What is a common thing or trope that always seem to happen?

[wcv215]

What about artillery wise? Surely that could play a role.
Alternately, for this ATL, you could write it as an earlier iteration of the Spanish Armada vs. Elizabeth I...

Artillery wasn’t really a thing in ancient warfare. Like the Romans had the Scorpion for battlefield use, but ramming and/or boarding was the preferred tactic for a reason. The Armada meanwhile isn’t really comparable. It was commanded by a man with little experience at naval combat, was far more reliant on the weather, and facing a very different sort of enemy in the English foeet. Octavian had previously fought a major naval campaign in Sicily, and his ships were significantly more maneuverable. And his people weren’t besieged and demoralized. Antony’s problems were severe, and by the time of Actium he’d been backed into a corner with no chance of victory.

To be fair it was the Queen who opposed the conquests, the King thought it was based and wanted it to continue so long it keep financing his atempts at conquering Italy

One thing to remember is that in the 1500s there wasn’t a Kingdom of Spain. And there wouldn’t be for 200 years. It was the Kingdoms of Aragon and Castille. And that was a mess of an arrangement. With overlapping, contradictory, and non-supportive power bases. And the royals weren’t anything approaching absolute monarchs even in their respective kingdom. Across the Atlantic their decrees only had worth if the people directly on the ground wanted them too. And *looks at Cortez dodging the governor and then fighting a force sent to retrieve him* even those people’s authority wasn’t exactly absolute if other people felt like ignoring it.

 

[Ocean canine]

A colonization of the new world by andalus will be similar to the colonization made by Portugal. The Iberian view of blacks comes in part from the Arabs, with blacks being seen as the sinners (and black skin representing this).

1) colonization itself was first and foremost a process of wealth extraction before conquest and land integration

And their would need to be desperation for cruelty

Portugese with their much smaller forced were capable of sailing further while placing trading forts across the west coast of Africa
The kongo region, south east africa in Angola
South east africa in zanzibar
And much of the east coast where the kilwa sultanate was

(While also colonizing the coast of brazil and some regions in India which were put to brutal inquisition )

Now this is down to many reasons one being lack of knowledge and or understanding of the ways to operate trade in the region
The first european ships in the Indians ocean were like starved animals with constant raids and pillaging almost equivalent to sea mongols or viking crusaders

Being outsiders to this region of trade and witnessing a single pouch of spice which could set them up for life being traded like soil would turn many to bandits

Andalusians being muslims would of course follow a slightly more strict from of warfare practice in sharia so even if the barbarity would be present it would not reach the degree that it did with the portugese secondly
Yes the andalusians would still have to deal with the same trade shenanigans not due to ottoman conquest of constantinople
But Venetian hegemony of eastern trade and heavy taxes which hit the iberian economy hard especially with the bullion famine in the mid 15th century with massive price fluctuations of mineral resources due to imbalance of trade from east to west

Moving to the new world
I can definitely see alot of similarities
Both christianity and islam and take heresy very very seriously
Inquisition was used against sorcerers and fornication before wedlock or outside wedlock
Idolatry is howeve us a defining factor as it was at times accepted by the disgruntled clergy and other time looked down on as excessive spending by Italian renaissance
However idolatry is taken to the highest of punishments In muslims lands as it depicts paganism of the highest order and their are even systematic laws enabled to disallow any forms of depiction of divinity
Even drawing life is frowned upon to an extent

Islamic Ghazi travellers and merchants that come across the human sacrifices of the Aztec empire would certain take a quick prayer to god before sending word back of the abominable levels of sacrilege being practiced in these lands
We could see some form of Fatwah being given however I'm not to knowledgable on the scholars of that time so I couldn't give a proper answer on the exact behaviour of andalusian
However what comes after the bloodshed is definitely important
The dhimmi in islam are protected
And that is the one thing that divides it from christendom
Christianity did not face clear set rules an regulations for warfare and how to treat minorities
However both religions heavily took part in slavery with muslims doing it for longer or course with different customs and traditional views of slavery it was still practiced by both

If we want to see how an Islamic conquest and eventual rule over the aztec, incan and Mayan populations would work out
We could look elsewhere for examples such as the conquest of india
How islam slowly made it's way deep into Indian lands

