Re: Terran-D\'Hara Realm Merger

[Stabbity]

My thoughts are this:

I see a lot rule lawyering trying to justify this merger. I've played the game for around a decade now, and seen a lot rules come and go, the implementation of the social contract, and read Tom's thoughts on these things. The general gist of Tom's stance is there are written rules and there is a spirit behind the rules. If you violate one or the other it doesn't matter in Tom's eyes, its a violation. Rules lawyering and petty justifications, sesrching for loop holes is stuff Tom despises, and seeing as its his game... Don't do it. If you have to justify something with some loophole in a rule, its still a violation of the rule. The guilt here is pretty clear, and it is a second offense.

[DamnTaffer]

I don't feel this is a realm merger for the simple fact that the nobles of Terran aren't going to be part of D'hara.  Even with those that switched over aren't going to stay long.   The fact that we aren't staying makes it a non merger.  Alaster is a die hard Astroist.  He serves the church before the realm. 

And perhaps if I stole your money but said I was going to give it back after the fact when confronted and accused of stealing it would stop being stealing also?

My other case should have no bearing on this one as the situations aren't related.

Oh but it should, as a repeat offender you know for sure what you are doing is wrong. This time however you've bought petty rules lawyering and bull!@#$ to the debate. So not only are you not following the rules of the game, your treating your peers as if we were stupid.

[dustole]

Not in the least.   

It never crossed my mind that what I was suggesting was against the rules.   Nor did any of the magistrates that knew of this before hand suggest that this was wrong.   I still don't believe what I did was wrong or against the rules. 


I can see no purpose in further discussion.  Let a decision be made.

[Marlboro]

Show me who is gaining by this other than D'hara...

Sanguis Astroism's theocracies benefit directly from Phantaria not expanding. You didn't do this for D'Hara. You certainly didn't SURRENDER to a realm you're in a Federation with.

[dustole]

If that rule is not applicable then show me which rule I broke.  You can't disregard parts of a rule you don't like

[Anaris]

If that rule is not applicable then show me which rule I broke.  You can't disregard parts of a rule you don't like

Um...I said I think it's applicable. Please reread what I wrote. Particularly since it's basically the same damn thing I've been saying since the beginning of this thread, so it really shouldn't be hard to understand what my position on this is.

[Marlboro]

The Federation argument is bull!@#$. If breaking the federation with Terran didn't mean D'Hara and Barca would need to go through a war period with each other, both would long since no longer be federated with Terran. They aren't friends. D'Hara is friendlier with Farronite Republic (you know, the realm doing the destruction?) than Terran. Plenty of D'Harans are silently cheering FR's invasion of Terran.

FR does benefit directly from this action, which is why I felt compelled to say anything at all. I'll be quiet now though and let you do your work.

[Sarwell]

How is this NOT a surrender?

It is as much of a surrender as if France during World War II merged with the UK to avoid surrendering to Germany. Maybe that's not medieval enough. But that is to say, not a surrender at all. It takes a mind-boggling amount of rules lawyering to argue you can "surrender" to a third party who is completely uninvolved in the conflict - let alone a party that is formally, if not functionally, your ally. Just because it might not be an entirely equal-sided union does not mean it is surrender by any stretch of the definition.

You would be correct in calling it a surrender if Terran made a formal plan to willingly merge with Phantaria or the Farronite Republic, because there the land would actually be ceded to the military victor responsible for inducing the merger in the first place. But for stubborn ol' Terran it's D'Hara or debellation.

[Chenier]

It is as much of a surrender as if France during World War II merged with the UK to avoid surrendering to Germany. Maybe that's not medieval enough. But that is to say, not a surrender at all. It takes a mind-boggling amount of rules lawyering to argue you can "surrender" to a third party who is completely uninvolved in the conflict - let alone a party that is formally, if not functionally, your ally. Just because it might not be an entirely equal-sided union does not mean it is surrender by any stretch of the definition.

You would be correct in calling it a surrender if Terran made a formal plan to willingly merge with Phantaria or the Farronite Republic, because there the land would actually be ceded to the military victor responsible for inducing the merger in the first place. But for stubborn ol' Terran it's D'Hara or debellation.

