Cebrion's post of Thrommel's arms reminded me of something I have pondered about before:
What are the three crowns on the arms of Furyondy?
I would say they represent the three periods in Furyondian history, of
1) The Crown of the Great Kingdom, when Ferrond was a dependent viceroyalty
2) The Crown of Ferrond, when Ferrond achieved its independence
3) The Crown of Furyondy, after the nation had lost the adjacent states of the Shield Lands, Veluna, and Verbobonc
However, this would mean that the arms themselves are relatively recent.
I would be interested in hearing other interpretations.
Kirt _________________ My campaigns are multilayered tapestries upon which I texture themes and subject matter which, quite frankly, would simply be too strong for your hobbyist gamer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mp7Ikko8SI
Last edited by Kirt on Tue May 13, 2008 8:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
Thanks for starting this thread Kirt. I don't think I've actually seen a thread of CF! dissembling a nation's heraldry in this way, so hopefully others(hint-Saracenus-hint) will join in with their comments too.
Both of those are pretty good bits of conjecture, though I'm inclined to see xefic's as the better of the two options; mainly as it makes sense that when a nation finally declares its independence, it will create a new heraldry relevant to *itself* rather than to its history as part of the empire from which it declared its independence. If these three areas each had a noble ruler in addition to the viceroy who oversaw the region as a whole(and it is likely that they did), then it makes even more sense. That of course leads to looking at the reasons behind representing them as crowns specifically on a field of red. Tinctures(colors) usually have as much meaning ascribed to them as to charges(symbols/pictures) themselves. Red traditionally stands for "Warrior, martyr, military strength, magnanimity". Seeing as this color is being applied to a nation’s heraldry and not an individuals, we can pretty much rule out warrior, martyr, and magnanimity(as those are qualities usually associated with an individual). “Military strength” makes the most sense for the meaning of the red field in this case as it may very well be the field upon which three royal crowns rest in unification. The meaning is also a good connotation to give to the color red based on the turmoil out of which the nation of Furyondy rose(the three nations rose in unity against their “oppressor”). So, the meaning of the three crowns on a red field is “three kingdoms united in arms”.
That leads to the white moon on the blue field. I can't recall anything relating to the blue half with the moon, so off to the conjecture we go…
The traditional meaning of the crescent is “one who has been honored by the sovereign” or “hope of greater glory (horns to the chief)”. The position of the moon is a waxing moon, which reprsents "growth", so this coincides more with the meaning "hope of greater glory". The color of the moon is not relevant, being the standard color for such. If the color were different than white, there would likely be a secondary meaning ascribed to the color of the moon. But sometimes there is no secondary meaing toteh clor o the moon other than to make it stand out from a more meaningful field color. This will particularlry bethe cas of the crator oif the heraldry foollws the rules of herealdry with regard toi color usage. it's all about style you see. The color blue means “truth and loyalty”. Combining that with the meaning for the moon and we have “growing to greater glory through truth and loyalty”.
So, at the end of it all, we have a heraldry that means “Three kingdoms united in arms, growing to greater glory through truth and loyalty.” That sounds idealistically Furyondian to me. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Tue May 13, 2008 8:39 pm; edited 5 times in total
My thinking was similar to Xefic's but with the moon representing Veluna and the crowns representing whatever Furyondy was before the Aerdi conquered it. Maybe it was three separate kingdoms tied together by language and culture?
IMGC, the three crown referred to the three pre-Aerdi kingdoms that the viceroyalty was built on:
1. Vol
2. Ferond
3. Weign
I'm not familiar with Weign. Is that LGG or LG? _________________ My campaigns are multilayered tapestries upon which I texture themes and subject matter which, quite frankly, would simply be too strong for your hobbyist gamer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mp7Ikko8SI
Another possible interpretation is that the three crowns refer to three branches of the Royal Family.
Suppose Thrommel had three sons, Avras, Hugh, and Belvor. Descendants of all of these sons have at one point or another sat on the throne of Furyondy.
Any ruler could call himself Thrommel (Thrommel I, II, etc.)
A ruler more closely associated with a specific branch would either be of the House of Avras, the House of Hugh, or the House of Belvor, and would choose his ruling name (not nescessarily his birth name) to be the next number in succesion within that series. For example, Prince Thrommel is of the House of Belvor - had he come to the throne he would have titled himself either Belvor V or Thrommel nth. (III? IV?)
Personally, I would not go with this option but I think it is interesting. _________________ My campaigns are multilayered tapestries upon which I texture themes and subject matter which, quite frankly, would simply be too strong for your hobbyist gamer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mp7Ikko8SI
So, at the end of it all, we have a heraldry that means “Three kingdoms united in arms, growing to greater glory through truth and loyalty.” That sounds idealistically Furyondian to me.
I like this, though I need to know what is Weign. (proto Shield Lands?)
I am not sure about a possible double-reference to Veluna: the crown and the moon. On the other hand, if Veluna's name is itself a double reference (moon-moon) then perhaps it is appropriate.
I think one has to account for the discrepancy in size of the crowns, as well as the fact that the smallest is on top. Cebrion, what would the rules of heraldry make of that? Is the top more or less important?
