Red River Territory, presumably.
I think that "Texarkana" is a much more interesting name than "Red River Territory". Or is it a general name for that region?
Red River Territory, presumably.
Yeah, personally I wouldn't be opposed to changing the name. Especially considering the Canticle for Leibowitz connection.I think that "Texarkana" is a much more interesting name than "Red River Territory". Or is it a general name for that region?
Yeah, personally I wouldn't be opposed to changing the name. Especially considering the Canticle for Leibowitz connection.
Yeah, I had similar thoughts.I'm thinking that the Knights of Kuklos would be the equivalent of the Teutonic Knights for the territory. A knightly order that turned into the power-hungry ruling class of the country. The Governor of the State of Texarkana has always been the Grand Dragon/Imperial Wizard of the Knights of Kuklos.
Yeah, I had similar thoughts.
I've had this theory that the United States gained it's Canadian territories during a counter-Crusade against the Quebecois, as the Quebecois Crusade was extensively discussed in the old thread. Maybe another part of that was a similar crusade launched by the Southern princes against the Louisianians and the New Israelites. Out of territory captured from Louisiana and the Andersons, they erect Texarkana / The Red River Territory.
Well, presumably the Knights of Kuklos are or were a pretty common organization across the South, they just so happen to be the ones in control of a state here, like the Teutonic Order.So maybe the Knights of Kuklos went from a group dedicated to protect the newly-founded "State of Texarkana" to being the region's corrupt military class. The "Governor" of the State went from a candidate installed by the Princes to the East, to a puppet of the Knights, to being the leader of the Knights outright. The original post on the Knights mentioned how they became corrupt, and maybe that's how it happened.
Yeah, I had similar thoughts.
I've had this theory that the United States gained it's Canadian territories during a counter-Crusade against the Quebecois, as the Quebecois Crusade was extensively discussed in the old thread. Maybe another part of that was a similar crusade launched by the Southern princes against the Louisianians and the New Israelites. Out of territory captured from Louisiana and the Andersons, they erect Texarkana / The Red River Territory.
Interestingly, @jmberry said in his New Age post that the Oklahomans had adopted New Age - presumably with a significant degree of the Cherokee faith, since New Age already contains elements of the Ghost Dance and Dineh faiths, in addition to the original "Noble Savage" view that the original New AgersIt doesn't neccesarily have to be the Andersons. There could be another herdsmen tribe that conquered that area. It could have been cherokee cowboys. That'd be interesting to see. A tribe (generally indistinguishable from normal white people) that speaks cherokee and practises the cherokee faith.
Well, presumably the Knights of Kuklos are or were a pretty common organization across the South, they just so happen to be the ones in control of a state here, like the Teutonic Order.
So there are branches of the Knights of Kuklos all across the south, it's just that the one in Texarkana is the only one with official power in the state government. The entire organization became just as corrupt. It's just that only one is in control of a government. They're the bulwark between the Coyboys and the East.
Maybe in the South. I don't see them having much influence in the midwest or anywhere outside of the deep south like Iowa or Wisconsin. Iowa because it's founded by cowboys who civilized and Wisconsin because they live in a totally different cultural setting. Maybe an equivalent organization for the midwesterners or maybe their governments are more centralize and there is less need for a crusader organization
It's certainly a polity, and appears to have quite a large hinterland. That inclines me to think that it is under nomadic or formerly nomadic control. Maybe the "Canucks" discussed in the first thread?Of course it's a purely Southern organization. The situation in Texarkana, and possibly Arkansas, is different. They were taken from Cowboy tribes. So there was no central government to speak of. They'd take advantage of their status as the only armed group in the country to take more and more power until they seized control of the country altogether.
What's the situation in Wiscobsin?
Of course it's a purely Southern organization. The situation in Texarkana, and possibly Arkansas, is different. They were taken from Cowboy tribes. So there was no central government to speak of. They'd take advantage of their status as the only armed group in the country to take more and more power until they seized control of the country altogether.
What's the situation in Wiscobsin?
An interesting thought, but I don't see how a Madison-based polity would be able to hold on to so much marginal territory.In wisconsin they bribe cowboys to stay away from them and have eaten up minnesota east of the missisippi. I personally don't think that cowboys have taken over because it retains it's "State" title. Generally Cowboy established entities begin with "Territory".
It's certainly a polity, and appears to have quite a large hinterland. That inclines me to think that it is under nomadic or formerly nomadic control. Maybe the "Canucks" discussed in the first thread?
An interesting thought, but I don't see how a Madison-based polity would be able to hold on to so much marginal territory.
An interesting thought, but I don't see how a Madison-based polity would be able to hold on to so much marginal territory.