MERCENARY slave soldiers with political power
Powerful single state that later fractures and spreads efficient military generals into the wider region
Better military equipment
Prosletyzing to merchants and upperclasmen royalty with marriage proposals
And finally exemption from harassment of non religious population/capability to have whatever relgions they so choose as they follow the law

Finally the race theory in Islam is very uncomplicated
Your religion trumps your race
The first person to ever give the islamic call to prayer was a Habesha man known as Bilal ing Rabah and he was a loyal first generation companion of the prophet
Islam is an incredibly serious religion it should be very idiotic to believe scholars would allow the heretical thoughts of people with complexion similar to the companion of the prophet himself
Although it would be understandable if the misconception was due to the practices of said people of sin
Andalusians had held lands in mirroc and had direct access to the salt and gold mines through trade routes in westa africa

Also their some recorded evidence of muslims having know about the cape and some even having saled around africa howeve muslims held the much more lucrative and easily obtainable trade route through the egypt and the red sea

I'm guess some arab traveller probably around the time of the cordoban caliphate managed to make it to the ivory coast and seen some disturbing levels of cannibalism and human sacrifice which was practiced in this region for a while, and decide to write his thoughts on the matter which must've birthed some misconceptions

These views howeve are not held by the entire religion

 

[holycookie]

1) colonization itself was first and foremost a process of wealth extraction before conquest and land integration
And their would need to be desperation for cruelty

I disagree about cruelty, all colonization does that, whether in america or europe. This isn't desperation, it's business. The arabs colonized the middle east for example.

Now this is down to many reasons one being lack of knowledge and or understanding of the ways to operate trade in the region
The first european ships in the Indians ocean were like starved animals with constant raids and pillaging almost equivalent to sea mongols or viking crusaders.Being outsiders to this region of trade and witnessing a single pouch of spice which could set them up for life being traded like soil would turn many to bandits

the reason for this violence is the fact that these sailors are from the lower class and do not have much interest in politics. the interest was money.

Andalusians being muslims would of course follow a slightly more strict from of warfare practice in sharia so even if the barbarity would be present it would not reach the degree that it did with the portugese secondly

I doubt it, as much as there are in theory rules in the form of war practicality always wins. this assumes that for some reason Muslims were better behaved.

Yes the andalusians would still have to deal with the same trade shenanigans not due to ottoman conquest of constantinople
But Venetian hegemony of eastern trade and heavy taxes which hit the iberian economy hard especially with the bullion famine in the mid 15th century with massive price fluctuations of mineral resources due to imbalance of trade from east to west

I have no doubt that the Sunni will be divided between an Andalus and an Ottoman strand. One probably following Algazali's work (the Ottomans) and one following Averroes´s work (Andalus).

Moving to the new world
I can definitely see alot of similarities
Both christianity and islam and take heresy very very seriously
Inquisition was used against sorcerers and fornication before wedlock or outside wedlock
Idolatry is howeve us a defining factor as it was at times accepted by the disgruntled clergy and other time looked down on as excessive spending by Italian renaissance
However idolatry is taken to the highest of punishments In muslims lands as it depicts paganism of the highest order and their are even systematic laws enabled to disallow any forms of depiction of divinity
Even drawing life is frowned upon to an extent

if I'm not mistaken, drawing animals/life is allowed if it's for academics purposes. (andalus made several statues and drawings of animals)

Islamic Ghazi travellers and merchants that come across the human sacrifices of the Aztec empire would certain take a quick prayer to god before sending word back of the abominable levels of sacrilege being practiced in these lands

yes, those empires will not be well regarded.

We could see some form of Fatwah being given however I'm not to knowledgable on the scholars of that time so I couldn't give a proper answer on the exact behaviour of andalusian
However what comes after the bloodshed is definitely important
The dhimmi in islam are protected
And that is the one thing that divides it from christendom
Christianity did not face clear set rules an regulations for warfare and how to treat minorities

Yes and no. certain regions followed the rules for the protection of minorities and others did not. the Almoravids and Almohads (Moorish kingdoms) were fanatics who forced Christians and Jews to convert or die. they managed to radicalize the Iberian Christians and also forbade reason.

