The good guys are a leftist Kingdom with gender-equality (sortof a matriarchy).
So I’m going with a deliberately girly name.
Wondering what comes to your mind when you hear this? Does it work as a name?
> leftist
> KingdomSquare that circle
leftism is when women
I thought women were bourgeois? :tequila-sunset:
we’re doing woke 2 now, keep up
(but imagine Stalins hair is blue)
The bourgoise under a pre capitalistic aristocratic monarchy is the progressive force. Get your Marx straight.
Buy the novel when it comes out to see how.
Im very curious how gender inequality and monarchy could in any way, beyond basic Liberal identity politics, be construed as “leftist” so please do tag me when it does.
I’ll pass on doing that.
Ok so it is just liberal identity politics lmao
It’s more like… I get more joy from creating art than trying to convince hostile skeptics or self-appointed gatekeepers.
Can you understand that?
Yeah I do, which is why I’m curious as to how you’re going to pull it off. I guess I just don’t take mild critique to be hostile gatekeeping
Hmmm you may have redeemed yourself. I’ll answer and trust you to not do cheap low-effort teardowns or sarcasm.
For starters, the tone is silly and whimsical, so it’ll fail a really hard-nosed political analysis. It’s about the realism-level of Shrek. I can’t do what lurkerlady said and get rid of the monarchs coz I want to play with the silly tropes of castles and ballrooms and whatnot.
The Good Guy kingdom have a central state that implements most of the demands in The Communist Manifesto: land tax, nationalisation of the banks. It uses this to fund a welfare state. (That is historically inaccurate: absolute monarchies and welfare states are fairly different things, except for maybe the Inca. But not going for realism.)
There’s no legal wage-labour, instead worker-owned co-operatives like Yugoslavia. The bourgeoisie try to de-regulate this, and illegal wage-labour does happen under the table. In reality, craft-guilds were not necessarily socialist, but in its ideal form the guild-model can approach a kind of socialism. And the idea of banning wage-labour by non-profit-sharing members is historically attested: “Illegal work did not pass unnoticed by authorities at the time, and are documented by police reports and guild complaints. Guild officers were able to arrest people who were working in the trade without guild credentials, and could use municipal law enforcement to aid them in the arrest.” – historical guilds could/should have been more profit-sharing than they really were, especially with non-master-members.
The antagonists include the emerging bourgeoisie. Usury is illegal and they try to conspire and get the crown to legalise it. This compares to how actually the bourgeoisie gained wealth and conspired against the monarchy. The difference here is that the monarch has the class interests of the common people at heart, which I happily admit is unrealistic. The bourgeoisie wants to set up an extractive rentseeking system: the aristocracy wants to keep extracting surplus-value mostly for funding welfare+defense+infrastructure. (Plus admittedly they keep a bit for their own luxury, but imagine the entire GDP gets taxed at 20%, and from that about fifty people are kept in luxury; it’s a much lower rate-of-exploitation than capitalism.)
Another antagonist is foreign invading slavers, who are well-organised like Romans. The Primrose Guard will have to fight them off using Vietcong tactics.
Some aristocrats are less virtuous than others, and consider getting in cahoots with the bourgeoisie or the foreign imperialists. Political intrigue, divided loyalties, back-and-forth.
So it’s like: benevolent welfare-monarch (Inca is the closest historical example, but this is pure imaginative fiction and not history) sustaining co-operativism+welfare+nonslavery, versus the bourgeoisie and slave-trading imperialists.
The critique that monarchs are not in reality benevolent is valid, but this is not supposed to resemble reality.
An orthodox Marxist take would be Monarchy>Capitalism>Communism. In this fictional fantasy lie, the Monarchy is fighting the capitalists FOR communism.
The central state does what Charles Tilly says a state does: levies taxes and maintains itself. It largely leaves the individual alone and focuses on tax, defense, welfare, and infrastructure – the tributary system of the pax romana or the pax mongolica (plus welfare). The way Italian city-states treated the contado might be an analogy here but I need to read more Jacob Burckhardt, Gene A. Brucker, and Lauro Martines to find out.
The state does not do what Michel Foucault says the modern state does: enforce justice on the individual. The villages within the kingdom run their own affairs (much like the barbarian villages in Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid with community-justice) and pay the protection racket in gold and soldiers. Kropotkin says that the model of barbarian villages gave way to the model of walled cities when defense required stone walls. The rural contado of the kingdom are the barbarian villages, while the central state is the walled city that maintains the roads and organises violent defense. Adding welfare to that village-state relationship is a fantasy.
One neighbouring realm (less built so far) may be an anarch like the Old Swiss Confederacy or the Frisian Freedom, I haven’t decided yet.
Michael I of Romania the “Komsomol King”
explain.
I’ve never heard of him til now but Wikipedia says he was anti-communist and communists were anti-him
It’s worth considering the phrase “primrose path” means a path of least resistance or on marked by pleasure, usually with a negative connotation.
thanks
this is in Shakespeare
The name is fine. The Tudors had a rose for their symbol and I am sure they were proud of that.
