(Part 1)

keelboat

 

21 March, 405 UE

Thomas D’Arc

 

Dear Thomas,

Spring is the time of summoning, and this year is no exception.  Our King has summoned me to The Falls for a meeting of his council of Dukes and he has “requested” I bring you as my Aide.  My liege would like to meet his liege (to be), while he can still command it.  In addition, your mother and sister have been summoned to the Capitol by your grandmother.    We shall leave together tomorrow.  I will travel with them down to the Great River, but then I will turn towards you.  As they will need to travel slower than you or I are accustomed, this letter should get to you at least a week before I arrive.  I expect to meet you and the Marquess about 11 April.  Be prepared to leave the next day, we should be at The Falls by the 21st.  Your stay at The Falls may be short, you will need to travel back to the Capitol.  I had hoped to travel with you, but I am afraid my business with the King will not allow it.  I expect his Majesty will attempt, again, to arrange marriage between his son and your sister.  When he finds out you will be going to The Capitol, you may receive a travel partner.  His son is about your age.  If he is like his Father, you and he could become good friends.  Just do not let a woman come between you.

Your brother shall also be leaving shortly, he will be working with an archeology team at the Mouth of Crocus.  My plans to have him named Lord Crocus have encountered push back from the Capitol (specifically from your grandmother), but we have a few years before it could be finalized, so much could change in that time.

As for the question you asked in your most recent letter, while I have read Jonson’s History of Unification, I do not have it in my library.  I read it in The Capitol when I was about your age and do not remember details.  Therefore, I cannot answer exactly which parts are myth and which are real, but I can cover what I think the real story is and we can discuss when I arrive whether they match the book:

Emperor Peter I declared dominion over the entire Great River and its tributaries, dissolving the northern and southern kingdoms.   The armies of the north and south destroyed the old Capitol and laid siege to the Emperor in his office.  While it was defensible, preventing the armies from seizing him directly, he also could not get supplies in and eventually starved to death.  His son came out of the great plains with his horse lords and split his cavalry into 3 parts.  He sent one of his sons north, one south, and Peter II himself commanded the attack on the main bodies of the combined north-south forces.  It was a standoff, but after the sons finished sacking the northern and southern kingdoms, they preceded along the west side of the great river and surrounded the rebel armies.  The rebels attempted to retreat to the east of the river, but the King of The Falls showed up with his army to cut them off.

Up until here is true, according to all accounts.  The next part is myth, at least partially.  The rebel kings surrendered and were taken up the 1076 steps to the Imperial Office.  There they found six people waiting for them.  Emperor Peter II was there with the High Priest.  Each of his sons were there with the eldest niece of the respective rebel kings, both very large with child.  Peter II offered the Kings their life and their crown – as regents – in exchange for fealty and blessing their nieces’ marriages to his sons.  The grandnephews would be raised in the new Capitol until they came of age and took their place as King.  The Kings agreed, the High Priest immediately married both couples and thus, the North and South Kingdoms exist to this day and remain loyal to the Emperor.

I am sure you can see the flaws in the story.  The timing just doesn’t make sense, there wasn’t time for the nieces to be that pregnant and unlikely they would both be pregnant with sons.  But the general idea is true, the marriages sealed the peace and allowed the Northern and Southern Kingdoms to continue to exist.

I have my own theories, some of which I will not put to paper.  You can ask me about it in private.  But from an organizationally perspective, the existence of those two kingdoms creates a power balance that allows the Empire to exist.  Peter I’s claim to the throne required him to deny the legitimacy of the kingdoms, but Peter II’s pragmatic solution is the reason the Empire continues to exist 400 years later.  Also, if you want to be theoretical instead of pragmatic, then Peter I would have never been Emperor, he was technically Emperor-Regent, and Peter II would be named Peter I.  Never forget that politics does not always follow the rules.

Part of the reason for the practical is that theory is not always clear.  Watershed theory states that the Lord of a River has dominion over its entire watershed, including all tributaries.  But when two rivers come together, which is the main branch and which is the tributary?  Your uncle’s throne is based on the theory that the larger watershed in area is the main branch.  Historically, prior to unification of the empire, the King of the Falls based his claim on volume of water.  And the old Northern Kings claimed straightness as the primary factor.  Don’t laugh, I have seen northerners make that argument seriously.    Only the Southern Kingdom doesn’t care as any of the three theories would be valid for their claim.  If they had the military might to match their wealth, they would have conquered the other three kingdoms centuries before unification.  But no southern king has ever made a claim to the entire empire, they have been content controlling the port to the sea and defending their kingdom.

We shall discuss more as we travel up river.  You have been gone too long, I am looking forward to spending time with you again.  Say prayers for your family, especially your sister.  She may need it.

Love,

Father