Your Ideal European Borders?

[funnyhat]

Your Greece is only minority Greek.

If the Byzantines win at Manzikert their state could look like that. The Turks began settling Anatolia after that battle OTL.

 

[phx1138]

I cannot speak for others, but for me, it's based in several things.

-- For one, I'm big on self-determination. When some people want to split off from an existing polity, and others wish to keep them in by force, I will automatically side against the coercive party because I morally condemn such coercion.

-- In conjunction with that first point, it's just a fact that most people feel most closely tied to those they consider members of their 'in-group'. That's pretty simple evolutionary psychology at work. When that crosses into bigotry, it's bad-- but the fact that people feel closer to their own community than to far-away, different people... that's quite literally "just natural". It's not even something you can educate away: it's pretty much hard-wired in a lot of animal species, including primates. Certain individuals may feel otherwise, and dislike such 'irrational' preferences. But they exist almost all people, and they're not going away. So we must accept that reality, rather than ignore it.

-- The 'in-group' is usually first the family (biological or otherwise), then the direct community (i.e. the local community that I - for that reason - wish to be the basic unit for most political decisions), then people who are in many ways like the memvbers of that community (for instance, more distant groups within the same broader cultural group, or members of the same religion, those who speak the same or a very similar language etc.), and then - radiating ever outward - other groups of people who are less and less like us. In the broadest sense, the 'in-group' consists of those we perceive to be fundamentally more like ourselves than different from ourselves in important ways. (Again, one may wish for this to be otherwise, because it is also the evolutionary root of most bigotry, but this is the way most human brains work, and we should adept to that reality in the best possible way, rather than fight it pointlessly. Accentuate the positives of such realities, and massage away the potential negatives.)

-- The above three points combined lead me to believe that it is ultimately best for the world to be as decentralised as it can possibly be. (Ideally, I'd drop territoriality altogether, and allow all individuals everywhere to join any group/culture/nation/people/clan/whatever that they identify with. And all such groupings should then be free to organise their lives as they see fit, as long as they respect the rights of all others to do the same. Ideal in my view, but hardly realistic-- and I know that.) Now, since our in-group identifications are mostly based on commonalities, we will automatically see (and have indeed seen throughout history) that people form groups based on shared culture, shared language, shared religion, shared political and social motivations, et cetera. Or otherwise formulated: our identities tend to be rooted in such things. Which is why, as long as territoriality is a factor, borders based on those same factors are the best thing.

-- Observe that the 'boxes-stacked-in-one-another' model I described earlier is also based on in-group identity. The local community (township) is the basis. The somewhat wider community (shire) is the next layer, because people living in the town of Geesteren are also by definition inhabitants of Twente (the cultural region, with its own distict dialect, that the town is in). Most people identify primarily with their local community, but when asked, practically anyone who lives in Twente will state that he or she is a Twentenaar. There is a sense of group identity there, as there is most everywhere. Now here comes something interesting: those same people - at least the rural ones who still speak the local language - identify with their somewhat more distant kinsmen in neighouring Dutch Salland as much as they do with their no more distant kinsmen across the border in Germany. The modern borders mean litte to them, just as thet mean little to Kurds in Iraq and Iran, for instance. They speak virtually the same language, their cultures are historically deeply interwoven. They have far more in common with each other than with either The Hague or Berlin. Now, in reality, no Mark of Westphalia was formed in 1800 to cover the aree where all the local varieties of Westphalian are spoken. Yet I can assure you, those Westphalian Saxons from the Dutch side of the border in Twente also have more in common with their 'German' neighbours than they do with the (also Dutch! also Saxon!) people in Groningen... because those fellows in Groningen speak an Engrian variety of Saxon. They have more in common with other more northerly Saxons in Germany, who are also Engrian-speakers. Yet all those Saxons - be they Engrian, Westphalian, Eastphalian or Nordalbingian - have more in common with each other than with any other Dutch or German people. Or at least... back around 1800 they did. back then, many people in the region spoke only a Saxon language, and barely used Dutch or German. In some rural areas, that's still the case. (I should know. I live there.) My point is that, when going with an 1800 POD, it would make perfect sense on every level to create very local communities (like Geesteren), combined into shires (like twente), combined into counties/marks (like Westphalia), combined into an over-arching union of all Saxon lands. It's literally the most natural way to organise people (short of doing away with territoriality altogether, in which case you'd see similar groupings emerge at once, but without a fixed territory involved).

-- Do note that if the Saxon area were to be somehow divided in another way (a highly capitalist region and a communist-leaning one, for instance; or a fervently atheist region and a very religious one) you'd have to add a border between those parts, too. It's not just language. It's all charactaristics that we consider fundamentally identifying for our own group. (So indeed, I do think that in areas where culture and language are widely shared, divisive political preferences might still be a good reason to split up areas. For instance, in the USA, I think it would be very smart to split the very progressive coastal regions of Washington and Oregon off from the typically conservative inland areas of both states. If you go with extreme decentralisation anyway, the number of conservative and progressive regions becomes unimportant, because things like senate and electoral college become unimportant. What you achieve is that all regions involved get to implement the sort of policies most people there want, without 'the other guys' trying - or wanting - to block it. Everyone gets what they want! Perfect!)

