who were here a long time ago not to be from that ethnic
> >group, so lawsuits are always filed to "reclaim"
> >the bones and hide them, before anyone gets conclusive evidence
> >that, say, the body actually belongs to someone with different
> >ancestry.
> >
> >There's a fair bit of other reason to suspect that some of the
> >earliest inhabitants were not from Asia at all, originally...
> >Which, of course, confuses everyone.
> >
> >Do some more research.
>
> I made the same point about Indians days ago. However, the
> Vikings are usually considered to be Nordic people who began
> raiding in the 8th century. In general, it is not correct to
> consider pre-8th century Scandinavians Vikings, as "Viking"
> meant piratical raiding.
>
Vikings didn't raid anything, anywhere, they just went out to tradde their
goods with something they didn't have access to here in the Norwegian
fjords. The norwegians had lot's of dried fish, timber, and reindeer-skins,
which they traded for some pottery, jewelry and such.
Those that DID go for raiding, though, is apparently those that are the most
known outside of Scandinavia.
Another thing that the Vikings were famous for, is their longships. Other
countries, and later norwegian ships, are not of the elegant style, yet very
strong in sea, as these old longships f the Vikings. Say whatever you want,
but they DID know how a ship should be build
Regards, Doc Mindie
kurt63
>longships. Other countries, and later norwegian ships, are not
>of the elegant style, yet very strong in sea, as these old
>longships f the Vikings. Say whatever you want, but they DID
>know how a ship should be build
I once saw an article on some guy in Minnesota or Wisconsin who
makes/made fishing boats using the same techniques as the
Vikings, complete with the dragon head. Now that would be a cool
boat to have!
Adrian Frost
I suppose the reason behind the whole project, was the theory that
Oreth=Earth and they are in some way parallels, if only in the same way all
fantasy worlds are parallels of earth. Oreth by its very nature is a
product of western culture that is a product of mainly European history and
literature. The fact that the part of Oreth that is mapped has nations and
so does Europe, led to these comparisons. I do not think Gary Gygax took a
pair of scissors to a map of Europe and created Greyhawk. There is no easy
way of pidgin holing the nations of Greyhawk, their descriptions are vague
at as best, as was the intention. The nations of Greyhawk are their own
properties. We have an infinite capacity to reason and rationalise things no
matter how implausible, that's how fantasy and religion work. We look for
the pattern even if it is not really there, (which its not in this case) we
fill the gaps with our poor and limited knowledge, thinking we have grasped
the larger picture. With Greyhawk its adornments are made of the cloth of
our myths and legends. The Knights in shining armour of the Shield Lands
come from legends and fairy tails of the age of chivalry, this is its direct
source and we must not forget this, but these legends come from real world
events people and places. It was this familial relationship that I was
exploring in assigning European nations to the Greyhawk nations, the
fictional and fantasy traditions of each real world nation, the accents,
stereotypes and story types. To give a setting to a certain brands of
adventure, Gothic Horror, High Romance, Arabian Adventures, Celtic legends,
Piratical plunder and where is an appropriate place to set this kind of
adventure. The list was meant as a guide not a straight jacket, to prevent
glaring discontinuities. It provides a loose framework to place your
stereotypical populace and occasional character/NPC. He's an Arabian
prince...hhmmm. ekbirs a good place, he's a swashbuckling freebooter....
maybe furyondy, he a Conan type barbarian.... Snow, Ice, Frost barbarians
and so on. I would like to expand on the list and provide commentaries for
each nation more along the lines of the types of PCs, monsters and material
each nation produces. Detailing fictional and factual sources of inspiration
for each region.
sifa...@my-deja.com
> >Actually, some research now is beginning to suggest that the so-
> >called "Native-Americans" were not the original discoverers of
> >the Americas either. An old skeleton in Chile seems to have the
> >same characteristics as Australian Aborigines, and some others
> >might be of a different racial group, similar to the Japanese
> >Anu.
