7 replies to this topic

[deuce]

On another thread, BasilBJr had this to say

"I don't think Aquilonia fell apart directly after Conan's death. Conan's death may have caused the fall of Aquilonia only because he couldn't live forever. I could have been a situation similar to Saxon England. Alfred the Great was the greatest of the Saxon kings. Some of his successors, like Athelstan and Edgar were effective kings, others like Aethelred and Edward the Confessor, were not, and still others like Edmund Ironside and Harold Godwinson, had the tools, but couldn't get the job done. It may have been one such `Aethelred' who maybe was Conan XV, who made the foolish decision to massacre the Bossonians, virtually inviting the Picts to invade and overrun Aquilonia."


I myself don't think Aquilonia fell to the Picts right after Conan's death. It's contradicted by the "Hyborian Age" essay and by clues in the Conan yarns themselves. Robert E. Howard describes a very long, drawn-out process which leads to the fall of Aquilonia (and the Hyborian kingdoms in general). The "THA" essay posits "five hundred years" after Conan, but considering how other dates are "telescoped" in the actual Conan stories compared to "THA", an even longer post-Conan period is possible.

IMO, it's very likely that a "Conanid" dynasty persisted for a LONG time, if not right up to Aquilonia's fall.

Thoughts?

[Taranaich]

The key question is just how telescoped? The Conan stories suggest millennia rather than centuries, but the Aquilonian civilization was brought down in its relative prime. It's certainly possible it was much longer, but I'd veer on the side of sooner rather than later.

[deuce]

The key question is just how telescoped? The Conan stories suggest millennia rather than centuries, but the Aquilonian civilization was brought down in its relative prime. It's certainly possible it was much longer, but I'd veer on the side of sooner rather than later.

Good to see ya back, T! I'm NOT saying that thousands of years stretched between the death of Conan and the fall of Aquilonia, just that the possibility is there. Myself, 500yrs seems about right.

As you n' I have discussed elsewhere, Aquilonian/ethnically Hyborian civilization "might" have had a bit of a "Napoleonic" feel to it (minus the steam engines and firearms) right before the Picts and Hyrkanians exploded on the scene.

[RJMooreII]

I'm reminded of the death of Gustavus Adolphus, the hero/warrior-king of Sweden. The Swedes basically went berserk at the death of their beloved leader, and won some significant battles after his death, resulting in the coining of the phrase "Swedish Fury". But without his clever strategy and tactics, they eventually lost momentum.

The Norsemen are a great example of failed empire-builders. Their southern cousins, the other Germans, managed to establish and hold several kingdoms; and at one point the Swedes, Norsk and Dansk. overran most of England and controlled stretches of Continental Europe; but their offspring either 1) lost it or 2) went native, like the Normans.

Edited by RJMooreII, 24 June 2012 - 10:57 PM.

[Pictish Scout]

Some quotes I think are relevant to the topic:

He was, I think, king of Aquilonia for many years, in a turbulent and unquiet reign, when the Hyborian civilization had reached its most magnificent high-tide, and every king had imperial ambitions. At first he fought on the defensive, but I am of the opinion that at last he was forced into wars of aggression as a matter of self-preservation. Whether he succeeded in conquering a world-wide empire, or perished in the attempt, I do not know.

From the letter of Robert E. Howard to P. Schuyler Miller

"Let others dream imperial dreams. I but wish to hold what is mine. I have no desire to rule an empire welded together by blood and fire. It's one thing to seize a throne with the aid of its subjects and rule them with their consent. It's another to subjugate a foreign realm and rule it by fear. I don't wish to be another Valerius. No, Trocero, I'll rule all Aquilonia and no more, or I'll rule nothing."

Conan talking to Trocero in The Hour of the Dragon.

I think these two quotes are related and present no contradiction.

From the stories we know that Conan’s right to rule Aquilonia is fiercely opposed by enemies inside and outside Aquilonia. Vast resources are employed against him; ancient powers, international coalitions, huge armies, etc.