For my original idea, I would say that the smaller crowns represent the progressively smaller size of Furyondy, which was the lofty goal of Thrommel I, who valued the independence of the different realms. He aspired to his Kingdom being smaller than when it started, the the smaller crowns on top show the progression. However, I realize that this idea of a smaller kingdom "growing to greater glory" is very particular to my vision of Thrommel I.
If the three crowns represent Furyondy / Veluna / Weign, as xefic suggests, then I guess the largest of the three would be Furyondy. It would make sense that Furyondy retains the others in its own arms, while the other two nations do not - not displaying the fact that they are smaller than Furyondy. _________________ My campaigns are multilayered tapestries upon which I texture themes and subject matter which, quite frankly, would simply be too strong for your hobbyist gamer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mp7Ikko8SI
Yeah, Weign is unfamiliar to me as well. Need to hunt that reference down, or perhaps use another such as Dyvers. That would be yet another barb in the relations between the two. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Yeah, Weign is unfamiliar to me as well. Need to hunt that reference down, or perhaps use another such as Dyvers. That would be yet another barb in the relations between the two.
Well, I'm relieved that you didn't recognize Weign either!
(Weign's World! Weign's World! Party On! Excellent! oh, wait...)
I would think it stands for what are now the Shield Lands, as this is the largest part of Old Ferrond that is not Furyondy or Veluna.
I wouldn't go with Dyvers. As the former capital, I don't think it would have had an independent enough existance to warrant its own crown in a heradlric emblem. By the time it WAS independent, it would not have been part of the heraldry, unless Furyondy wanted to make a point that they did not recognize its independence. _________________ My campaigns are multilayered tapestries upon which I texture themes and subject matter which, quite frankly, would simply be too strong for your hobbyist gamer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mp7Ikko8SI
Most nations; particularily those that seceed from a larger empire when they declare independence rarely want to reference their former status.
Besides; if they did want to reference the former peoples and nations - why stop at three; the original kingdom of Furyondy sought to claim a much larger area. (Even if it was only on paper)
Blackmoor
Dyvers
Northern lords (Horned Lands & Iuz)
Perrenland
Shield Lands
Veluna
Verbobonc
Off the top of my head; there should be seven crowns not three, if that was the rationale. Given the relative ease that furyondy released its former lands. I don't see furyondy advertising its weakness for all time on its new heraldry. Not the message you really want to send to a powerfulf eastern empire.
Cebrion rationale makes more sense; the message is one of strength and noble ideals. - Great Kingdom don't mess with us and we aren't rebels, we are the true protectors of oeridian ideals. Would be a much easier and uplifting to sell to the populace.
The stars may represent the Great Kingdom, Keoland, and Ferrond. Placing Ferrond as a star is propaganda to show that it is the equal of the two empires.
I would think it stands for what are now the Shield Lands, as this is the largest part of Old Ferrond that is not Furyondy or Veluna.
I wouldn't go with Dyvers. As the former capital, I don't think it would have had an independent enough existence to warrant its own crown in a heraldic emblem. By the time it WAS independent, it would not have been part of the heraldry, unless Furyondy wanted to make a point that they did not recognize its independence.
I see you point on Dyvers and agree with it completely. It being the old capital and the link to Aerdy dominance, plus all of the other history, makes Dyvers a sore enough spot. The Shield Lands being Weign makes more sense too as it is an actual territory separate from Furyondy, whereas Dyvers simply broke off from old Furyondy. I'm wondering where Xefic got the name "Weign" from. It seems Germanic to me, so instead of pronouncing it as in "Weign's World! Weign's World!" it would be pronounced "VI-gen"(the "I" in "VI" being a "long i" sound; the "g" as in "good").
Having looked at this possible solution a bit more, I now realize that the reasoning behind it is very much flawed. While the three crowns representing Furyondy, Veluna, and the Shield Lands sounds good at first thought, it really is not a realistic solution and here is why.
Shortly after its succession, the minor states that made up the viceroyalty further splintered *into their own realms*, these being the Kingdom of Furyondy, the Archclericy of Veluna, the County of Verbobonc(which is nominally a vassal state of Veluna), the lands of the Highfolk Valley, and the Earldom of Walworth(later to become known as the Shield Lands). This means that Furyondy's own national heraldry has nothing to do with those other two lands whatsoever- it is *their* own heraldry, just as Veluna, Verbobonc, the Shield Lands, and Highfolk have *their own* heraldry as well. This leaves us with a conundrum, as the three crowns must be representative solely of royalty from Furyondy.
So what are the options then? First off, we have the King of Furyondy. That is only one crown there, and the next two are smaller. That may or may not denote a lessening of status of the owners of those crowns, or it may just mean nothing and the crowns simply get smaller so as to fit on the heraldic field nicely. This is just as probable, as if you have three nobles combined in a united cause, you really don’t want to slight any of them by suggesting that they are a lesser partner in such a grand endeavor. Simple politics there. The three crowns can simply represent three nobles who had enough power to lay claim to rulership of the nation to be founded- Furyondy, and rather than fight a three-way civil war that they knew would weaken them to the extent that the Great Kingdom could retake most of Old Ferrond, these three claimants came to a peaceful solution for the benefit of them all. Only one of them ended up taking the throne, while the others likely received massive concessions and notable power in return. Not only that, but the deals were probably cemented in place by arranged marriages of the non-ruling nobles' families to the actual ruling noble's family.
