Rule of thumb. If you can't do justice to everybody, ensure that the injustice falls on the smaller nation. Inflicting it on the big one will just lead to more trouble than it's worth.
Your Ideal European Borders?
- Thread starter cmakk1012
- Start date
Rule of thumb. If you can't do justice to everybody, ensure that the injustice falls on the smaller nation. Inflicting it on the big one will just lead to more trouble than it's worth.
When constructing "ideal borders" it depends which of these you consider more important:
- creed
- dialect
- culture/ideology
- family lineage
I'd say finding maps on population density are also needed. Lot of mountainous areas are unpopulated and simply swells group by making it seem like they are the only ones there. Still, if no one else is going to live there, why not? And I have to wonder if perhaps neighboring countries not demanding chunks would help things out. Perhaps the Croatians would have went their own way if Croatia-Slavonia were able to unite with Dalmatia, instead of Serbia swooping in on Bosnia, Herzoviginia, and some semi-Croat areas. Simply sticking to Bosnia (and not annexing their ally Montenegro) might have allowed the idea of multiple states down there.
Try running the whole empire like a bigger Switzerland, with everything decided at as local a level as possible.
Like I said, I'm combining ethnic lines and natural frontiers (rivers, mountain ranges etc.) to create the borders. I want avoid as many so-called "lines in the sand" as possible while representing most ethnicities of the time.
I was thinking of giving Cilicia to Armenia at one point. However I don't see how they could realistically govern that territory effectively in a scenario where I assume Turkey would be quite hostile. It's one thing for East Prussia or parts of Israel which can be rather easily supplied via the sea, but if Armenia were to own Cilicia they would pretty much depend on having a larger fleet than Turkey to have that territory secured.
Not to mention that Cilicia at the time was rather multiethnic and consisted of not only Armenians, but also Turks and Greeks, so having it be a part of Armenia would cause....problems, especially since as said, it's geographically seperated from the rest of Armenia.
That's just there because I already made a similar map of the Middle East in the "Maps and Graphics" portion of the Forum, and decided to expand it by including Europe. Consider it a bonus, the Middle East is of course not a part of Europe, despite how arbritary continetal border are.
I think having Russia removed from Polands eastern flank would atleat help mitigate some of those issues. I could have given them Danzig, but seeing as having Danzig as a free city caused alot of problems in our timeline I opted not to. However the Poles still have access to the sea here so I wouldn't say they're completely screwed. The parts that voted to join Poland in 1919 are still included within Poland and not within Germany.
I didn't think anyone would really care too much about Gibraltar or tiny ports in Cyprus, but I appreciate the fact that you were interested enough in my map to look for them. The problem with those examples is that they're too small to show even on a present day map without labels. So I can't say I gave it much thought because those parts can't be shown on a map of the entire continent.
Last edited:
Skallagrim
Banned
Better yet: like Liechtenstein. It's already a microstate consisting of just eleven municipalities... and as of fifteen years ago, each of them has the constitutional right to hold a binding referendum on secession at any time. Prince Hans-Adam II is really into decentralism.
(I say this because modern-day Switzerland is less decentralised than it was in the old confederal days before the Sonderbund War. Basically dissolving all European countries and having every municipality in Europe become a municipality of Liechtenstein instead would be the most decentralist reform one might care to imagine. Needless to say, I think it's a swell idea.)
Napoleonrules
Banned
That's a myth about Switzerland. Ever since the Sonderbund War Switzerland has (literally) had a constitutional set up based on the USA's federal style.
Napoleonrules
Banned
I think you need to read the news... Spain does not give local regions as much control as you think. See- Catalonian referrendum
Please don't bring current politics into this thread.
I'll answer you in the relevant thread.
IFwanderer
Banned
All belongs to glorious Rome*.
*Which of the many states and empires that called themselves "Rome" is the Rome I'm talking about here is left open for interpretation.
*Which of the many states and empires that called themselves "Rome" is the Rome I'm talking about here is left open for interpretation.
To be fair, the US is a good deal more centralised than it used to be. A country run like the US c. 1847 would be much more decentralised than a country run like the US c. 2017.
Usually has a lot of baggage. Either you have the Ottomans and Arabia and North Africa make the shape weird (though I do adore Rumelia) or you have the Maceonds grabbing Iran or some Megal Ideal thing going.
Gasp. A monarchist? In our thread? Also, wasn't there something a decade or two back about the Prince demanding certain things increasing his power be agreed upon or he would abdicate? Might be thinking of Monaco, though.
Skallagrim
Banned
I'm not a monarchist per se: it's the decentralism that gets me going.
And yes, that was Liechtenstein, and that was about the referendum that gave every municipality the right to secede. The whole "it's about the prince demanding power" bit was a bit of a frame/smear, if you ask me. The main thing is that he gained an absolute veto over all legislation, but he only wanted that so he could... well, basically block all legislation that increases government power. (Hans-Adam II is a bit of a libertarian-esque figure: his original plan for the secession clause was for every landowner to be allowed to secede and form his own country. Very idealistic - close my own ideals - but hardly practical. He's written a book, The State in the Third Millennium, which is a fascinating read even if one disagrees in part - or even in full - with his ideas.)
Anyway, to recapitulate: Hans-Adam II is a bit of a weird one, and his views may not be everyone's cup of tea, but certain attempts to frame him as an authoritarian are truly disingenuous.
I hardly think the US making distinctions between its immigrant population and Imperial Russia labelling a conquered people differently to Russian is the same. Further the main point is if the Russian regard the Ukrainians as different from Russians then there's a case to be made that their nation is real.
edit
Evidence for this being...
...which is why I don't rate any of these as legitimate bases for international borders. In fact, when I find ANY legitimate bases for international borders I'll let you know...