According to Howard it is possible that Conan was forced into wars of aggression, even though Conan vehemently opposed that strategy. He could have kept some Nemedian territories in the aftermath of the events of tHotD but he didn’t. Howard knew of similar events between France and Germany in his days.

I think Nemedia learned a very traumatic lesson after The Hour of the Dragon and stayed away from Aquilonia’s path, at least while Conan was alive. Koth and Ophir could have been in an even worse situation with Amalrus and Strabonus dead on the same battle, plus lost armies and equipment and, most certainly, internal crisis after their defeat.

I think these losses were very hard to recover from and Nemedia, Koth and Ophir stayed away for some time leaking their wounds. Maybe they didn’t present much trouble to Aquilonia while Conan was alive. These 3 kingdoms could have been frozen by civil unrest, succession crisis and civil wars. There was also a civil war in Zingara during the events of tHotD. (A weird coincidence with the Spanish Civil War?? which started one month after Howard’s passing…)
After The Hour of the Dragon, I don’t think Aquilonia had dangerous neighbors besides Picts and Cimmerian raiders… and maybe Argos?
There’s a quote from the HA essay which I interpret as the Aquilonian expansion a short time after Conan…although the roots from this expansion could be found during Conan’s reign and even before that.

Wishing to extend their empire, her kings made war on their neighbors. Zingara, Argos and Ophir were annexed outright , with the western cities of Shem, which had, with their more eastern kindred, recently thrown off the yoke of Koth. Koth itself, with Corinthia and the eastern Shemitish tribes, was forced to pay Aquilonia tribute and lend aid in wars.

It may seem that:
1 – Zingar and Ophir weakened after The Scarlet Citadel and Hour of the Dragon and Argos (a later enemy of Aquilonia?) were totally conquered by Conan’s successors (or Conan himself?).
2 – Shem threw away the yoke of Koth (weakened after The Scarlet Citadel?). Western Shem was also annexed by Aquilonia.
3 – Koth, Corinthia and eastern Shemites started to pay tributes, etc.
4 – Nemedia stood unconquered and in the defensive. Maybe the reason for its independence and resistance to Aquilonia in this time was the fact that after The Hour of the Dragon its king returned home.
There was also the mysterious “ ancient feud (…) between Aquilonia and Hyperborea”…

Maybe Hyperborea should be seen as a very dangerous enemy during Conan’s reign and the outcome was at best inconclusive… Thus the “ancient feud”.

I am the opinion that Aquilonia didn’t change its “imperialistic” nature when the Cimmerian dynasty came to power. At best Conan imposed a “Pax Aquilonica” after defeating his civilized neighbors. But some time after The Hour of the Dragon, Aquilonia (with or without Conan) resumes its conquests.

I’ve noted before that Aquilonia was always imperialistic, always trying to expend since day one. After or during Conan these expansions continued. It seems they were fated to do so.

Edited by Pictish Scout, 29 June 2012 - 02:13 AM.

[deuce]

There was also a civil war in Zingara during the events of tHotD. (A weird coincidence with the Spanish Civil War?? which started one month after Howard’s passing…).

I guess you haven't read this classic TC post by Steve Tompkins:

http://www.thecimmer...mes-reflection/

Howard was definitely paying attention to the incipient Spanish Civil War, but for Texans like REH, memories of the incessant political turmoil in Mexico had a much more immediate resonance.

After The Hour of the I’ve noted before that Aquilonia was always imperialistic, always trying to expend since day one. After or during Conan these expansions continued. It seems they were fated to do so.

As were the various "British" empires starting with William the Bastard.

Howard wasn't against "imperialism" of a certain stripe. He hated Roman Imperialism, but obviously condoned "vigorous/virile frontier" imperialism in the Texan/American mold. He once told HPL that he "slavered" over the (what if?) idea of an 19th century "filibuster" empire south of the Rio Grande.

[Pictish Scout]

There was also a civil war in Zingara during the events of tHotD. (A weird coincidence with the Spanish Civil War?? which started one month after Howard’s passing…).