So, who are the most likely candidates among the Furyondian nobility to be represented by these crowns? The King obviously is one. Looking to possible candidates for the other two, I’d have to look at what provinces of Furyondy hold the most importance and influence. This goes to concessions and power given to those two nobles who gave up their claim on the throne. The one that immediately stands out is Willip. It is THE seat of Furyondy’s maritime power, and so it is very influential for both military and mercantile reasons. And so, one of these two claimants was invested Baron of Willip, thereby gaining much wealth through the influx of trade(and taxes from trade), plus military influence in the form of heading up Furyondy’s navy. Not a bad trade off there when one considers the alternative is likely either being killed in a civil war or surviving it only to be executed as a traitor by the Great Kingdom.
As to the other noble, the province that holds the next largest amount of influence(and land itself) is the Viscounty of the March. The Viscounty of the March is known as the breadbasket of Furyondy, and as such it provides most of the nation’s grain and has the largest population(i.e. it can call up the most troops). Also, the centralized province is known as the true seat of Furyondy’s mercantile power, as apparently most of Furyondy’s trade flows through it.
So the kingdom begins with three powerful families, and four others who bear equitable titles(or nearly so), but that had not the power and influence at the time to lay claim to the throne of the soon to be established kingdom. Over time these "lesser" four families gained much power and influence as the kingdom prospered, to the point that they are now treated with as equals, regardless of their actual titles. This last bit about disregardin titles is based on material from The Marklands, and it fits in well enough to explain why the nobles treat with each other equally regardless of actual titles, and why such an agreement was demanded in the first place.
By all means tear this explanation apart and offer suggestions/criticism and/or other possible explanations as to the meaning of the three crowns. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
It would help to examine the various noble titles of the original seven families - denotes degrees of prestige and power. Which over time became less meaningful.
However wouldn't the three strongest noble claimants demand the most prestigious titles; King (fine) - baron?
How do you square this interpretation with the rest of the desired provinces at the kingdoms birth; No nobles in outlying lands like Veluna for example that would feel slighted by being left out of the heraldic symbolism - Nobles tend to be quite sensitive about the suggestion that they aren't quite top tier.
From my limited Wikipedia research, the three lions of England represent the two lions of Normandy plus an additional lion representing King Richard I's English holdings, though nobody really knows for sure. It's possible the three crowns were simply the arms of Thrommel I (or some other prestigious early king), and nobody knows why he chose them. Maybe the king wore three crowns in his life, as he upgraded to get better magical bonuses when he leveled up.
I do like the idea they represented three pre-Aerdy kingdoms that the Furyondians were celebrating once they became free of Aerdi rule.
Maybe the king wore three crowns in his life, as he upgraded to get better magical bonuses when he leveled up.
Oh, definately the biggest crown was his level 70+ Epic Gear...LOL _________________ My campaigns are multilayered tapestries upon which I texture themes and subject matter which, quite frankly, would simply be too strong for your hobbyist gamer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mp7Ikko8SI
I do like the idea they represented three pre-Aerdy kingdoms that the Furyondians were celebrating once they became free of Aerdi rule.
There is still the problem of national identity. *Ferrondians* would celebrate their freedom from Aerdy rule, and *Furyondians* would celebrate it too(as they are one portion of that group), but as to the national heraldry they wouldn't denote such a celebration of independence for three separate lands in their own heraldry. When Furyondians go to create their national heraldry, "their' refers to just themselves, not to all those formerly of Ferrond. Heraldry is a very personal thing. I still like the three kingdoms idea though, and it does work well. it might also then form part of the basis for the Shield Lands being wary of Furyondians intentions, as they Furyondians have basically included the Shield Lands, if only symbolically, in their own national heraldry. That might give cause to the paranoid to assume that Furyondy therefore *wants* the Shield Lands. Hehe.
As to the three crowns, Rasgon does bring up a good parallel with the three lions of England, and how the crowns may represent three stages of Thrommel I's rise to power. The small crown could represent him as an Aerdy noble(of at least baron in rank), the second largest crown as the Viceroy of Ferrond, and the largest crown as King of Furyondy. This reminds me of Ral Partha’s "3-Stage Characters", but the explanation works. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
I do like the idea they represented three pre-Aerdy kingdoms that the Furyondians were celebrating once they became free of Aerdi rule.
WoGG (p.22) says "The Viceroyalty of Ferrond was founded upon several small states during the height of Aerdian power..."
If "several" is three, or if there were more than three but only three were large enough to warrant a crown, that sounds good.
rasgon wrote:
I still like the three kingdoms idea though, and it does work well. it might also then form part of the basis for the Shield Lands being wary of Furyondians intentions, as they Furyondians have basically included the Shield Lands, if only symbolically, in their own national heraldry. That might give cause to the paranoid to assume that Furyondy therefore *wants* the Shield Lands.
That is something I play upon in my history of the Knights. Thrommel I granted the other states their independence - and some of his descendants believe that they have the authority to rescind that grant - and the Shield Landers know that some Furyondian Kings believe that...
