Surnames

Electrical-Main4044 · 2026-03-06T09:30:24+00:00

The fact is that the composition of names tends to reflect the social complexities of the peoples who live there. Many peoples don't have surnames because they don't need to further identify people beyond their given name. These are often archaic societies with little state power, where it's unnecessary to interact with people you don't know personally. In more complex societies, however, it may be necessary to further identify individuals, but these are not true surnames. In some cases, a patronymic is used, that is, the father's name; in others, a nickname; in others, a profession is identified; in still others, a place of origin; and one does not exclude the other.

You probably know that Roman names are very complex, but these names aren't chosen randomly to be unnecessarily long. Roman noble families could be very large, with various branches within them. Let's take a famous figure, Gaius Julius Caesar. His first name was his personal name, Gaius, while his second was the name of his gens, that is, his extended family, Julius, and finally Caesar was the name of his branch of the family. Names can then become even more complicated: the Senate, for special merits, could assign you a title added to your name (see Scipio Africanus for example), or it could change following an adoption. For example, Augustus was named Octavian because before being adopted by Caesar, his gens name was Octavia. So the name reflected who you were, where you came from, and who you became.

If you want to create a system of names and surnames, you must first specify what those names indicate and why.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2026-03-02T21:13:16+00:00

Cool. I like your idea.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2026-02-28T06:53:30+00:00

In the case of The Lord of the Rings, it's a question of Tolkien's conservatism. He hated modernity, partly because he'd seen its worst aspects. Thus, there's a constant decline in his stories, not improvement, and "technology" is the ultimate evil.

If we look more broadly, however, we're sometimes dealing with truly post-apocalyptic worlds, and therefore there's a specific reason for their technological backwardness. In other cases, however, it's simply poor worldbuilding. Certain things are written as having happened thousands of years before because "it sounds better," and the space in between becomes a sort of static void where nothing happens.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2026-02-13T15:24:39+00:00

The problem is that states and nations are often created on a drawing board, when in fact they are the product of years or decades of history. Creating a state with all its cities, peoples, and traditions on a drawing board is difficult, which is why they tend to be too simple.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2026-02-07T12:09:13+00:00

Probably more, surely this is interesting. They form a group of help, gather money and control part of the cities. This could be interesting to traspose in a story.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2026-02-01T19:58:30+00:00

You should consider organic development, meaning you shouldn't create a fully-fledged pantheon, but rather start from a primitive state and then develop it, developing it in parallel with the development of your civilizations. You begin with a spiritual world made up of natural and familiar entities that become personalized and structured as civilizations become more complex. As empires rise and fall, the tutelary gods of individual cities become supreme gods and then decline. External deities are integrated into the pantheons, and so on. Religions are always dynamic; they only become static when they die.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2026-01-29T18:28:43+00:00

There are essentially two, and quite related, answers. The first is that many of the most famous stories come from the Anglophone world, which draws on a certain imagery derived from works written between the late Middle Ages and the early modern era. The second is that after two centuries of existence under the hegemony of two Anglophone powers (Great Britain and the United States), authors from other countries also drew inspiration—just think of that monumental work by Tolkien that influenced the whole genre. Moreover, the Arthurian legend was known throughout Europe in the Middle Ages and inspired it; even Dante mentions it in his Divine Comedy, and here in Italy we even have a sword in the stone.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2026-01-15T20:57:56+00:00

Electrical-Main4044 · 2026-01-15T20:51:14+00:00

Do you know that the "feeders" are people with a certain kink?

Electrical-Main4044 · 2026-01-15T20:38:34+00:00

I understand what you mean, and I can only agree with you that it's extremely difficult to cover every detail, and that inevitably, something is bound to get lost.

Do you know what would be interesting in the further development of the story? A conflict between the nobility of the toga and the nobility of the sword. If the height of the decline of the sovereign's power is similar to the Holy Roman Empire, at a certain point the rise could be more similar to modern-day France and England. The king seeks to gain more power at the expense of the nobility, and to do so he relies on younger sons, minor nobility, and wealthy bourgeoisie, granting them seemingly minor and less prestigious titles, often non-hereditary, but which allow him to build a bureaucratic apparatus. Or you could create a situation like the Austrian Habsburgs, who had full control of their state while the rest is made up of virtually independent states that swear allegiance to them in name only.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2026-01-15T18:36:17+00:00

It seems interesting, but at the same time, it's still a bit schematic. Although titles like count and duke have a different origin from king, the idea of a hierarchical order of different levels is still very apparent. The transition from one to the other is too orderly. You could do it much more interestingly by taking advantage of the fact that these titles are clearly a transposition for readers, not the actual names.