I guess you haven't read this classic TC post by Steve Tompkins:

http://www.thecimmer...mes-reflection/

Howard was definitely paying attention to the incipient Spanish Civil War, but for Texans like REH, memories of the incessant political turmoil in Mexico had a much more immediate resonance.

After The Hour of the I’ve noted before that Aquilonia was always imperialistic, always trying to expend since day one. After or during Conan these expansions continued. It seems they were fated to do so.

As were the various "British" empires starting with William the Bastard.

Howard wasn't against "imperialism" of a certain stripe. He hated Roman Imperialism, but obviously condoned "vigorous/virile frontier" imperialism in the Texan/American mold. He once told HPL that he "slavered" over the (what if?) idea of an 19th century "filibuster" empire south of the Rio Grande.

I missed that article on The Cimmerian…to my shame as I am very interested on that subject.

I was aware (from letters to Lovecraft, if I remember right) of Howards dislike of fascist Italy and his previsions about a war against fascism.

The word “imperialism” was used not as a political system (with an emperor and an imperial institution) but as a synonym to “expansionism”. So, IMO Aquilonia was always an expansionist kingdom. And I also think they were always feudal (with feudal "institutions") although I am not so sure about that during the “Age of Gorm”…

Edited by Pictish Scout, 21 July 2012 - 12:04 AM.

[deuce]

I guess you haven't read this classic TC post by Steve Tompkins:

http://www.thecimmer...mes-reflection/

Howard wasn't against "imperialism" of a certain stripe. He hated Roman Imperialism, but obviously condoned "vigorous/virile frontier" imperialism in the Texan/American mold. He once told HPL that he "slavered" over the (what if?) idea of an 19th century "filibuster" empire south of the Rio Grande.

I missed that article on The Cimmerian…to my shame as I am very interested on that subject.

I was aware (from letters to Lovecraft, if I remember right) of Howards dislike of fascist Italy and his previsions about a war against fascism.

Good to see ya back, Scout.

Every REH/fantasy fan should read Mr. Tompkins' work, IMO. Here's a link: http://www.thecimmer...thor/stompkins/

It appears that, to Howard, Mussolini's imperial designs were just a replay of Roman imperial designs. Which is what Mussolini blatantly stated. Thank Crom that the Tuareg and the Abbyssinians didn't suffer the fate of the Thracians, Dacians and the Ligurians.

The word “imperialism” was used not as a political system (with an emperor and an imperial institution) but as a synonym to “expansionism”. So, IMO Aquilonia was always an expansionist kingdom. And I also think they were always feudal (with feudal "institutions") although I am not so sure about that during the “Age of Gorm”…

To Howard, "expansionism" was quite natural. He lived on land taken from its native peoples within living memory. However, and this is THE paramount concept to keep in mind (IMO), that land was taken as the result of a "folk movement". Actually, that may not even be the right term. When reading about REH's contempt for the "Roman model" of expansionism, his attitude seems to be that the centralized and state-sponsored model of expansionism is what's "wrong".

The Roman model was to conquer an area with forces derived from the polity (all under direct government control), "pacify" it with genocide if necessary, and then settle/occupy the territory with ex-soldiers, thus "Romanizing" it.

What we encounter in the western marches of Aquilonia is more of a "wildcat" operation. One sees the same things on the various American "frontiers", the Welsh Marches, the Norman "conquest" of Ireland and in REH's Wolfshead. That is, "entrepreneurs" going out and taking land independent of the central government. Howard seems to have had no problem with Cortez and Pizarro.

This is in opposition to what one sees in Mussolini's Africa or Hitler's Reich's plans for Eastern Europe.

As I've noted, "empire" just basically means "conquered land". In that sense, the Angevin/Plantagenet realms were certainly "empires" (and far more in line with REH's sensibilities).

Regarding the style of government existing at the time of Aquilonia's fall, I'd think that a more centralized/"Renaissance" (even "Napoleonic")-style government would be more likely. The government of Conan's era was obviously feudal.