-- Also note that since over two centuries of centralisation and linguistic standardisation have taken place, Saxon languages are now moribund in many regions. What I described above no longer applies outside a rural setting. So forming a Saxon state today is far less logical. Yet in other instances, the same logic still apllies. Catalans want to be Catalans, not Spaniards. Basques want their own country. Kurds in four different countries would very much like to each secede and then unite with each other. For the same reasons I listed above, I support all of them. It respects their self determination (my ethical basis for my position) and it reduces conflict and discontent (a utilitarian basis).

-- Another reason is competition. If there are countless different polities, almost entirely autonomous on a highly local level, chances are far greater that anyone can find a place that almost (or entirely) matches their own ideal. The place they always wanted to live. Besides that personal advantage, it's also good economically. Places with poor policies that hinder innovation and drive out creative people will suffer for their mismangement, while those that have smart policies that foster development and attract the talented will be rewarded for their good sense. Which means that before long, it'll become very clear which policies are good ones. You get great control groups for comparing policy effects, essentially. Which I think will ultimately lead to the (voluntary) wider adoption of sound policies in most places.

-- There is another reason, and that one is more subjective. I like diversity. Given a choice between a world with fifty cultures or a world with ten thousand cultures, I will opt for the latter. I like seeing different attitudes, traditions, preferences and styles. I like hearing different languages, different songs-that-every-in-the-village-knows. A world with one single culture, where Bangkok is essentially the same as New York is ideal to some people. To me, it is a nightmare. That's why, even though most Saxon people nowadays feel fine about being either Dutch or German, I would have much preferred if, in 1800 or so, that confederal Saxon union I just described had been created. And if all the world had in fact been decentralised in that way.

-- The final point is that although I like diversity and cultural distinctness, it should by now be clear that I am an ardent enemy of bigotry and racism. I want cultures distinct not because I think some are better than others, but because I think they all deserve to be preserved and cherished. For that reason, I also suggested unifying the decentralised Europe into a confederation, which would ensure that stuff like "we secede so we can have slavery in our country" gets stopped whenever it rears its ugly head. And I said Europe, because that's what this thread is about. Even more ideal would be a global confederation along those lines. A world, united in peace, but endlessly diverse in its cultures and communities.

That is truly an ideal. I hope I have adequately explained why I cherish it.

I could happily give this ten "like"s.

My only disagreement, & it is a small but practical one: how do you govern? We have trouble enough settling matters between a hundred or so nations; how, how could we ever with thousand? I foresee endless wars.

There's a reason the ancient world was fraught, & today is less so. "Micronationalism" of this kind would seem to risk a return to it.

It would also, I suspect, produce a poorer world, unable to achieve economies of scale as every entity specialized... That is not a good thing for overpopulation, nor for the environment at large.

If you can achieve this in a multicultural world, a world of few governments (one global government?), where every ethnicity has the freedom to exist & prosper... (Do I begin to sound like Gene Roddenberry?)

 

[Teejay]

Germany remaining with it's Weimar republic borders after WW2, although during the cold war era East Prussia would have become the Soviet Republic of Prussia. After the cold war ends both West Germany, East Germany and Prussia are reunited with extra states such as Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia.

Greece covering OTL Turkish Thrace, The northeastern corner of Anatolia and Ionia with Constantinople as it's capital. Also a Greater Armenia, Tezibond Republic and Kurdistan. Turkey is reduced to pretty much covering central Anatolia with Ankara as it's capital.

Italy covering both the old county of Nice and Istria.

 

[phx1138]

A very rough-bordered map:

FYI, the yellow border of the OE is not disputed, it's failure of the color-fill function...

The mauve I imagined Ukraine or Transylvania, but it occurs to me that should be OE, too...

How you get to this, I haven't figured out.

(And Canada is a joke, in case that's not clear...)

 

[Teejay]

A very rough-bordered map:

FYI, the yellow border of the OE is not disputed, it's failure of the color-fill function...

The mauve I imagined Ukraine or Transylvania, but it occurs to me that should be OE, too...

How you get to this, I haven't figured out.

(And Canada is a joke, in case that's not clear...)

I can't see the image, sorry

 

[HIM Dogson]

-- The final point is that although I like diversity and cultural distinctness, it should by now be clear that I am an ardent enemy of bigotry and racism. I want cultures distinct not because I think some are better than others, but because I think they all deserve to be preserved and cherished. For that reason, I also suggested unifying the decentralised Europe into a confederation, which would ensure that stuff like "we secede so we can have slavery in our country" gets stopped whenever it rears its ugly head. And I said Europe, because that's what this thread is about. Even more ideal would be a global confederation along those lines. A world, united in peace, but endlessly diverse in its cultures and communities.

Well, wait, what if the majority of people genuinely want to secede because of slavery? What if slavery is one reason/result of secession but there are others? What do you do then?