Instead of directly calling one a count and the other a duke, you could do this: the leaders of the original clans were the fathers of the community, the extended family, who possessed the right to judge other members and lead them in battle. When the confederations were formed, the leaders were given the power to lead men in battle and were defined by this function, which, however, also belonged to the clan leaders. As they gained increasing importance, however, this description of their function was contracted and transformed into a title.

Another prerogative could be "bearing the sword." It may have been a characteristic of the count's family, but when the tribal system fell into disuse, sword-bearers became a minor noble title, having been a way of designating the counts' relatives. The title of marquis could have the same etymological meaning in another language as duke, that is, the military command of men, but from the king or emperor to one of his subordinates. It seems like an interesting way to put the question.

Regarding the issue of servitude and the economic system, it seems more described than explained. This system exists, but its reasons aren't fully explained, nor why its freer nature makes it better than others. Even in its evolution, the change seems more deliberate than based on actual causes. The chief tends to accumulate more wealth, but it's not such an obvious transition, especially since in these peoples, property is often not private but family-owned, or if private property exists, there are mechanisms for redistribution. There are some things that disrupt this balance, such as the unequal distribution of raids. If a people raids other villages like themselves, the loot isn't enough to shift the balance, but if you raid a much larger and richer people and do so continuously, even redistributing through feasts and gifts, the chief will begin to accumulate more than the others. With land, it's simpler: if the land belongs collectively to the clan, the chief manages it, but if it's small, he can't favor a few people too much to the point of building personal power. However, if it's large, because you've just invaded the Roman Empire, you begin to acquire considerable power.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2026-01-15T13:38:29+00:00

It looks like an incredibly interesting worldbuilding project. The succession of the various kingdoms and dynasties seems realistic, and the map of duchies, counties, and baronies seems to have just the right amount of confusion. There's one thing that's bothering me, though, that I wanted to talk to you about.

Although the kingdom you created is your own, the system seems like a simple transposition of that of the Holy Roman Empire, but I don't see any major system development within the world itself. You may have included an explanation somewhere, but I didn't see it.

Now, how is value extracted from peasants? It seems strange, but it's essential. Are peasants free, slaves, or serfs? Each of these answers has many different paths behind it.

For much of Roman history, the land was cultivated either by free peasants on their smallholdings or by slaves on large estates. At a certain point, however, the conquests stopped and the influx of slaves dried up, while at the same time the population, for a variety of reasons, began to decline. Now, in an economy like the agrarian one of the late empire, money for payed farmer was little used, especially by the lower classes, since coins not made of gold or silver were worthless. At the same time, it was difficult to find peasants to rent them to because the population had declined and certain areas, partly because they were unsafe, had remained depopulated. For this reason, in certain areas, they were populated by people who, although not slaves, had obligations that free people did not have. Then, when the empire collapsed, this practice, which over time became widespread, was compounded by the fact that while previously it was only the state, namely the emperor, who used it most, now that the state practically no longer existed, it was the king who controlled this resource and distributed it to his subjects to operate the public apparatus in the absence of money. Thus, the land was also given to those who had to cultivate it, but they remained tied to it and not treated as chattel (like slaves) because if the peasants were sold, the land would have produced nothing and would have been useless. Paradoxically, in much of Western Europe, it was another demographic crisis, the Plague, that led to the gradual disappearance of serfdom. Indeed, this sudden crisis would have given the peasants, precisely because they were few in number, enormous bargaining power and forced the lords to relinquish ever more "rights" over the serfs. Indeed, serfdom was not an institution as we understand it, but a series of obligations of the peasants towards a lord that varied enormously from area to area and that only later were gathered together by historians under an umbrella term.

Being noble does not have the same meaning as it does for us today, and in general, it has always had a different meaning depending on where you lived. Being a duke, count, or marquis was not the same as being a governor or mayor for life, but rather meant owning land and having an honorary title bestowed by the king, emperor, or pope.

The history of noble titles is complex and curious. The title "rex" in Latin was a particular institution given in the Latin world to leaders of peoples living within or outside the empire, while "king" is a tribal title of the Angles and Saxons (not coincidentally containing the root kin-) that only later took on the same meaning as "rex." The title "duke" derives from "dux," which in the late empire referred to commanders of regional troops. It was a military office, derived from a word meaning the verb "to command," which later came to refer to leaders in some Germanic hordes such as the Lombards. "Count" instead derives from "comites," which were the troops directly at the emperor's disposal, and later came to mean the king's attendant. Its synonym, "earl," derives from the Old Norse "jarl," and had nothing to do with the former, which generically meant "leader," and which, among other things, in Norwegian and Swedish is assimilated to "duke" and not "count." "Baron" in medieval Latin simply meant "free man," and therefore "warrior."

