City maps

[Raphael]

Can we expect more city maps at any time? Such as for Inex, Kebropol, Syxesteer or others?

(BTW did I understand it right that Abend Monteneon is head of a coalition of Navirora and Zhenië?)

[zompist]

Can we expect more city maps at any time? Such as for Inex, Kebropol, Syxesteer or others?

Hmm, yes, I should do more of those. Inex might be interesting...

(BTW did I understand it right that Abend Monteneon is head of a coalition of Navirora and Zheni??)

Yes; he's head of the Navirora party and thus of the coalition. I'll check his biography for more details...

[zompist]

Heck, I'll just post his entry in the Almeopedia.

Monteneon, Abend. Prime minister of Verduria. Born 3431 in the Petrei district of Verd?ria-mazhtana, to a struggling furniture maker. He spent his teenage years engaged in trade, various half-reputable scams (one he is willing to talk about is selling shares in tontines), some minor thievery, and a stint or two in the merchant marine.

He became an agent for an important merchant, travelling the kingdom on his business for some years; he retired to start a ladies? accessories factory, which failed. He began trading and investing, with his brother Mudray, and became wealthy after backing an expedition to Moreo Ashcai which, famously, outran a Kebri man-o-war all the way back to Verduria.

He bought the Corona Inn (3466), then of middling reputation, and turned it into the most popular inn in the city. He came to the notice of the King when he foiled a plot against the Princess Tilye. He was elected to the Eschambra in 3473, associated with the Navirora party; and was named Prime Minister in 3477. He has aggressively pursued commerce and industry, pushed for the reoccupation of L?catur, and attempted to build a coalition against Dhekhnam.

[vec]

Where is this "Almeopedia"?

[Mecislau]

Where is this "Almeopedia"?

'Tis Mark's current project. It's not online yet.

[vec]

BTW, Maknas, where is your original page? I can't find it, only the Historical Atlas.

[Salmoneus]

Only four years from entering the house to being PM? I know its a different world n'all, but that seems like an astonishing rapid career by earth standards. I don't know about America, but on this side of the pond such a rise would take a lot longer.
TB, for instance, entered the Commons in 1983. He became party leader in 1994 (or was it 1993?), and PM in 1997. It took ten years from member to leader - and that happened because he was seen as young, brilliant and dynamic, and because the previous leader died of a heart attack unexectedly. If Jhn smith hadn't died, TB (or GB) would likely have become leader in 2001, and PM in 2005.
Similarly, Major took 11 years, Thatcher took 22 to become leader and 26 to become PM, Callaghan took 31, Wilson 22, Home was wierd (kept fluctuating between being elected and being a lord) but took 32 from first entrance to leadership, Macmillan ditto, Eden I can't find off-hand but he was Foreign Secretary 20 years before PMship; Churchill took a mere 40 years to be made PM, but it was 51 years before he actually won an election (having been defeated in 1945). Attlee took 23.

As this is a different world, the political system can work very differently, I know. And there's nothing per se wrong a four-year rise. I just thought I should point out that it is very different from a here.
Also, length of political career is decreasing - it tends to be longer in less elective systems. But then, I can't find an explanation of how your system works (not that I've been looking for long - I've got the break-down by occupation or whatever, but not the specifics), so I don't know how the PM is selected. But the page says he's chosen by the king (i'm guessing that's only ceremonial), and above you've said that he's selected by a coalition - in both these situations, the power brokers usually look for a steady pair of hands.
Is there a page I've missed that gives details of the political system?

[EDIT: oh, ok, found the voting systems. Further comments - parties assoiciated with military tadition tend to be more traditional, and to prefer older leaders (as do conservative parties in general - socialists and liberals tend to go for slightly younger leaders). And if it is a constructive coalition, more experienced leaders will be produced. Of course, it may well be a more british-style coalition, in which case the minor party will have to live with whoever the major party chooses, which would suit this. But still, it seems very odd for a major party, particularly a (what-looks-like) conservative party, to choose as their leader a guy who's only been around four years, given the enormous competition for the role.
How often are the elections? Its almost certain that no one will be selected after only one victory (in case they lose the next one), and even two is a bit risky. Remember, you're dealing with a parliamentary system, where the main players tend to be around an awful lot longer.]

I know its not my place to criticise, and I don't want to seem to be attacking you on this. Its just that it goes against what I've heard about parliamentary democracies, and I think you'd need a good, specific, reason to justify it.



A few other questions: you say the PM has executive power. What sort of a role does he have in passing and preparing legislation? Must he have a majority in parliament? Does the King retain ultimate executive power, or has it all devolved to the PM? Are they the only three parties, or are there some minor ones as well? what's the role of the judiciary - are they independent, and do they have any constitutional role? What does the Speaker do?