Cebrion wrote:
the crowns may represent three stages of Thrommel I's rise to power. The small crown could represent him as an Aerdy noble(of at least baron in rank), the second largest crown as the Viceroy of Ferrond, and the largest crown as King of Furyondy. This reminds me of Ral Partha’s "3-Stage Characters", but the explanation works.
Except that Thrommel never was Viceroy. His father (Stinvri) was Viceroy when the Viceroyalty had become hereditary. But when Thrommel took the throne, he was not crowned as Viceroy, but as King. In other words, the father-son pair took the opportunity of the coronation of Thrommel to formally assert their independence from the Great Kingdom.
However, I like the idea that the three crowns could be each a different personal crown of Thrommel. Again from WoGG, he "was crowned in Dyvers as Thrommel I, King of Furyondy, Prince of Veluna, Provost of the Northern Reaches, Warden General of the Vesve Forest, Marshall of the Shield Lands, Lord of Dyvers, etc."
Looking at the states in terms of their power, we again have the three lands of Furyondy - Veluna - Shield Lands as being "crownworthy".
On the other hand, "Marshall" is not a title of heredtary nobility. Rather, it is a granted office. As are Provost and Warden General. So it could be that the three crowns refer to Thrommel's three personal claims to rule: as King of Furyondy, Prince of Veluna, and Lord of Dyvers.
Cebrion wrote:
Shortly after its succession, the minor states that made up the viceroyalty further splintered *into their own realms*, these being the Kingdom of Furyondy, the Archclericy of Veluna, the County of Verbobonc(which is nominally a vassal state of Veluna), the lands of the Highfolk Valley, and the Earldom of Walworth(later to become known as the Shield Lands).
Actually, as the quote above demonstrates, the Shield Lands were called the Sheild Lands from their inception. The Earldom of Walworth was the most important of the many petty states of which they were composed.
It seems like we have a number of threories for the Three Crowns then: to sum so far...
1) The three crowns are the three lands (Furyondy-Veluna-Sheild Lands) that were part of the Viceroyalty of Ferrond at its creation
2) The three crowns are the three lands (Furyondy-Veluna-Sheild Lands) that rebelled from the Great Kingdom under Thrommel
3) The three crowns are the three personal hereditary titles of Thrommel I (King of Furyondy, Prince of Veluna, Lord of Dyvers)
4) The three crowns are the three entities that have governed what is now Furyondy (Viceroyalty of Ferrond - Independent Ferrond - Kingdom of Furyondy)
5) The three crowns are the three most important noble families in Furyondy (one of which is the royal family)(Farwain, Tyneman, Rhavelle or Farwain, Butrain, Derwent)
6) The three crowns are the three branches of the royal family (House of Hugh, House of Avras, House of Belvor)
7) The three crowns are the Kingdoms of Furyondy, Keoland, and the Great Kingdom
any others? _________________ My campaigns are multilayered tapestries upon which I texture themes and subject matter which, quite frankly, would simply be too strong for your hobbyist gamer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mp7Ikko8SI
I disagree with any of the crowns representing Veluna because -
1) Veluna was too important and "big" a part of the kingdom to merely be represented by one of the crowns, being ethnically and religiously distinct even back to its absorption by the Great Kingdom, as well as being granted unusual autonomy from the founding of Furyondy though still bound to that kingdom.
2) The large crescent moon on the azure part just screams "Veluna." Vale of Luna. Hello!
I'd be more in favor of the crowns representing, if not three pre-conquest kingdoms of Furyondian peoples, then Furyondy proper, the Northern Reaches, and the Shield Lands. In the latter I would probably include the Middle Lands, later known of the Bandit Kingdoms, since the Shield Lands hadn't really been formed at the crowning of Thrommel I. Maybe Shield Lands was just a term for all the eastern lands toward the Viceroyalty of Nyrond claimed by Furyondy that was later adopted by the lords of the Shield Lands. Or maybe it was already a term for what is now the Shield Lands though I don't see Furyondy claiming one and not the other.
That brings up the problem I mentioned before. No nation is going to include another nation’s symbols in its own heraldry(maybe a reference though), mainly as the other nations in this case are coming up with their own heraldry at the same time. Or not, and here is where I think the hart of things lies:
The heraldries of these nations may very well precede the breaking of the viceroyalty of Ferrond into its constituent parts. Those parts were already identified as separate as Furyon, Voll, and the other areas. Those areas likely already had their own heraldry which had nothing to do with that of their neighbors. That and other resins is why Furyondy's heraldry being made up from symbolism form that of other nations is just plain wrong. It would be like the US putting French elements in their heraldry(i.e. flag) as the French were instrumental in the US winning the war of independence. As most people well know, the elements of US heraldry have nothing to do with anything other than its own history. Variations from this are practically unheard of except in instances where such symbolisms are forced upon a nation. Plenty of examples of this abound in real world history(much of it relatively recent).