This crap AI picture doesn’t look like they ever fight though, you’d never have such an elaborate design on anything but a parade shield and any guard on duty would wear a helmet and some form of gloves. And I guess also working weapons instead of whatever they got there. Oh and matching boots, this is supposed to be a knightly order and not a circus.
This crap AI picture doesn’t look like they ever fight though, you’d never have such an elaborate design on anything but a parade shield and any guard on duty would wear a helmet and some form of gloves.
Good, glad that’s coming across nicely. They’ve never been in a war in living memory before the story starts.
matching boots, this is supposed to be a knightly order and not a circus.
The military I was in we provided our own boots, they were all different. (And I live in an era where mass-production exists.)
None of the things I mentioned are contingent on being good at war. Unless this military doesn’t drill at all, they would know all of these things are problems. And if they keep the peace, there is plenty of non-war combat to be had. If this is a D&D game, war is the least of your worries next to the bullshit monsters that live in your average meadow.
As for the boots: Knightly orders have a bit higher standards then even modern militaries. Plus you want armored boots in a sword fight.
very small minority of historical swordfighters had armoured boots
Yes. They were called knights.
they also had plate-armour and horses and tenant peasants paying them rent
very different intention
thanks though
you’d never have such an elaborate design on anything but a parade shield
Yup, flowers are great because they can be heavily stylized and simplified
First impression: they sound stuck-up. (but that kind of feels inherent to monarchy? Probably a good name?) The primrose guard is the “elite force” that hasn’t seen real combat and gets their butts handed to them by the filthy commoner mud-people peasantry freedom-fighting force that they’re constantly disparaging as “mud bandits”.
I think it would be hard to find a flower name that conveys toughness, despite the matriarchal aims.
That said, it’s your fiction, it’s your world, and it’s your story that will shape the audience’s opinion. This is a context-free first impression.
Aryan leftist matriarchy…
Uh okay
Stop being a coward and just make them a republic if they’re “leftist”. The most historically progressive irl medieval era states and regions were usually merchant republics OR extremely religious fanatics demanding equality under Christ. That second option famously ended with major crusades and religious wars against them like the Albigensian Crusade, the Hussite wars, the German peasants war, and the Commonwealth of England (and the many other attempts at Dutch style republics like in Lisbon and Naples). In fact, just copy paste the Cathars.
Werent the anabaptists pretty cool as well? I dont remember a lot about them.
Yes and they also got rooted out by the inquisition. The concept of an enlightened monarch is a modern fairy tale invented by countries with constitutional monarchies. The most enlightened a country’s monarchy got was when resisting imperialism and genocide, then they went back to enslaving their own people when the imminent threat had passed.
Yes and they also got rooted out by the inquisition
No they didn’t. The radical reformation took place in the sweetspot between the end of the so called “Papal inquisition” and the beginning of the so called “Roman inquisition”, and the Spanish inquisition had little power to enforce catholic doctrine in the lands where it took place.
And by the time the Roman inquisition kicked off, Anabaptists had taken over entire towns and Protestantism taking over entire countries. The inquisition can’t do shit to you if you’re in a non catholic town…Now they did kill a bunch of anabaptists, don’t get me wrong. But it was aristocrats, catholic and protestant alike that ended the radical reformation as a political (But not theological) movement.
Müntzer as a representive of what we might call the politial wing (Although they would make no distinction) of the radical reformation was killed by a protestant (Phillip of Hesse) at the behest of a Catholic bishop.Incidentally Phillip of Hesse was also a patron of Anabaptists in his own lands. But only the ones, like Zwingli, who championed the aristocracy.
The concept of an enlightened monarch is a modern fairy tale invented by countries with constitutional monarchies
No. It was explicitly a counter to the idea of a constitutional monarchy. It grew out of enlightened absolutism as a political philosophy. Its champions include Frederick the Great, Catherine of Russia, and Denis Diderot (Of the slight misquote, although true in sentiment, “Men shall never be free until the last king is strangled with the entails of the last priest”)
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out if the man who wrote “Et ses mains ourdiraient les entrailles du prêtre, Au défaut d’un cordon pour étrangler les rois” and two famous autocrats are fans of constitutional monarchism.
No. It was explicitly a counter to the idea of a constitutional monarchy. It grew out of enlightened absolutism as a political philosophy. Its champions include Frederick the Great, Catherine of Russia, and Denis Diderot (Of the slight misquote, although true in sentiment, “Men shall never be free until the last king is strangled with the entails of the last priest”)
I know where the concept began. But there is a modern idea in fantasy literature that it is possible for kings and queens to be “good” and “moral” and could transform their countries singlehandedly to their “goodness” which is made up nonsense. All of those monarchs listed obviously thought they were good and moral, but very few people living in those times actually thought monarchs were that way and we have ahistorically thrusted the love of monarchs onto the masses back then. Nowadays, it seems that the all fantasy literature is obsessed with this entirely mythical concept.
but very few people living in those times actually thought monarchs were that way and we have ahistorically thrusted the love of monarchs onto the masses back then.