[So Haleza Grise]

Only four years from entering the house to being PM? I know its a different world n'all, but that seems like an astonishing rapid career by earth standards. I don't know about America, but on this side of the pond such a rise would take a lot longer.
TB, for instance, entered the Commons in 1983. He became party leader in 1994 (or was it 1993?), and PM in 1997. It took ten years from member to leader - and that happened because he was seen as young, brilliant and dynamic, and because the previous leader died of a heart attack unexectedly. If Jhn smith hadn't died, TB (or GB) would likely have become leader in 2001, and PM in 2005.
Similarly, Major took 11 years, Thatcher took 22 to become leader and 26 to become PM, Callaghan took 31, Wilson 22, Home was wierd (kept fluctuating between being elected and being a lord) but took 32 from first entrance to leadership, Macmillan ditto, Eden I can't find off-hand but he was Foreign Secretary 20 years before PMship; Churchill took a mere 40 years to be made PM, but it was 51 years before he actually won an election (having been defeated in 1945). Attlee took 23.

As this is a different world, the political system can work very differently, I know. And there's nothing per se wrong a four-year rise. I just thought I should point out that it is very different from a here.
Also, length of political career is decreasing - it tends to be longer in less elective systems. But then, I can't find an explanation of how your system works (not that I've been looking for long - I've got the break-down by occupation or whatever, but not the specifics), so I don't know how the PM is selected. But the page says he's chosen by the king (i'm guessing that's only ceremonial), and above you've said that he's selected by a coalition - in both these situations, the power brokers usually look for a steady pair of hands.
Is there a page I've missed that gives details of the political system?

[EDIT: oh, ok, found the voting systems. Further comments - parties assoiciated with military tadition tend to be more traditional, and to prefer older leaders (as do conservative parties in general - socialists and liberals tend to go for slightly younger leaders). And if it is a constructive coalition, more experienced leaders will be produced. Of course, it may well be a more british-style coalition, in which case the minor party will have to live with whoever the major party chooses, which would suit this. But still, it seems very odd for a major party, particularly a (what-looks-like) conservative party, to choose as their leader a guy who's only been around four years, given the enormous competition for the role.
How often are the elections? Its almost certain that no one will be selected after only one victory (in case they lose the next one), and even two is a bit risky. Remember, you're dealing with a parliamentary system, where the main players tend to be around an awful lot longer.]

I know its not my place to criticise, and I don't want to seem to be attacking you on this. Its just that it goes against what I've heard about parliamentary democracies, and I think you'd need a good, specific, reason to justify it.

Three things, I think, can be said:

Firstly, as you concede, it's not the terrestrial Westminister system. But even if it was, such a rapid ascent is hardly unprecedented. Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke made a name for himself as a prominent union official before even entering the legislature, and was the most popular man in Australia even before he had a seat in Parliament. When he did get a seat, he became leader of the Labor Party and contested the 1983 election within the same year, going on to a massive victory and ruling as PM for the next ten years. A person who has a public position of prominence and acclaim will often be fast-tracked by operatives into a political career. Arnold Schwarzenegger also springs to mind.

Secondly, it's hardly at all the case that length of time spent in the legislature is going to equate with either experience or influence within the party. For one thing, some people can get the hang of the system within a few weeks, others take much longer. And if you're a mediocre debator or poor administrator, then years of experience won't change that. Political parties that fail to recognise talent and electability either perish or are confined to marginality. Then, of course, with a party system still in its infancy, the structure that we're used to is most likely non-existent. The fakoi, if they're anything like equivalent level terrestrial groupings are probably extremely loose and fluid, with virtually no organisation outside the parliamentary chamber. Individual depeties are likely to largely depend on personal loyalties rather strict party-line backgrounds. And given that the King still plays an important role in the system, it's not vital that at all times a potential candidate requires the confidence of the house - the best PM in such a system would be one who would be able to liase most effectively between the legislative and executive, and keep both sides happy. The coalition may well have a more well-liked or more experienced candidate, but they might have been realistic that this candidate would not work well with the king.

Thirdly, Zomp can do whatever he wants . As is apparent from his biograhpical details, Monteneon is dynamic, clearly leadership material - and who are we to judge otherwise when we didn't create the character? If it takes a great deal of talent and luck to become PM within 4 years, well then clearly Abend has both. I believe, in fact, that Abend (as an inkeeper, IIRC) featured in the original D&D adventures that gave birth to Verduria, so it's important that he has some kind of role to play in the grand scheme of things. A conworld isn't a purely mechanistic exercise in engineering various societies then watching them interact like ant colonies; conworlds must always have a place for significant, unpredictable and unusual individuals. That's necessary if conworlds are to provide story, as well as background.