When you create heraldry it is supposed to be meaningful for those it is created for, not any of its neighbors. Part of the purpose of heraldry is to actually differentiate oneself from one’s neighbors. Looking at all of the elements involved, it looks like it is necessary to dig deeper into the history of Furyon to get at a proper meaning of Furyondy’s current heraldry, and that may mean a strong Aerdy connection. The first Viceroy was cousin to the Aerdy king, but Furyon was around before he was appointed as overseer of what then became the Viceroyalty of Ferrond. So, the connection likely does not lie with him and has older origins. The area has a population listed as being “Osbf” as of the current day. The Oeridian presence was surely very strong from the beginning of things, but the Suel could have been there before the Oeridians and have been swept up /away by them, and the Flan would have always been there. It seems reasonable to assume that the Baklunish influx occurred later over an extended period of time; likely through Veluna via Ket. To discover the origins of the three crowns on a red field paired with a waxing moon on a blue field, we need to look at who established Furyon as a nation in its own right.
The main problem here may be that everyone is thinking that Furyondy’s heraldry is the very same as that of the Viceroyalty of Ferrond. When nations break away from parent nations, they usually don’t still proclaim themselves as still being that parent nation’s bitch by using the same heraldry that they used when under the thumb of that parent nation. ;) Amazingly enough, with the fall of the Great Kingdom, the heraldries of many of its former provinces have been altered to denote them as their own independent nations, or in other cases to represent an altered existence of that nation. I have to take my hat off to those who were astute enough to make these heraldic changes. Idee is gone and the Kingdom of Ahlissa arises, as does the Great Kingdom of Northern Aerdy. The only reason for the sun element of the Great Kingdom’s heraldry being used in these new heraldries is of course to proclaim the rulers of these nations as the rightful inheritors of the Aerdy legacy, and not any subservient status(as the Great Kingdom that they both once owed fealty to is indeed no more).
So, Furyondy’s heraldry can also be such that it has nothing to do with the Viceroyalty of Ferrond whatsoever. There are two options here. The first is that Furyondy’s heraldry is actually the old heraldry of Furyon, Thrommel I choosing to link his new legacy to that of the ancient origins of the land. The second option is that Thrommel I created an altogether new heraldry for Furyondy so as to create an entirely new legacy with him as its origin. Yes, that sound egotistical, but how much ego does one need to proclaim oneself a king? Quite a bit I’d say. More food for thought surely. I can’t see too many other wrenches being thrown into the works of this discussion now, but if anybody can think of any other plausible origins for Furyondy’s heraldry then by all means list them. .
One last bit. The Shield Lands was *not* always known as the Shield Lands. The “Shield Lands” was formed *after* the Combination of Free Lords was formed, and in direct response to it as a sort of mutual protection pact among the lords of the 24 provinces that make up the Shield Lands. This of course all happened after the Viceroyalty of Ferrond broke apart and a new king of Furyondy was crowned in Dyvers. The LGG entry for the Shield Lands is very specific on this bit, so I go by that and not a simple mention of the “Shield Lands” in the Furyondy entry. The source information has precedence over the peripheral information basically. I was pretty sure I didn’t get that bit wrong. So far as I know, I have looked over everything in print containing the words “Shield Lands”, “Knight(s) of Holy Shielding”, “Shield Knights”, “Katarina”, “Incosee”, “Artur Jakartai”, “Valderesse Sharn”, “Bronze Band”, and “Holmer”. I clipped the most relevant information, ignoring any instances where any of those terms were just mentioned in passing, and attached it all to a single reference file for later usage. This included the Gord books, where Incosee and the Bronze Band appear for the first time. That was all done for the purpose of writing the Knights of Holy Shielding article. Some additional material of my own is in there too of course. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
That brings up the problem I mentioned before. No nation is going to include another nation’s symbols in its own heraldry(maybe a reference though), mainly as the other nations in this case are coming up with their own heraldry at the same time. Or not, and here is where I think the hart of things lies...
When nations break away from parent nations, they usually don’t still proclaim themselves as still being that parent nation’s bitch by using the same heraldry that they used when under the thumb of that parent nation. ;)
Amazingly enough, with the fall of the Great Kingdom, the heraldries of many of its former provinces have been altered to denote them as their own independent nations, or in other cases to represent an altered existence of that nation. I have to take my hat off to those who were astute enough to make these heraldic changes. Idee is gone and the Kingdom of Ahlissa arises, as does the Great Kingdom of Northern Aerdy. The only reason for the sun element of the Great Kingdom’s heraldry being used in these new heraldries is of course to proclaim the rulers of these nations as the rightful inheritors of the Aerdy legacy, and not any subservient status(as the Great Kingdom that they both once owed fealty to is indeed no more).
While I certainly agree with the reasoning, it all turns on the interpretation of the symbolism. Does a common element show a common cultural heritage - refering to something outside or above the mother country, or is it a sign of dependence? That depends on the interpretation. The "Aerdy Sun" central to the arms of the Great Kingdom is found in the arms of Nyrond...and also in the arms of Ratik, the North Province, Sunndi, and Almor. But it is not found in the arms of Medegia, the South Province, Idee, Ahlissa, the Pale, Tenh, or the Urnst States. I don't know enough about the east to say whether that is consistant or not.