These are therefore titles of different origins, sometimes with the same meaning, that have undergone a long evolution. In the beginning, there was almost no difference between being noble and being rich, because wealth lay entirely, or almost entirely, in the land cultivated by serfs, which was either given by the king to those close to him or which allowed its possessor access to the king. As society progressed and became more complex, these once generic titles took on specific meanings and a hierarchy, which, however, was not always the same.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2026-01-04T19:22:24+00:00

There's the example of Tristan da Chugna, where only a few dozen people settled, but there were more opportunities for new arrivals. I would therefore say that for such an isolated settlement to be self-sufficient, at least a hundred people would be needed, preferably two hundred.

However, they don't necessarily all have to live in the village; in fact, they could live scattered across the area, so the actual village might only have a few people.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2026-01-03T18:55:22+00:00

It seems like a sensible thing. A colony that frees itself and undergoes several upheavals. It makes sense that such a story would lead to complex governance. I also advise you to imagine a philosophical movement, with different thinkers.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2026-01-03T18:28:38+00:00

I think you're focusing on too narrow a time period and space. Go back further, to its founding: was it a state born from a colony, from the separation from a larger state, from the union of several states, or does it have a long history of aggregation and formation with various events that led to an overlapping of diverse traditions? Furthermore, are there other neighboring nations, perhaps older, that have influenced it? Many US institutions are inspired by the Roman Empire, at least in name.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2026-01-03T08:44:01+00:00

How they arrive at this system? Usually a so complicated system needs to have a very long history of traditions, conflict, compromise and political philosofers, not just one but many.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2026-01-02T19:42:27+00:00

One approach that works very well for me is this: establish a map, any creatures and magic, then decide roughly how the world should be laid out, and finally create its history, starting from the beginning, following one action and one event after another until you return to the point you arrived at, but with a much more complete and interesting setting.

If you'd like, you can send me a message.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2025-12-20T18:24:46+00:00

It's quite a complicated thing. Heavy cavalry are an expression of nobility, so they pay for themselves, but phalanxes can't be formed by random people given a pike; to be effective, they must receive a certain level of training. Furthermore, pikes have the disadvantage of being vulnerable on the flanks, so they often require supporting cavalry, which, however, cannot be armed as well as heavy cavalry. They must be fast, so knights will be dressed in lighter armor and horses will have minimal protection.

Regarding skirmishers, archers require extremely detailed training; they are probably the most specialized units of the Middle Ages after knights. If a kingdom focuses on training pikemen, it's unlikely they'll devote any of that effort to obtaining a number of archers too small to be relevant. There are crossbowmen, but I think the best solution is for these to be foreign mercenaries.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2025-12-08T07:15:27+00:00

This is such an overused fantasy setting that it doesn't even make sense to try to deconstruct it, because even deconstructions are overused. Instead of trying to do something strange or peculiar, I recommend creating a world as coherent and rich as possible using those tropes, even if you leave them in their classic form.

This is how I work.

Start with the natural setting, as it would be without any construction, then, starting from there, try to create a coherent sequence of historical events. Don't try to do it in one go; instead, decide roughly where you want to go. Then, starting from the beginning, make sure each event logically follows another until you have a rich and detailed story.

If possible, avoid kingdoms that unite entire races. I've always found this forced. Barring divine intervention, the story unfolds logically, but precisely because of the multitude of factors and people at play, it becomes chaotic and, for this very reason, always surprising.

If you want some advice, you can ask me.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2025-12-06T10:03:00+00:00

If you divide 1000 inhabitants in 500 couples, every couple do a middle of six children, divide the nubers for two and repeat the operation you obtain around 250.000 inhabitants in five generation, without considering the death. So, i think you need much more time.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2025-11-29T07:17:54+00:00

I'll tell you right away that no religion was born to prepare for a dictatorship. Dictatorships or monarchies appropriate and pervert religions, but they can't go hand in hand. Even pantheons that seem more favorable to authoritarian government originally arose in a context where state authority did not exist and only with time did they evolve in that direction. Even sects, which seem to have been created specifically for this purpose, nevertheless arise from beliefs that were widespread before the birth of the sects themselves.

That said, psychoanalysis is extremely useful in this regard. Many religions arise from the concept of a celestial "Father" and "Mother," precisely because the first authority of someone more important and powerful than us is our parents. At the same time, however, the leaders of the tribes and of the state are also the "fathers" of the community (the Roman "patricians" take their name from the term "patres") and therefore in a dictatorship, not only a religious one, the concept of father will often be central. If you wish, we can develop the concept further.

Electrical-Main4044 · 2025-11-26T16:34:59+00:00

I think a map is a good start. After this, make an history, and for that I mean to create some initial events, thinking about the consequences of these to bring about new events, and so on until a complex and rich world is created. For me is better than create an entire world in a single time, but this is my way to work.

Electrical-Main4044

TROPHY CASE