Your Charlemagne inspired monarchs

[Netardapope]

First off, props to Netardapope for identifying a new fantasy archetype. Or at least, I assume this is a new discovery. I've never really seen any discussion on this type of character.

Second, I got a Charlemagne-type.
He is called The Gold Crown Emperor of the Redeemer Dynasty.
The first incarnation of his empire (inspired by Rome) was destroyed by a nasty political crisis and the second incarnation (inspired by the Byzantine and Western Roman Empire) was mostly defined by radical political shifts which eventually caused it to split into three distinct nations. The Gold Crown Emperor was able to unite the three countries under his rule and established a very efficient centralized government and an organized national monotheistic religion.
He was deemed the "True Emperor" by the setting's most powerful religious leader. This religious leader also formed a group of warrior-clerics (based off the Paladins) to assist his dynasty.
His successors were less successful in keeping a tight grip on the empire leading to the modern ruler's (the Gold Dragon Emperor) claim to the throne being put into question.

Thanks for the compliment but the way I see it is that it's more of a real life trope than anything. Any nation that's ever existed has had some sort of leader who pulls it out of the darkness! That being said, I'm not sure I've seen a page on tvtropes regarding the way I described the trope so maybe I did find something new [emoji15]

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Gurkhal]

I think Velka might be thinking of Charlemagne's campaign in Saxony.

That might be true, but given the history between the Franks and the Saxons and the less than peaceful life style of the Saxons I don't see it as a very good fit for Velka's description.

 

[Ban]

That might be true, but given the history between the Franks and the Saxons and the less than peaceful life style of the Saxons I don't see it as a very good fit for Velka's description.

Charlemagne did forcefully convert the polytheistic saxons to monotheism and incorporate their territory in his realm. That is what Velka talked about.

While we're on the subject of Charlemagne. Do any of you have a Widukind character? The rebel opponent of charlemagne who gives a good fight before converting to the agressor's religion and becoming his loyal vassal. A character like that seems very interesting to me.

 

[Gurkhal]

Charlemagne did forcefully convert the polytheistic saxons to monotheism and incorporate their territory in his realm. That is what Velka talked about.

I know and I agree that he did it and it wasn't his greast moment. However it wasn't what I was reacting to. What I reacted to was this;

Like Charlemagne, he supplants polytheism with monotheism, successfully instilling a “we’re right and you’re all dirty heretics that need to be converted or killed” mentality. In the wake of his rule, cultural and religious diversity and acceptance (caused by everyone and their dog having their own god and being pretty okay with it, even if they believe they’re right and the other guys are wrong) are obliterated and war, which used to be primarily a political affair, now becomes fuelled by religion. No god, but God becomes the mantra and religious intolerance is born in it’s stead.

To me the bolded part sounds like Charlemagne was coming into some tolerant utopia and crashed the party or that he invented monotheistic intolerance, neither of which is true. Everything that is bolded, and more, existed way before Charlemagne was born and before his grandparents were born. Was it bad what he did to the Saxons? Yes, a more political crumstobbing would have been nicer. However he supplanted one area's polytheism with monotheism out of the many that he conquered. From Velka's text it sounds like polytheism was the norm which it certainly wasn't west of the Rhine and had not been that for centuries. I also seriously doubt that tolerance and acceptance of diversity was particular high on the priority list before Charlemagne came around.

In issue I react to both the idea that Charlemagne destroyed a whole polytheistic world, that world was destroyed while the Roman empire was still standing, and that the evils of an age is attributed to a single individual when they did, to my knowledge, not flow from him.

 

[Ban]

You make a good point and I understand, but we are talking about characters similar to Charlemagne. They don't have to be exactly like the real life version.

 

[Velka]

I know and I agree that he did it and it wasn't his greast moment.

Um, yeah, I guess one can call the Massacre of Verden, in which 4500 captive Saxons were killed, not one's "greatest moment". More like an oops, my bad.

To me the bolded part sounds like Charlemagne was coming into some tolerant utopia and crashed the party or that he invented monotheistic intolerance, neither of which is true. Everything that is bolded, and more, existed way before Charlemagne was born and before his grandparents were born. Was it bad what he did to the Saxons? Yes, a more political crumstobbing would have been nicer. However he supplanted one area's polytheism with monotheism out of the many that he conquered. From Velka's text it sounds like polytheism was the norm which it certainly wasn't west of the Rhine and had not been that for centuries. I also seriously doubt that tolerance and acceptance of diversity was particular high on the priority list before Charlemagne came around.

In issue I react to both the idea that Charlemagne destroyed a whole polytheistic world, that world was destroyed while the Roman empire was still standing, and that the evils of an age is attributed to a single individual when they did, to my knowledge, not flow from him.