The Lion of Keoland, and/or the Red (Rhola?) and Black (Neheli?) that are central in the arms of Keoland are found in the arms of Sterich, the Gran March, and possibly Bissel and the Order of the Golden Lion. They are not found in the arms of Geoff, The Yeomanry, or any of the Ulek states. That does seem to follow a pattern of the more acrimonious the independence, the less likely of retaining the Lion.
But the arms of Dyvers clearly incorporates the arms of Furyondy...why would they wish to retain that? _________________ My campaigns are multilayered tapestries upon which I texture themes and subject matter which, quite frankly, would simply be too strong for your hobbyist gamer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mp7Ikko8SI
That brings up the problem I mentioned before. No nation is going to include another nation’s symbols in its own heraldry(maybe a reference though), mainly as the other nations in this case are coming up with their own heraldry at the same time. Or not, and here is where I think the hart of things lies...
The heraldries of these nations may very well precede the breaking of the viceroyalty of Ferrond into its constituent parts. Those parts were already identified as separate as Furyon, Voll, and the other areas. Those areas likely already had their own heraldry which had nothing to do with that of their neighbors. That and other resins is why Furyondy's heraldry being made up from symbolism form that of other nations is just plain wrong....
When you create heraldry it is supposed to be meaningful for those it is created for, not any of its neighbors.
...The main problem here may be that everyone is thinking that Furyondy’s heraldry is the very same as that of the Viceroyalty of Ferrond...
So, Furyondy’s heraldry can also be such that it has nothing to do with the Viceroyalty of Ferrond whatsoever. There are two options here. The first is that Furyondy’s heraldry is actually the old heraldry of Furyon, Thrommel I choosing to link his new legacy to that of the ancient origins of the land. The second option is that Thrommel I created an altogether new heraldry for Furyondy so as to create an entirely new legacy with him as its origin. Yes, that sound egotistical, but how much ego does one need to proclaim oneself a king? Quite a bit I’d say. More food for thought surely. I can’t see too many other wrenches being thrown into the works of this discussion now, but if anybody can think of any other plausible origins for Furyondy’s heraldry then by all means list them. .
Certainly the arms of Furyondy is the arms of FURYONDY...created no earlier than Furyondy itself and perhaps later.
As you say, it may resemble that of the Viceroyalty of Ferrond, but not nescessarily. I can't speak for others, but I am not saying they are the same, nor am I saying that it is encorporating the heradry of other nations. Rather it may have its own symbols to refer to those other nations. It is using its own references to them, not their references for themselves. For example, the crescent moon on the Furyondian arms might reference Veluna, but there are no moons on the Velunese arms.
However, I think it is important to realize that at the time of the independence of Ferrond / Greater Furyondy , that nation included the lands of Veluna etc. The arms of the time might have recognized the different realms within it. The modern arms of "Lesser Furyondy" might be similar to or quite different from those of independent Ferrond. But by having a crown for Veluna, it is not using the arms of Veluna, it is using its own reference to the fact that Veluna was once part of it. Or by using the crown of the Viceroyalty of Ferrond (not the crown of the Great Kingdom) it is not using the arms of the Great Kingdom but rather referencing what it itself was in another time.
So, I guess I agree with the argument you are making but don't see that it applies to what I have been trying to say, at least. _________________ My campaigns are multilayered tapestries upon which I texture themes and subject matter which, quite frankly, would simply be too strong for your hobbyist gamer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mp7Ikko8SI
I was just throwing additional information to consider out there.
I do prefer that the crowns be representative of three allied powers though, or more specifically of an agreement between those powers. In light of the Shield Lands not being united at the time though, the three crowns would better be applied to Furyondy, Veluna, and Highfolk. That also goes to the gathering of three powers in military might aspect too, later formalized by the formation of the Knights of the Hart and their three branches. That fits all too well. Another factor that leaves the Shield Lands out from the group is that the nobles of the provinces there "refused to acknowledge the new king in Dyvers." Not quite the best group to lump into a united group represented by the three crowns. If Veluna the Highfolk acknowledged the new king in Dyvers, as it seems likely they did(these nations are very friendly towards each other and the newer kings still bear the titles "Prince of Veluna" and "Warden of Highfolk"), then that makes sense as well. I am thinking that after the formation of the Shield Lands the king of Furyondy's title became altered to include the "Marshal of the Shield Lands" bit, which would of course make the Shield Lander leaders that much more wary of Furyondy.
So, Veluna and Highfolk do recognize the new king in Dyvers, likely having come to an accord prior to the actual crowning. Maybe the Canon of Veluna even performed the ceremony. Then, when Furyondy's heraldry is revealed, it contains a reminder of the agreement that all three nations have come to and holds it up for all of the Flanaess to see. That has a high political factor and honor factor as well.
As to the moon in Furyondy's heraldry, it would better represent either "growth" and/or "second son". Thrommel I could have been a second son. The first son could of course be dead, thus Thrommel I moves into ascendency. If that is the case, the moon has a double meaning. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
One last bit. The Shield Lands was *not* always known as the Shield Lands. The “Shield Lands” was formed *after* the Combination of Free Lords was formed, and in direct response to it as a sort of mutual protection pact among the lords of the 24 provinces that make up the Shield Lands. This of course all happened after the Viceroyalty of Ferrond broke apart and a new king of Furyondy was crowned in Dyvers. The LGG entry for the Shield Lands is very specific on this bit, so I go by that and not a simple mention of the “Shield Lands” in the Furyondy entry. The source information has precedence over the peripheral information basically.
