need a name for a continent

[Cloud]

Here's a tip to aid creativity...all continents on earth start and end with the same letter. Why not continue that tradition?

Except the Arctic

 

[Elder the Dwarf]

Except the Arctic

No, the exception would be Europe. Antarctica follows the A...a rule he was talking about.

 

[Shockley]

No, the exception would be Europe. Antarctica follows the A...a rule he was talking about.

Europe confirms to the same letter rule. E...e.

 

[Mindfire]

For god's sake don't use anything from history (like Pangaea) unless your story is actually set there...not that there were too many humans running around on Pangaea. You'll just get hassled by nerds and geeks, when you could have taken three seconds to come up with your own name.

Here's a tip to aid creativity...all continents on earth start and end with the same letter. Why not continue that tradition?

I respectfully disagree. Next to nobody cares whether or not you appropriate a paleontological name for your own purposes. I mean, how many people actually know what Mirovia or Gondwana or Rodinia is and actually care about it? A very small fraction of any audience I should expect.

 

[Queshire]

The Arctic (by which I mean the northern arctic, not antarctica) isn't a continent, it's a giant sheet of frozen water. I have to admit, that trend is pretty neat, just a coincidence I'm sure, but still neat. Although, depending on how you interperet it, North America and South America are exceptions. I also agree that there's not much problem with using places like Pangaea, sure people would complain, but they always complain. I like looking at places from mythology and using those as place names.

 

[Caged Maiden]

So what are the problems with my Independent Southern Alliance? That it doesn't have strong leadership? I guess the northern kingdoms are part of the reason, in my thinking, because the south is both wealthy and cushioned by the northern kingdoms. So are you guys thinking the northern lands would simply see it as easy pickings and invade?

 

[Mindfire]

So what are the problems with my Independent Southern Alliance? That it doesn't have strong leadership? I guess the northern kingdoms are part of the reason, in my thinking, because the south is both wealthy and cushioned by the northern kingdoms. So are you guys thinking the northern lands would simply see it as easy pickings and invade?

Given historical precedent... definitely. I mean look at the place: weak leadership, loose federation of city states, wealthy. You might as well put up an "Invade Me" sign. These people need stronger leadership. Or at the very least a well-paid mercenary army.

 

[Queshire]

I don't know, they could look weak in peace time but come together quickly in a time of war. Maybe have a UN type of council directing matters that concern all the states while leaving the specifics up to each?

 

[Mindfire]

I don't know, they could look weak in peace time but come together quickly in a time of war. Maybe have a UN type of council directing matters that concern all the states while leaving the specifics up to each?

Well see, that's the problem. Getting this UN-style council together in the first place. In peace time, chances are, all these city states will be busy squabbling amongst themselves. And in the middle of all their land disputes and so on, unless they have some kind of natural barrier to invasion like mountains, desert, or waters not easily navigated, it's going to be childs play for any competent enemy general to sneak in and ransack the place before they know which way is up. Or even play one city-state against the other, having them pick themselves apart and then clean up the spoils afterward. No doubt these city-states would band together for protection if they knew the threat they faced. But by that time, provided the enemy general knew what he was doing and there was no disastrous luck, it would be too late.

 

[Shockley]

So what are the problems with my Independent Southern Alliance? That it doesn't have strong leadership? I guess the northern kingdoms are part of the reason, in my thinking, because the south is both wealthy and cushioned by the northern kingdoms. So are you guys thinking the northern lands would simply see it as easy pickings and invade?

My primary problem, as I had hoped to convey, was the name. That's a very modern naming idea.

But yes, they'd be easy pickings. One only has to look at the way the Vikings operated to get a good idea of what happens to smaller kingdoms.

 

[Queshire]

I like it as a idea, there's something to be said about a small, constantly shifting group as opposed to one large powerhourse. Trying to grasp water and all that. Really, there's a lot that can be done with it. Maybe a have them have a culute highly prize individuality but willing to stand together when times are tough? Historically there have been a lot of somewhat feudal countries, though in each case they submitted to a sigle overarching ruler.

 

[Elder the Dwarf]

I don't know. Greece certainly lasted a while, and when Persia finally thought the little city-states were ripe for the taking they were sent packing. There are certainly examples of your idea in both history and fantasy, and they could definitely work. And if that's not enough, you could easily add "they employed an enormous mercenary army" somewhere in the description. If you like that idea, stick with it.

 

[Queshire]

just change the name! XO

 

[Shockley]

I don't know. Greece certainly lasted a while, and when Persia finally thought the little city-states were ripe for the taking they were sent packing. There are certainly examples of your idea in both history and fantasy, and they could definitely work. And if that's not enough, you could easily add "they employed an enormous mercenary army" somewhere in the description. If you like that idea, stick with it.

Greece lasted a while, granted, but there was never a period where there were a bunch of independent city states. There were periods with powerhouse cities (such as Athens or Sparta or Thebes) exerting a whole lot of economic and military influence over other cities. So it's better to view the struggle for Greece as one revolving around leagues/nations, not independent city states.

 

[Elder the Dwarf]

Greece lasted a while, granted, but there was never a period where there were a bunch of independent city states. There were periods with powerhouse cities (such as Athens or Sparta or Thebes) exerting a whole lot of economic and military influence over other cities. So it's better to view the struggle for Greece as one revolving around leagues/nations, not independent city states.

That may be true; I'll take a loss in this argument. However, even if you are saying that leagues of city-states like the Lombard, Hanseatic, and Boeotian leagues are impossible to maintain in the real world, this is fantasy. They were certainly successful enough for a time to force any reader wanting to nitpick to suspend their disbelief. In a fantasy world, which I'm assuming is what this is, a powerful league of cities that can withstand larger nations is certainly a possibility.

Anihow, sorry for hijacking your thread for a bit