Talk:Luruar

See Talk:Silver Marches for discussion before 13 October 2008.

Do we really need another article for the Silver Marches? Yes, I know some people would like to separate everything into 3e and 4e articles but I can't think of one strong, solid reason to separate the Silver Marches and Luruar into two articles? The only major difference, other than a name change, is the loss of the dwarven cities from the league. That, to me, isn't enough of a justification and the FRCG makes it clear that Luruar is (so to speak) the Silver Marches and maintains political and cultural continuity. Niirfa-sa 08:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Silver Marches have always been known as Luruar, it's only in 4e when Luruar became the more commonly used name. hashtalk 17:32, 6 October 2008 (GMT)
 * That's precisely my point, more or less. Niirfa-sa 16:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My issue with merging is that Silver Marches as a region in 1372 DR is much larger than Luruar in 1479 DR. Quite a bit that was in 1372 DR Silverymarches is now part of other regions. Hurtzbad 06:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And your point? Cormyr has expanded by 1479 DR, but I imagine it doesn't get a new article. To use the real-world nations analogy brought up in another article discussion just because a country gains or loses territory doesn't make it a new country deserving of a new article. If there was an issue of political continuity than I'd agree, but the FRCG indicates there isn't such a problem. For all intents and purposes, Luruar is the Silver Marches - slightly smaller due to the expansion of the orcs in Many-Arrows and the loss of the dwarven cities, but nonetheless the same region.
 * Don't forget, regions are mental constructions. The definition of what is or isn't in a region changes over time. The "Middle East," for instance, has at different points meant just the southwestern corner of Asia encompassing the Arabian Penninsula, Iraq, Turkey, and the Levant while at other times and among other scholars it encompasses one or more of the following as well: Iran, Afghanistan, North Africa, former Soviet Republics of Central Asia, and more. The Marches' centers were Silverymoon, Sundabar, and Everlund, which are still parts of Luruar. So from a "regional" perspective as well as a culturo-political one Luruar has no major difference setting it apart. Niirfa-sa 07:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I say merge. Redirect Luruar to Silver Marches. It will be awfully confusing for the reader, if researching the history, to begin at Luruar, then jump to the Silver Marches for the middle part, then back to Luruar. There is not enough of a distinction between the two places to have separate articles, in my opinion. Fw190a8 18:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Only a some questions, because hash said it was always known as Luruar. Since when is this the case? I have never heard of this name. I can't remember that it was mentioned in the novels and it was also as a region in the good old 3ed FR Campaign Setting only known as Silver Marches. Maybe it would be helpfull for the more confused users, who like me only knew the area from the novels and some other stuff, to make a little trivia part to explain when the name Luruar came into being and when it became the official one and replacement for the Silver Marches. As far as I know the history of the SM, they were a kind of "state" formed of an alliance of the cities around Silverymoon during the last decades. Was the name Luruar the name for the region before this alliance was formed, or came this at the same time as a second name for the marches? Historicus 17:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what is meant here is that the name “Luruar” wasn't really used before 4th edition, but in 4th edition, they made the claim that the people of the Realms had always used that name. Your suggestion to have a section with more details about the use of the different names is a good one. Fw190a8 20:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)