France-Britain relations are not the same as Terran-D'Hara relations. A more appropriate comparison would be Poland petitioning to join the Soviet Union before the Nazis prepare to march in. Which would have seemed like a totally legit thing to do, imo.

[Stabbity]

France-Britain relations are not the same as Terran-D'Hara relations. A more appropriate comparison would be Poland petitioning to join the Soviet Union before the Nazis prepare to march in. Which would have seemed like a totally legit thing to do, imo.

That comparison isn't even close. The Soviets and the Nazis had already in advance agreed to divide Poland between themselves, and were on the same side at the point in the war. France-Britian is perfect, two nations that don't really like each other, but find themselves allied anyway. Its not identical, but then again, this is BM and not RL.

But the Poland analogy is awful.

[vonGenf]

France-Britian is perfect, two nations that don't really like each other, but find themselves allied anyway. Its not identical, but then again, this is BM and not RL.

A more period appropriate analogy would be the Norman invasion of Ireland in 1169. The King of Leinster was getting soundly beaten by a rival Kingdom. Instead of submitting to his enemy, he fled to England and then France to submit to the King of England/Duke fo Normandy. He came back with English troops and the King of England assumed Overlordship first over Leinster, then over all of Ireland.

Another example is the region of Septimania (today southwestern France, around Narbonne). Until the 8th century it was part of Visigothic Hispania. When moors invaded Hispania they pushed up to Narbonne and Carcassone. Seeing that Spain was lost, rather than fight only on their own the local Lords decided to swear allegiance to the French King, leading eventually to the battles of the Song of Roland.

A third example is the integration of Bohemia in the HRE. Bohemia was a first only the holdings of a powerful vassal Lord of the Kingdom of Moravia. When Moravia found itself threatened by Mongol invasions, Bohemia jumped ship and swore allegiance to the emperor on his western frontier. Moravia was soon after wiped out by the Mongols.

[Stabbity]

A more period appropriate analogy would be the Norman invasion of Ireland in 1169. The King of Leinster was getting soundly beaten by a rival Kingdom. Instead of submitting to his enemy, he fled to England and then France to submit to the King of England/Duke fo Normandy. He came back with English troops and the King of England assumed Overlordship first over Leinster, then over all of Ireland.

Another example is the region of Septimania (today southwestern France, around Narbonne). Until the 8th century it was part of Visigothic Hispania. When moors invaded Hispania they pushed up to Narbonne and Carcassone. Seeing that Spain was lost, rather than fight only on their own the local Lords decided to swear allegiance to the French King, leading eventually to the battles of the Song of Roland.

A third example is the integration of Bohemia in the HRE. Bohemia was a first only the holdings of a powerful vassal Lord of the Kingdom of Moravia. When Moravia found itself threatened by Mongol invasions, Bohemia jumped ship and swore allegiance to the emperor on his western frontier. Moravia was soon after wiped out by the Mongols.

A trend worthy of noting there is that every single example was a Lord. Not one single Monarch willingly submitted himself to another. Lords can jump ship whenever, for whatever reason. Where the illegal realm merger rule comes into play is when two rulers decide to peacefully become one entity.

[vonGenf]

Where the illegal realm merger rule comes into play is when two rulers decide to peacefully become one entity.

You know, I agree with this, but there is nothing peaceful about the current situation or the examples I provided. They were all the result of war. I think that's a crucial point. If this had been proposed in peace time I would have refused it outright.

[Stabbity]

You know, I agree with this, but there is nothing peaceful about the current situation or the examples I provided. They were all the result of war. I think that's a crucial point. If this had been proposed in peace time I would have refused it outright.

My interpretation, and I know others share it, of a Peaceful Realm Merger is that the relations between the merging parties have been peaceful.

[vonGenf]

My interpretation, and I know others share it, of a Peaceful Realm Merger is that the relations between the merging parties have been peaceful.

Well, historical precedent is not an end-all argument for cases like these (this isn't really a SMA case), but inasmuch as it can be useful I can't think of an historical precedent for merging two realms without war being the cause of the merger, but these cases I shown are precedents where the defeated party folded their defeated lands to an ally and not to their enemy.