Of course you are right on this:
From LGG entry for the Shield Lands:
"When Ferrond broke from the Great Kingdom in 254 CY, the nobles of the Nyr Dyv’s north shore refused to acknowledge the new king in Dyvers. Loyal to the ideal of ancient Aerdy but wholly opposed to the decadent regime in Rauxes, these nobles failed to declare complete independence, instead existing somewhere in-between autonomy and their former status as vassals to the viceroy.
When similar circumstances resulted, ultimately, in the formation of the lawless Combination of Free Lords to the north, the southern nobles banded together, forming the “Shield Lands” as a bulwark against the depredations and chaos of the north. Since the earl of Walworth commanded Admundfort, at the time the only notable city in the region, he was chosen as the knight commander of the combined forces of the nobles."
The problem here was that I am not used to taking my information from the LGG. In fact, outside the entries for countries in the Sheldomar, I haven't yet read most of it. The entries in WoGG and FtA are either more ambigouis or directly contradictory. (Although many are, as you say, peripheral). And in fact, some of the peripheral entries in the LGG itself are contradictory, and argue that the Shield Lands existed at the time of the independence of Ferrond.
In support of the more recent Shield Lands:
From LGG entry for Bandit Kingdoms:
"By the early 300s CY, the Bandit Kings had become such a threat that the lords of the Nyr Dyv’s northern shore banded together in their own alliance, a bulwark against banditry and lawlessness forevermore known as the Shield Lands. For more than two centuries, northern and southern lords made war on each other with great regularity. Iuz conquered the far western Bandit Kingdoms between Whyestil Lake and the Ritensa River, which the Horned Society then took for its own in 513 CY."
On the other hand...
From LGG entry for Furyondy:
"The realm began nearly 500 years ago as the Viceroyalty of Ferrond, the proudest jewel in the crown of Aerdy. In those distant days, Ferrond consisted of modern-day Furyondy (Furyon) and Veluna (Voll), Highfolk, the Shield Lands, the Quaglands (Perrenland), and the hilly regions northeast of the massive Vesve Forest, then known as part of the Northern Reaches. "
This is interesting because the author(s) here deliberately avoid the anachronism of calling what-would-later-be Perrenland, "Perrenland", but he/they makes no such allowance for the Shield Lands, which argues for the contemporary existance of the term.
From LGG entry for North Province:
"The Naelax grew powerful after the mid–250s CY, when their primary rival, the Heironean church, achieved independence in far-flung provinces such as Ferrond and the Shield Lands. Many of them withdrew from the increasingly decadent Great Kingdom, and no longer would these two rival orders contend equally for the attention of the Malachite Throne."
Here the Shield Lands is identified as existing upon Ferrondian independence, but is listed as being a separate province.
From the FtA entry for the Shield Lands:
"The growth of the Shield Lands was a direct result of the reaction by nobles with lands just north of the Nyr Dyv to the growth of the Bandit Kingdoms."
It is interesting here that Sargent uses the word "growth" and not "establishment."
From the FtA entry on the High History of the Flanaess
"Finally, in 254 CY, Thrommel I of Furyondy was crowned in Dyvers, taking a whole range of secondary titles which loudly announced his people's goals; Prince of Veluna, Marshall of the Shield Lands, Warden General of the Vesve Forest, and more...
...[later, in the mid fourth century] the Bandit Kingdoms had formed as a group of petty fiefdoms in the vacuum left between Furyondy to the west and Tenh and the Theocracy to the east, and in response, good nobles to the south began to coalesce their forces in the Shield Lands."
Sargent's interesting choice of words here is that Thrommel's title of Marshall of the Shield Lands is a goal, not a fact, and that the the nobles coalesced forces in, but did not create the Shield Lands.
From The Marklands entry on the History of the Land:
"Ferrond...was much larger than Furyondy is now. It originally incorporated most of modern-day Veluna, Highfolk, the old Shield Lands, Dyvers, and a goodly part of modern Perrenland...
...Early in the fourth century CY the Shield Lands took form, the local rulers banding together to oppose the growing cohesion of the Bandit Kingdoms and then proclaiming their independence."
This is a difficult one to reconcile with LGG for it specifically outlines how the nobles of the Shield Lands declared inpedendence from Ferrond, whereas in LGG they refused to swear loyalty to Ferrond.
From the WoGG entry on the Shield Lands:
"When the Bandit Kings began to grow powerful, the petty nobles of the north shores of the Nyr Dyv banded together in a mutual protection society. The small Earldom of Walworth had the advantage of posessing a sizable island upon which was built the only city in the entire district, so its Lord was chosen as Knight Commander of the combined forces of the nobles."
Interesting here is that no direct mention is made of when the title of "Shield Lands" was acquired.
Finally, as I posted above, from the WoGG entry on Furyondy:
Thrmommel "was crowned in Dyvers as Thrommel I, King of Furyondy, Prince of Veluna, Provost of the Northern Reaches, Warden General of the Vesve Forest, Marshall of the Shield Lands, Lord of Dyvers, etc."