 

[Skallagrim]

Well, wait, what if the majority of people genuinely want to secede because of slavery? What if slavery is one reason/result of secession but there are others? What do you do then?

The answer is literally in the part you quoted. The confederation is supposed to safeguard human rights. Anyone who wants to split off from an existing member state and thus form a new member state is free to do so, but signing the confederation charter (or whatever) and accepting its basic principles is part of that. Seceding to become a "rogue state", conversely, is not allowed.

I call this the "don't be dick" principle.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

Romania: Has Moldova and Ukrainian Bessarabia and Chotyn. But gives Dobruja to Bulgaria.

Bulgaria: has Dobruja.

Turkey: has Western Thrace, Adjara, Northern Iraq, Al Jazira (Syria), Aleppo and Raqqa, Dodecanesos, Lesbos, Samos, Chios, Lemnos and the island just close to the West Thracian coast.

Bosnia: has Sandzak.

Albania: has Kosovo, Ioaninna and southern Montenegro

Crimea: a home nation for the Crimean Tatars

Azerbaijan: has Armenia.

Caucasus: a Circassian state in the West, a Dagestan-Chechnya in the East.

Hungary: has Komorn and Karpathy- Ukraine.

Slovenia: has Triest.

Spain: has Gibraltar but loses Ceuta and Mellila

Former East Prussia: independent.

Germany: united with Austria. Has Alsace-Lorraine.

I guess that is it...

Additional: Israel and Palestine as one nation as federal republic of Israel-Palestine.

Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq form one nation.

 

[Mikestone8]

Hungary: has Komorn and Karpathy- Ukraine.

Where exactly id "Kormorn"?

 

[phx1138]

I can't see the image, sorry

I can't either, & IDK how to fix it...

Try this

 

[JackLumber]

Where exactly id "Kormorn"?

It's split on the Hungarian Slovak border.

 

[cmakk1012]

Turkey: has Western Thrace, Adjara, Northern Iraq, Al Jazira (Syria), Aleppo and Raqqa, Dodecanesos, Lesbos, Samos, Chios, Lemnos and the island just close to the West Thracian coast.

I applaud your going against the grain/Byzantophilia here

Albania: has Kosovo, Ioaninna and southern Montenegro

What about Albanian Macedonia?

BONUS: what about the Arvanites in the Peloponnese?

MEGA BONUS: what about the Arberesh in southern Italy?

Azerbaijan: has Armenia.

So, uh, what happened to the Armenians? To be fair Erivan/Yerevan was an (EDIT: Turkish) emirate for quite some time...

Slovenia: has Triest.

Mamma mia...

 

[IntellectuallyHonestRhino]

This is gonna be a bloodbath ...

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

Where exactly id "Kormorn"?

Slovakia

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

I applaud your going against the grain/Byzantophilia here



What about Albanian Macedonia?

BONUS: what about the Arvanites in the Peloponnese?

MEGA BONUS: what about the Arberesh in southern Italy?



So, uh, what happened to the Armenians? To be fair Erivan/Yerevan was an (EDIT: Turkish) emirate for quite some time...



Mamma mia...

A (Dutch-) Turk going against Byzantine interests? I heard that before

Macedonia... I like Macedonia too much to let it divide, and not enough to give it more.

I like Albania with clean borders. And too much Christian Albanians then, hurts my feelings bruh :v

Armenians and Azerbaijanis can if they wish move to their former lands in Azerbaijan and Armenia. Like Armenians original from Baku can move their if they wish so, Azerbaijanis can move to Erivan. Like that.

Maybe I forgot to say, Italy gets Corsica.

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

All these über-Greece’s are disgusting.

 

[Redcoat]

Romania: Has Moldova and Ukrainian Bessarabia and Chotyn. But gives Dobruja to Bulgaria.

Bulgaria: has Dobruja.

Turkey: has Western Thrace, Adjara, Northern Iraq, Al Jazira (Syria), Aleppo and Raqqa, Dodecanesos, Lesbos, Samos, Chios, Lemnos and the island just close to the West Thracian coast.

Bosnia: has Sandzak.

Albania: has Kosovo, Ioaninna and southern Montenegro

Crimea: a home nation for the Crimean Tatars

Azerbaijan: has Armenia.

Caucasus: a Circassian state in the West, a Dagestan-Chechnya in the East.

Hungary: has Komorn and Karpathy- Ukraine.

Slovenia: has Triest.

Spain: has Gibraltar but loses Ceuta and Mellila

Former East Prussia: independent.

Germany: united with Austria. Has Alsace-Lorraine.

I guess that is it...

Additional: Israel and Palestine as one nation as federal republic of Israel-Palestine.

Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq form one nation.

I am very mad and you've hit several of my triggers but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .

 

[cmakk1012]

All these über-Greece’s are disgusting.

angry Rhoman noises

 

[Flavius Phocas]

All these über-Greece’s are disgusting.

I agree, that land is rightful Rhomanian land, get those bloody Greeks outta there:

 

[cmakk1012]

I agree, that land is rightful Rhomanian land, get those bloody Greeks outta there:

Looks like the borders of a successful Straits polity created after WWI