[Salmoneus]

I don't say that longer service makes you a better candidate, just that it makes you more likely to win. You may not gain any ability, but over long service you gain up networks of friends, allies and debtors. As a recent member contending for a big role, you face a lot of opponants who have spent a lot of time building up their support. Sure, its not impossible to beat them - particularly if the main contenders are dead set against each other so that you can get through as a compromise candidate.
Having weak parties actually increases the power of informal affiliations, making it harder for new members to do well. Just look at how long the 18th century PMs took to get their rank. Its usually 30-40 years, down to 20 in extraordinary circumstances.
There have been exceptions, of course. Our own Pitt the Younger went to Cambridge at 14, Parliament at 22 and was made PM at 24. But then, there were extraordinary factors involved - he was, by all accounts, nearly a genius, was the son of a PM, and nephew of a PM, and friends with PMs, and a friend to many of the King's friends. Plus he had a flair for finance at a time when the government was going bust. And of course, as an old aristocrat, he had constructed a lot of his alliances before entering parliament.

So yes, it can happen in the real world, and yes, Zomp can do whatever he wants in his world. I'm just pointing out that if Verduria is anything like Europe, 4 years from membership to leadership is an astoundingly brilliant career, especially for someone not born to the community of the elite. I don't know how extraordinary Zomp wants his selection to be - if it is truly extraordinary, its fine. If its merely suprising, I'd advise trying to push back his personal timeline somewhat and give him seven or eight years in the legislature instead of four. It would depend a lot on the frequency of elections, however.


I'd honestly like to know more about the political system (I've just been doing German politics, which has always been far more interesting and eventful than British politics, and so my interest in political systems has been piqued somewhat of late). How powerful is the king?
In the Wilhelmine model, the King appoints a Chancellor, who has executive power, but who can be deposed by the King. The legislature is elected, and their assent is needed for the passing of a law, but most (significant) legislation is formed by the unelected Chancellor.
In other systems, however, the King merely works with whoever the parliament puts forward, and has very little power, other than of veto. In others, the King is just a figurehead. Which one does Verduria tend to?

[Mecislau]

BTW, Maknas, where is your original page? I can't find it, only the Historical Atlas.

Um, it's at http://www.geocities.com/malknarh

Except I'm re-doing it now (quite a bit is out of date, plus it just looks bad ), and will move it to xapia.com/serakus soon.

[zompist]

There's a section on the Kingdom of Verduria page that gives an overview of the political system. As a first approximation, the King and the Eschambra rule jointly. In practice, neither can rule alone or defy the other indefinitely-- and both have tried.

In British history, you'd probably have to go back to the Glorious Revolution to find something comparable. The King definitely isn't a figurehead, but the Eschambra can't be ignored, either.

Abend's biography isn't written in stone at this point, but yes, his rise can be described as meteoric. He's a favorite of mine, the hero of one rotten finished novel and one much more promising unfinished one.

The Navirora party aren't conservatives-- by Verdurian standards they're liberal. They're most associated with commercial and factory interests (who in turn are the primary beneficiaries of a strong navy), which are a challenge to the old order (the landowning elite).

[vlaran of verduria]

We should start a thread who would you vote for in Verduria. The results would be interesting. I might go for the Zhenei party, but I'd have to find out more first.

[vec]

Are there 353 days in the Almean year?

[zompist]

Are there 353 days in the Almean year?

A bit more than 328.

[Nuntar]

And how long is an Almean day compared to an Earth one?

[So Haleza Grise]

Do you mean 328 Almean days or the equivalent of 328 Earth days? (And how long is an Almean day compared to an Earth one?)

It says in the Drilldown than an Almean day is "slightly longer". I assume that means less than a whole hour longer.

[Nuntar]

I would still call, say, 25.83 hours "slightly longer" than our day. If that i the length of the Almean day, then the length of the year is 353 of our days.

[zompist]

Do you mean 328 Almean days or the equivalent of 328 Earth days? (And how long is an Almean day compared to an Earth one?)

It says in the Drilldown than an Almean day is "slightly longer". I assume that means less than a whole hour longer.

Yes... I thought I specified this somewhere, but last time I looked I couldn't find it. My recollection is that it's about 40 minutes longer. That would make the Verdurian year about 337.3 Earth days long.

[Raphael]

Talking of the role of the king in the Verdurian political system: What are actually the king's politics (aside from that he's probably a strong royalist)? Of course he wants to keep his power; what for what does he want to use it?

[zompist]

Talking of the role of the king in the Verdurian political system: What are actually the king's politics (aside from that he's probably a strong royalist)? Of course he wants to keep his power; what for what does he want to use it?

Alric has fairly openly supported the Navirora party-- his requirement that nobles reside in Verduria city to vote blatantly strengthened them against the noble conservatives. His father was selected in part because he came from a conservative family... but royalty has an inherent interest in reducing noble privilege. Prosperous cities are also more lucrative for the treasury.