Talk:Ishkahn: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:: When Mikos went into exile, he kept the title. It is essentially a religious demarcation, not a mere secular position of leadership. The Petarans recognize Sayid as the sole Ishkahn, while the tribes of the Ulan accept both Sayid and Mikos as Ishkahn. | :: When Mikos went into exile, he kept the title. It is essentially a religious demarcation, not a mere secular position of leadership. The Petarans recognize Sayid as the sole Ishkahn, while the tribes of the Ulan accept both Sayid and Mikos as Ishkahn. | ||
:: Is that more or less clear now? | :: Is that more or less clear now? | ||
::: Sure, I like it. Maybe I'll tidy up the Sayid entry with this new information, although I like it a little confusing too. --[[User:Msallen|Msallen]] | |||
Revision as of 19:45, 23 April 2010
No ishkahn among the Beduoin or the Ulan still? --Msallen
- This supercedes anything from the article, including stuff I just fucked up myself:
- We have it sort of muddled, which is alright considering it's an exotic and foreign culture even to the Alexandrian mainland. "Ishkahn" is a title essentially made up by Sayid to represent the fusion of religious and secular authority, as well as the fusion of his bedouin (Sheikh-Malik) and "civilized" Petaran (Sultan) sovereignty. He was able to declare himself Ishkahn when he possessed both the Sultanate and the Sheikh-Malik.
- When Mikos went into exile, he kept the title. It is essentially a religious demarcation, not a mere secular position of leadership. The Petarans recognize Sayid as the sole Ishkahn, while the tribes of the Ulan accept both Sayid and Mikos as Ishkahn.
- Is that more or less clear now?
- Sure, I like it. Maybe I'll tidy up the Sayid entry with this new information, although I like it a little confusing too. --Msallen