Guns of Infinity



So, I was reviewing my sources about late Brazilian Empire-early Republic and I found something interesting: those army officers that couped the moanrchy weren’t acting based on self-interest.

In fact, there was a certain philosophical background to where they were coming from, mostly, they based their new republican ideas on Comte’s positivism, however, it doesn’t mean they actually achieved said republican ideas).

But there’s one movement that’s arguably more liberal (by 19th century standards) than many things the monarchy did: state secularism. The Emperor was, after all, a Catholic ruler, and the Church as an institution was a strong supporter of the monarchy until the late 1880s. One measure done in the early Deodoro da Fonseca presidency was to make marriage licenses, as well as birth and death certificates matters of the state, and generally pushing religion out of the spheres of government. I thought that was pretty interesting tidbit.

Eh, I suppose. What I don’t like is how these neo-monarchist groups keep using his image to argue that a progressive, liberal monarch is the rule, rather than the exception.

Yep. Voting laws are a good example of this: you had to be a man, couldn’t be homeless or illiterate, had to be at least twenty years of age, and it wasn’t secret, which heavily restricted who could participate in the democratic process.

Besides, the First Republic was more of a patchwork of army officers, regional coffee producers and lawyers that worked together mostly due to mutual interest than the need to form a popular government, therefore, it’s no wonder it quickly turns into a very decentrelized scheme, where the federal government protects the interests of local elites and doesn’t interfere in their doings in exchange for political support and taxes.


Aside from it not being secret, the late period of the Dutch Republic (it sadly got abolished right before the constitution that would have transformed us, at least on paper, into a truly progressive republic, for its time at least, would have gone into effect :unamused: ) and again during the early years of our constitutional monarchy, arguably right up until WW2 was pretty much the same in its democratic and representative content, except our ballots were, formally at least “secret”. 21 Was our original pre-WW2 voting age too, I believe.

Again not so different from many of its European contemporaries, except in sheer size of the country.
Besides “Café com leite” was pretty much the watchword of the old Brazilian republic, right?


Question: I know Welles isn’t a huge fan of the Baneless, and is more concerned with female officers than anything else, but how does she feel about ending the purchase of commissions?


Sometimes that would work in this case.

Sometimes, the officer in charge of recruiting would call in the other recruiting parties, bottle up the militia, and go “if you want to fight so much, might as well get paid for it, right?”

Considering that she’s already in favour of the idea of qualifying staff officers through training and ability instead of nepotism, she’d probably be all for it - so long as the officer corps was still banebloods-only.

Actually, the idea comes up in the salon she hosts in Chapter 8, so she is, for all intents and purposes, all for it.


Another thing about Welles, then: do her ideas on women in the army extend to the Cortes? I think her father’s seat there would be more valuable than any colonelcy.


It does, but that would basically mean reforming the whole of Tierran inheritance law.

Not necessarily something she wants to do, but if she has to…


A few lady-led regiments marching on the palace may make change a bit easier, yes.


Interesting. You know, in Portugal our secularism’s biggest steps were taken during the liberal monarchy, especially during the most revolutionary stage post-liberal revolution in the 1820’s. I guess you guys cut with our revolution in more aspects than just the center of political power one.

Yeah, monarchy is necessarily conservative, heck, even the sole reason for a monarchy to exist IS typical from conservantism: tradition.

Glad to know our first Republic had so much in common with you guys. Our “illiterate don’t vote” policy was a result from the great degree of skepticism our republicans had regarding rural\poor folks and the influence the Church had over them.

They might have been on to something, not the illiterate discrimination, that was preposterous, the nefarius position of the Church regarding a Republic, in the end, it was the Monopoly of power by the same party (with the exclusion of the conservative republicans), the lost of faith in the regime they helped create by the working class, and the weight of the Church sponsored ultra-conservative ideologies that brought and end to our first Republic and consequent rise of Salazar and his alliance of ultra-conservantives, fascists, and big (and traditional) economical interests, an alliance which brought so much happiness to the Church, with a renewed alliance between Church and State (one that jailed, tortured and killed it’s citizens, going as far as declaring national mourning day when Hitler checked out on this world of ours).

Still, the Church, or at least the majority of it, did abandoned the regime in the late 60’s. That’s something, and clearly not without its importance.


What exactly did the MCs father get up to in the Cortes? Will his allies (if he had any) be expecting the MC to do as he did?


So if we offered to support her goal for female officers so long as she also agrees to support (or at the very least not oppose) Baneless officers, and our support was for some reason vital, would she make that concession?

From what I’ve read in the letters and when a cynical MC wants to make moves in the Cortes, he resisted the King’s tax increases and kept away from the corruption. Would be interesting to know how he feels about social, economic, and military reform, but I think that would better kept vague.

I personally imagine he was probably too busy keeping on top of the interest payments to actually do anything about whatever political leanings he might have had.


Will the men in those regiments follow?

Anyways, I think this is how our dealings with Lady Welles are going to go: she introduces us to the Circle, we make plans to seek out allies, draw from whatever connections we have accumulated in addition to the Circles’ connections, and try to get female officer laws passed.

The marriage to Welles will probably come with the agreement that we give her the Colonelcy while we get the Earldom and its revenue. Most of the first female officers will likely try to join the 5th of Foot, because with Welles in charge it is where they are the least likely to be discriminated against, and the 5th will then get a famous historical reputation for it.


That’s actually a super cool theory, though it comes with some concerns, most notably that the reputation loss would be insane. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if by the end of that the MC would have the reputation of someone who ‘should have just died in Antar’.


She might, but legal integration doesn’t necessarily mean a lack of discrimination. Expect a whole host of restrictions, and for any sort of training regimen to be designed to exclude as many baneless as possible.


A not even subtle thought: Baneless officers are “perfectly acceptable” and treated in all manner of tests and exams as fully equal to any baneblood.

This includes “detecting banetraps.”

What, you don’t have banesense?

So sad. :expressionless:


Incidentally. I notice that the OOB at 2K has Lt. Colonel Neille of the Highlanders as chief of staff.

Is Marcus Havenport the Colonel at that point? (His father not needing such things as a colonelcy anymore.)


Brilliant, we’ll keep the commoners out of our ranks by marking potential officers on their banetrap detection, giving them the illusion of equality!

Of course, Saints help us about whatever crisis we’re in that even giving them that is remotely sensible.


I just lost my stepfather in a motorcycle accident. Makes me realize Paul handling the initial stages of grief pretty well. And it’s harder to maybe I didn’t that’s the surreal element of that person not being there anymore especially in the beginning. But how grief hits you it hits you at random. You just break down and cry. The thing is to the main character loves his family they have not had the time to grieve. I’m very curious how he’s going to handle the dimension of the grief of the loss of the father.


Don’t you mean brother?

Anyways, he could still be a Lieutenant-Colonel commanding the Highlanders in the same way that we commanded the Dragoons as one.

Besides, don’t you get put on staff duty specifically because there weren’t any available positions when you bought the promotion? That could have been what happened to Neille.

Eh, people will thank us decades or centuries down the line.


Some, don’t forget, that some of the greatest reform-minded people are universally despised by other groups.


Another dimension I think that could be added and I have faith Paul can do it. Is the weight of responsibility of when you actually become out of head household especially with a large debt. Combine that with any grief over the predecessor and that is some powerful storytelling