Considering all of these sources, I offer the following compromise view as being the most parsimonious reconciliation of canon:
1. Within the Great Kingdom, the Shield Lands existed as an administrative district / province separate from that of Ferrond. However, Ferrond had the responsability of defending it militarily - it was something of a protectorate, with taxes going directly to the Great Kingdom but not responsable for organizing its own defense.
2. When Ferrond achieved its independence, Thrommel claimed himself Marshall of the Shield Lands (ie protector, but not hereditary ruler). He was asserting his interest in continuing to defend the Shield Lands.
3. The nobles of the Shield Lands did not swear fealty to Thrommel, and thus did not enter Ferrond formally. They took the opportunity to break ties with the Great Kingdom as well. Thus, each petty noble became completely independent and part of no nation, and sent taxes nowhere.
4. The region continued to be known as "the Shield Lands" but this was a convenience for its history / geography, and did not reflect any actual state of political unity.
5. When the rise of the Bandit Kingdoms threatened the nobles of the region, they came together again into a new unified state, one headed by the Earl instead of ruled as a province of the Great Kingdom. They resurrected the title of "The Shield Lands" as a political entity, and formally declared the nation independent of any of the nations arround it.
I think within the framework of these points all of the canon quotes above can be seen as true and non-contradictory.
I did not, however, find any quote to support the claim that the
"the Earldom of Walworth([was] later to become known as the Shield Lands)."
Given this understanding of the Shield Lands as a name for a region of petty, independent nobles, it does not seem like it would merit a crown in Furyondy's heraldry.
We can add to the list of possibilities
8. The three crowns represent the Kingdom of Furyondy, the Principality of Veluna, and the Lordship of the Highfolk.
Although at this point I would no longer consider (1) and (2) "reasonable". _________________ My campaigns are multilayered tapestries upon which I texture themes and subject matter which, quite frankly, would simply be too strong for your hobbyist gamer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mp7Ikko8SI
I have just chosen to assume that the other entries use the term "Shield Lands" before the unification of the 24 provinces, as it is less cumbersome than using "the 24 provinces that would eventually become the Shield Lands" every time where appropriate. I can't blame them for doing that at all.
Regarding the terminology of the "Shield Lands", the term may have been in usage to simply describe the collection of provinces there, and them literally being a shield between Furyondy the wilder northlands which were filled with various scum and humanoids. The terminology can still be used, and even the lords of the 24 provinces might refer to their area as the Shield Lands(though the name of their personal holdings would of course take precedence in their minds). We don't see the term being used as the actual name of the nation until the lords of the provinces combine under the leadership of the Earls of Walworth though. Then the name becomes a state name, heraldry is created, and a system of government is laid down. So, this still allows for Thrommel I to be named Marshal of the Shield Lands, which really just gives him a claim to those lands(politically speaking), even though the Shield Landers do not recognize him as their sovereign. It still is able to work out OK. But, yes, the crowns don’t work for the Shield Lands at all. So, prior to the adoption of "Shield Lands" as an actual state name, the term was used to describe the area just as "Northern Reaches" was a term that was used to describe an area. Works for me, and it solves some potentially fiddly issues. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
I have just chosen to assume that the other entries use the term "Shield Lands" before the unification of the 24 provinces, as it is less cumbersome than using "the 24 provinces that would eventually become the Shield Lands" every time where appropriate. I can't blame them for doing that at all.
Kind of like how they keep referring to the throne of Aerdy as the "Malachite Throne" in periods centuries before the actual Malachite Throne was crafted between 443 and 446 CY. They even refer to Nasran's throne as the Malachite Throne, I guess because it's sounds better than "the throne of Aerdy." It makes me wince a little every time they do it, though.
A good example of what I mean is how we refer to the large group of European countries as the 'European Union'. Imgine if the European Union then actually did become one massive nation, and formally adopted the title "European Union" as it's national name. Apply that to the use of the term "Shield Lands" and it is much more palatable, and then there is no conflict with using the term interchangably for the area before the provinces became united, or afterwards when the term "Shield Lands" was formally adopted as the nation's name. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
I should have explained earlier that the Weign are from my campaign. They were originally Flan, but became mixed with Oeridians during the great migraions.
Kind of like how they keep referring to the throne of Aerdy as the "Malachite Throne" in periods centuries before the actual Malachite Throne was crafted between 443 and 446 CY. They even refer to Nasran's throne as the Malachite Throne, I guess because it's sounds better than "the throne of Aerdy." It makes me wince a little every time they do it, though.
Off-topic, but I notice Paul Looby's referring to the pre-Malachite Throne as the Throne of the Sun, which is much, much better. It fits with Aerdy's heraldry and offers a great contrast to the Cauldron of Night.
Rereading the Adventure Begins and saw this bit which probably relates to the pre-Viceroyalty inhabitants of Furyondy.
Part of the early trade passing through Greyhawk when it was just a village was from the "... settled Oeridian Ferroi tribe living along the upper Velverdyva, in what is now Furyondy and Veluna..."
It's referenced in the Encyclopedia Grehawkia but I never noticed it before.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