Charlemagne may not have invented religious intolerance, but he was certainly a member of it's fan club.

Where did I say that my Charlemagne INSPIRED ruler was 100% factually based on him? I took what happened with the Saxons and added my own imaginative flair. You read entirely too much into my little synopsis. This is a fantasy-based world building forum, not a peer-reviewed historical journal. Calm down.

 

[Netardapope]

Regarding the whole chalemagne debaucle, one must keep in mind the situation of western Europe at the time. Religion was the only thing that was common amongst your allies at a time when invaders where pounding at your doorstep constantly. The way I see it, religious intolerance was the only way to go for Charlemagne as in times like the dark ages, reasoning with pagans or vice versa would have been impossible. I think Charlemagne had good reason for believing what he did, even if it was not right. We can't apply our modern day values to someone who has been dead for more than a 1000 years

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Gurkhal]

Um, yeah, I guess one can call the Massacre of Verden, in which 4500 captive Saxons were killed, not one's "greatest moment". More like an oops, my bad.

Charlemagne may not have invented religious intolerance, but he was certainly a member of it's fan club.

Where did I say that my Charlemagne INSPIRED ruler was 100% factually based on him? I took what happened with the Saxons and added my own imaginative flair. You read entirely too much into my little synopsis. This is a fantasy-based world building forum, not a peer-reviewed historical journal. Calm down.

Wars and military conquests are brutal and have always been for the vast majority of human history, Charlemagne's are not different in that regard. As for religious intolerance I agree from what we've seen of him.

However, you wrote this.

Like Charlemagne, he supplants polytheism with monotheism, successfully instilling a “we’re right and you’re all dirty heretics that need to be converted or killed” mentality.

The "Like Charlemagne" sounds pretty much to me like you are saying that Charlemagne did those things; replace polytheism with monotheism and installing a "convert or die" mentality, which we know is not true. If you could provide a different interpretation of what you wrote I'd be happy to rethink my understanding of what you meant.

 

[Mythopoet]

Wars and military conquests are brutal and have always been for the vast majority of human history, Charlemagne's are not different in that regard. As for religious intolerance I agree from what we've seen of him.

However, you wrote this.



The "Like Charlemagne" sounds pretty much to me like you are saying that Charlemagne did those things; replace polytheism with monotheism and installing a "convert or die" mentality, which we know is not true. If you could provide a different interpretation of what you wrote I'd be happy to rethink my understanding of what you meant.

I really think you just need to not take this so seriously. Keep in mind that the word "like" is defined as "having the same or similar qualities". You seem to be assuming that Velka is using it to mean "having the same qualities" while Velka seems to be using it more on the "having similar qualities" end of the spectrum. Since either usage is perfectly fine, you should just accept Velka's explanation for what she meant.

 

[Velka]

The "Like Charlemagne" sounds pretty much to me like you are saying that Charlemagne did those things; replace polytheism with monotheism and installing a "convert or die" mentality, which we know is not true.

Charlemagne did replace polytheism with monotheism in Saxony.

Charlemagne did issue Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae with charmingly states:

If any one of the race of the Saxons hereafter concealed among them shall have wished to hide himself unbaptized, and shall have scorned to come to baptism and shall have wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death.

Sounds like convert or die to me. I never stated he was the first, or only, to do so, but like I said, he was a member of the fan club.

If you could provide a different interpretation of what you wrote I'd be happy to rethink my understanding of what you meant.

I have no different interpretation. Charlemagne did do these things, and like him, my bad guy does them too, but in a different context (hence the "inspired" modifier).

 

[Gurkhal]

I really think you just need to not take this so seriously. Keep in mind that the word "like" is defined as "having the same or similar qualities". You seem to be assuming that Velka is using it to mean "having the same qualities" while Velka seems to be using it more on the "having similar qualities" end of the spectrum. Since either usage is perfectly fine, you should just accept Velka's explanation for what she meant.

Alright, I'll give Velka the benefit of doubt, and I suppose that you are right in that I take it to seriously.

Charlemagne did replace polytheism with monotheism in Saxony.

Charlemagne did issue Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae with charmingly states:

If any one of the race of the Saxons hereafter concealed among them shall have wished to hide himself unbaptized, and shall have scorned to come to baptism and shall have wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death.

Sounds like convert or die to me. I never stated he was the first, or only, to do so, but like I said, he was a member of the fan club.

I really feel at having a go against this but I won't. Its a bit more complicated situation in reality but I shall give you the benefit of doubt.

 

[Gurkhal]

It seems I can't edit my post anymore, but I'd like to offer an apology for losing my temper like that. I apologize to Velka and others who I might have offended or disturbed.