Yes and no. First, the idea of 'discovery' is a bit anachronistic.
Second, yes it does appear that there were multiple waves of settlement
of the Americas before Columbus. However, your statement presumes that
the different morphological groups did not mix. That seems highly
unlikely, moreover, at a time depth of more than 20k years as some of
these presumed remains are, morphology is as likely to change as not.
In short, these guys whose skeletal remains look different from
contemporary Native Americans are as likely to be ancestral to current
Native Americans as not. Ergo, there is no real moral challenge to
Native Americans vis a vis the Europeans -- but we do learn that
simplistic ideas about descent and 'race' have little value in a
scientific understanding of the past.
> >Mind you, it's all VERY controversial at this point. (I just
> >love spearing sacred cows, though!)
It would be better if you understood the science before pretending to
spear anything.
> Yes. They've even got a couple skeletons over 9k years old that
appear to
> be Caucasian.
No, that's media badly understanding initial reports on Kennewick man.
Their features are currently connected to a morphological type known to
have been extant in Asia in a similar time frame, ressembling the Ainu
among others as the prior poster suggested, but not 'caucasian' as
popularly understood.
> Obviously, this is politically troublesome. That's the problem with
science.
Yes, rather. All around. However, once you understand the science, it
really doesn't pose much of a political problem one way or another.
Unless you are a creationist of one type or another.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
sifa...@my-deja.com
> Actually...the Vikings/Norse peoples were very widespread. The
languages spoken
> in the Netherlands are an offshoot of those spoken in Norway, Sweden,
> Denmark..that is, the pre languages spoken by the same tribes.
What? Rubbish. Dutch is a low German dialect related to other lowlands
German languages. No more closely related to the Nordic langauges than
English is, or any other lowlands Germanic language.
> Heck,
Normandy
> comes from the term Northman, because it was settled by Vikings to
protect the
> coast from raiders.
Yes, although they adopted French rather rapidly.
> I don't know whether the Netherlanders were Barbarians, but then,
neither were
> the Vikings. Time Magazine just ran a grewat article on the Vikings,
and in
> many ways they were more advanced then the so called civilized
peoples.
Eh? Well, I guess everyone has to try to rescue their ethnicity. Well,
tyring to fit history into FRP categories is always a painful thing to
see.
sifa...@my-deja.com
> >LOL. As far as I know, NOBODY is suggesting that the Vikings got
> >here before the indians!
>
> Uhm, Kennewick Man. 9,300 years ago, does not look to be related to
the
> "Indians" either in skeletal structure or genetic material. The
problem
> is, it's politically damaging for people who were here a long time ago
> not to be from that ethnic group, so lawsuits are always filed to
"reclaim"
> the bones and hide them, before anyone gets conclusive evidence that,
say,
> the body actually belongs to someone with different ancestry.
Wrong: (1) skeletal morphology is different from current residents but
matches some presumed Asian migrants (e.g. of Ainu like charectaristics
- to note, although old texts describe the Ainu as 'caucasian' recent
DNA testing conclusively demonstrates they are not closely related to
Europeans, any more than all of humanity is closely related).
(2) To my recollection, no definitive DNA testing on Kennewick man has
been published, so it is hard to know where you're getting this
information. And of course, who are the Indians? One thing we can
safely conclude, Native Americans are not and never were homogenous.
(3) Although Kennewick man is not likely to be the current inhabitants
ancestor (although maybe he is, who knows) given the time depth, he
or his group could very be ancestral --9000 years is a long time-- as
his morphology could have been submerged in subsequent migrantions. Or
maybe he left no descendants at all.
> There's a fair bit of other reason to suspect that some of the
earliest
> inhabitants were not from Asia at all, originally... Which, of course,
> confuses everyone.
Rubbish. There is no reason to believe so. What there is a reason to
believe is that the population of the Americas was in multiple waves of
highly heterogenous Asian populations possibly involving both interior
and coastal routes, populations which looked did not look like your
classic 'Asians' of North East Asia. Many may have been from alternate
or no longer extant morphologies suggested by the Ainu among others.