No. People did love their autocrats. To a degree that was not rational. Even when the autocrat was objectively unfit or cruel to their subjects that got blamed on secondaries because people loved the autocrat. Countries with autocratic monarchies had borderline cultist devotion (And in Russia and Denmark, actual cultist devotion) to them among the peasantry and working classes
Earlier, before the rise of “modern” absolutism, people literally ascribed divine power to monarchs.
Thais love and adore their monarch IME
The current Thai monarch doesn’t have the popularity of the previous guy, but extremely harsh lese majeste laws are in force.
I was just trying to think of more “progressive” religious movements.
I suppose theres also some of the different monastic orders, sometimes. They’re all over the place, especially in the Americas.
Anabaptists were radical christian reformers, and depending on the individual group you can put the emphasis on any of those 3 words.
What associations come to your mind when you hear ‘Primrose Guard’?
It doesn’t sound real is my biggest complaint with it. Most military organizations with fancy names, imagery, and wealth were chivalric orders. So, mostly noble knights. They wouldn’t want to call themselves guards because they’re kinda stuck up.
It doesn’t sound real is my biggest complaint with it.
Good, yep. Surreal/whimsical is what I’m going for.
noble knights… wouldn’t want to call themselves guards
Good, yep. Non-noble is what I’m going for.
you could have “republican”–parliamentary grains in what were still de jure principalities. notional ‘independence’ from monarchs wasn’t the highest priority for most medieval republics, unless their relation to the prince was particularly onerous.
for a fantasy setting wanting the whole suite of tropes a POV mostly from a merchant town but with a good relationship to a monarchy would let you have your knights, princesses etc. without having to justify the feudal order ‘over there’
What comes to my mind is that it’s a name that was deliberately chosen by someone, as opposed to something that would arise organically by the military’s affiliation or deeds. Like, a group of bandits in the Darkwoods would organically be called the “Darkwood Bandits” by people or the navy of Mountport would be called the “Mountport Navy”. The Primrose Guard is presumably not literally guarding primroses, so if it’s not simply called “[Kingdom name] military” it means someone in-universe has to have come up with that name and there needs to be a reason why it stuck. For example:
- A Queen or Princess named them that because she simply liked primroses a lot and thought it was a pretty name. (This was my first thought personally)
- The primrose is featured on the kingdom’s banner.
- The people decided on it by vote.
- The Primrose Guard decided on it by vote.
- The original commander of the Primrose Guard had a 5-year-old daughter who he let pick the name.
- The kingdom has a particularly significant and famous flower garden with prominent primroses.
- There was or is a person named Primrose who is of particular importance to the kingdom for cultural, political or spiritual reasons.
- “Primrose” is a title for a statesman or cleric in the kingdom who the Primrose Guard serves.
- When the original 9 members of the guard decided on a name, they picked literally the first thing they saw and it just happened to be a primrose on an otherwise empty field.
All of these characterize the world in a different way. “It’s a deliberately girly name” could also be a valid reason for a ruler, the people or the military themselves to pick the name. Whether or not the name “works” depends on whether the rest of the story matches what the name tells us about them. So if the guard themselves picked the name because it’s girly, it wouldn’t work if the guard we see in the story present themselves as more masculine. But a ruler humorously picking the same girly name for a group of rowdy, masculine soldiers could work quite well. Does that make sense?
It could also be a name for someone who originally did just guard primroses. Maybe there was a sort of tulip mania, but for primroses, which increases their value drastically - leading to some noble dickhead delegating resources to protect their flowers. At some point there’s no longer a need for guarding roses, but due to aeathetics or prestige or something the guard sticks around.
Time passes and, due to the prestige associated with being the guards that dont actually have to guard stuff, the requirements to be part of the fancy guard increases. Or maybe the people in charge just realise its pretty nifty to have a guard company at hand. The guard then becomes the sort of de facto castle guard and/or then morph into some elite unit or whatever. Kind of like the Swiss Guard in the Vatican or the varangians back in the days of constantinople (which is now named Istanbul, but it was once constantinople. Nobodys business but the turks I guess.)
Time passes more, there’s no longer need for a castle guard, but we’re not going to disband the most prestigious military unit. Instead it gets expanded responsibility.There’s plenty examples of units with names that once made sense but no longer do. Cavalry regiments without horses, airborne units without parachutes, the marines operating in the desert far away from any shoreline.
For fiction analogues there’s Sharpes’ Shooters which start out as a sort of fancy skirmishing unit and end up being the 1800’s Viet Cong/whatever Castros guerillas were called. Dont get excited they’re British and fighting for the crown against Napoleon.
It can also have been a derisive name that the guard then took upon itself. I think the SAS did something like that because of the original uniforms looking like shit?
This was my first thought, yeah. They should have their origins in literally guarding a garden.
The Dragonlance series had the Solamnic Knights orders of the crown, sword, and rose. As long as you got a nice world-buildy lore story behind why the primrose guard is called the primrose guard, you can get anyone to buy into it.
The most popular fantasy setting currently named the bodyguards of the one confirmed gay leader the Rainbow Guard. You can just do shit.
Yeah the Rainbow Guard was the first thing that came to my mind as well.
That’s the easy army to crush for XP.