Unfortunately early Kennewick man reports were badly distorted by some
folks with political agendas and a dislike for native americans. Of
coruse, the NorthWestern tribes have hardly been more helpful. A whole
lot less politics and a whole lot more compromise would get us farther.
In any case the "Europeans jumping ahead of the native americans'
fantasy promoted by some racialist groups is plain nonesense.
> Do some more research.
Why don't you do some research at all?
kurt63
>contemporary Native Americans are as likely to be ancestral to
>current Native Americans as not. Ergo, there is no real moral
>challenge to Native Americans vis a vis the Europeans -- but we
>do learn that simplistic ideas about descent and 'race' have
>little value in a scientific understanding of the past.
My understanding is that the Indians do claim a special right to
the land based on the idea that they were the original
occupants, and that Europeans then came and took their land by
force. If it can be shown that there were waves of immigrants,
then the Europeans were simply the most recent wave, and the
Indians have no special right.
sifa...@my-deja.com
> My understanding is that the Indians do claim a special right to
> the land based on the idea that they were the original
> occupants
Yes, they were. Of course, as I said, the idea of American Indians as a
homogenous group --any people as homogenous-- is Victorian fiction.
Special right? I don't know what that is. I suppose a right to life
and freedom might be special. But war does tend to obscure that.
> , and that Europeans then came and took their land by
> force.
Not terribly controversial point of fact either, actually. Really its
the post-siezure of lands as well as treaties broken that make the
thing particularly bad.
> If it can be shown that there were waves of immigrants,
> then the Europeans were simply the most recent wave, and the
> Indians have no special right.
What? Why on earth would that mean anything at all?
The main points are
1) all actionable, legally enforceable claims by Native Americans in
the United States come from treaties, not moral claims, so the question
of waves of descent is really quite irrelevant
2) the moral question comes really from European behaviour vis-a-vis
European standards and their own lack of attention to their own
standards (e.g. treaty violations, treatment of Indians as a group
based on 'racial' ideas -- reservations are dangerously close to being
concentration camps in their conception and execution). The very idea
of "American Indian" as a group is a Euro one. We made it up, we
constructed the rules, we made the treaties. Amerinds simply have
turned the game on "us" with our own rhetoric etc. Deal with it.
3) All peoples everywhere are made up of waves of immigrants. It's
something of a banal observation, and the argument about 'simply the
latest wave of immigrants' has been made a long time -- Kennewick man
is hardly necessary if one wants to make it, irrelevant as it is given
point two. The fact that some 7 to 15 thousand years ago, native
americans were formed out of many waves is really not big news and is
utterly irrelevant as a matter of logic to the question of Native
American - European relations. We (the Euro descended) made the rules
(by force, but so did the Native Americans between themselves) -- we
just did not live up to what was proposed to be our own moral code, as
well as our own legally binding treaty obligations.
So, Kennewick man really is quite irrelevant to the whole question.
100% irrelevant, unless you still think in archaic Victorian era racial
terms. But then you're a scientific illiterate anyways, so why bother
with science, just go with plain vanilla racism.
kurt63
>question.
Quite the opposite. Kennewick Man has become a battleground.
sifa...@my-deja.com
kurt63 <kurt63N...@altavista.net.invalid> wrote:
> >So, Kennewick man really is quite irrelevant to the whole
> >question.
>
> Quite the opposite. Kennewick Man has become a battleground.
For reasons which have little relevance to the actual facts --
misconceptions, misinformation, and plain lack of science have driven
the controversy. Showing Kennewick man is or is not an ancestor to
modern Amerinds does not effect anything but perhaps the claims of the
Northwest tribes to his bones. The larger picture... irrelevant to any
problems you or others may have with Amerinds legal and/or moral
position.
kurt63
>may have with Amerinds legal and/or moral position.
Me? I'm not emotionally involved. It seems to me that you are.