If we want to see how an Islamic conquest and eventual rule over the aztec, incan and Mayan populations would work out
We could look elsewhere for examples such as the conquest of india
How islam slowly made it's way deep into Indian lands

MERCENARY slave soldiers with political power
Powerful single state that later fractures and spreads efficient military generals into the wider region
Better military equipment
Prosletyzing to merchants and upperclasmen royalty with marriage proposals
And finally exemption from harassment of non religious population/capability to have whatever relgions they so choose as they follow the law

the comparison doesn't work due to the difference not only in strength but due to mass death due to disease. India is not the Americas. The situation is nothing like. Colonization will not be done by nobles but by the lower class, sailors, adventurers and other groups that act in the same way no matter the religion

Finally the race theory in Islam is very uncomplicated
Your religion trumps your race

no, iberia is a great example of how that didn't happen. The Arabs separated themselves from the other groups because they considered themselves superior. The Iberian Muslims and Moors did not mix etc. What the book says and what people do are very different things. The colony of Brazil had several blacks and Indians with positions superior to whites, for example. With several people of mixed origin being individuals who controlled a good part of the colony's destiny.
The Iberian attitude towards blacks is something inherited from the Arabs. The Muslim slave traders themselves from the peoples on the other side of the Sahara, referring to these African populations as Zanj or Sudan meaning "black". In the Muslim culture of the middle ages blackness became increasingly identified with slavery. This was justified by appeals to a specific interpretation of the biblical story of Curse of Ham that posited Ham had been cursed by Noah in two ways, the first, the turning of his skin black, and the second, that his descendants would be doomed to slavery.Muslim slave traders would use this as a pretext to enslave blacks, including black Muslims.In the late 14th century a black king of Bornu wrote a letter to the sultan of Egypt complaining of the continuous slave raids perpetrated by Arab tribesmen, which were devastating his lands and resulting in the mass enslavement of the black Muslim population of the region.In Al-Andalus black Muslims could be legally held as slaves. This all occurred despite the orthodox Muslim jurist position that no Muslim, regardless of race, could be enslaved. Morocco's sugar industry was dependent on black African slave labor.

Trans-Saharan slave trade - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Islam is an incredibly serious religion it should be very idiotic to believe scholars would allow the heretical thoughts of people with complexion similar to the companion of the prophet himself
Although it would be understandable if the misconception was due to the practices of said people of sin
Andalusians had held lands in mirroc and had direct access to the salt and gold mines through trade routes in westa africa

both religions were taken seriously in the period. The point was, Andalus wasn't a nation that (until the conquest by the fanatical Moorish kingdoms) didn't follow the rules of the book. I think the only rule they didn't break was pork consumption because all the others were broken on different scales. Andalusians were inveterate drinkers, with several reports of Muslims arriving drunk at mosques.

 

[Xel]

People with absolutely, positively be as weird as possible about North Korea to the point where it often feels like if they are acknowledged at all, its just to meme on them in a manner that dehumanizes an entire country.

 

[ordinarylittleme]

People with absolutely, positively be as weird as possible about North Korea to the point where it often feels like if they are acknowledged at all, its just to meme on them in a manner that dehumanizes an entire country.

This...like, dunking on the ruling regime is valid, but there are a lot of people there that didn't ask for this

 

[Xel]

This...like, dunking on the ruling regime is valid, but there are a lot of people there that didn't ask for this

Mhm, very well said there.

Though on the regime front, while the leadership are definitely bastards, even then I tend to find the whole "Oh they so cr-a-a-a-a-zy!~" framing to be unhelpfully reductive, both in terms of acknowledging reality and for how it implicitly degrades the average North Korean person by proxy.

Like how the WMD program is often framed as "Muhahaha, I will destroy the world!" super villain stuff over, you know, the far more logical rationalization that a dictator doesn't want to lose the one thing keeping him alive, and that NK minus nukes will either just be totally under the CCP or USA's boot. IE, they are the only way to retain any kind of independence or influence in the world as such a small nation; which is why NK continues to develop them despite even their nominal allies in China wanting them to stop. I don't like it of course, but I don't like anyone having nukes.

Plus, seeing as we're on the subject, people really need to acknowledge other factors that play into North Korea's development than just the Kim family and their supporters. Like how there were tons of attacks on dams that destroyed farmland, or how Pyongyang was reduced to 75% rubble during the Korean War. Or how how said war has a death an estimate of 12%–15% of the North Korean population, with potentially 70% of that having been civilians. This article discusses more specific examples, while Charles K discusses the broader population details.

Basically, I think there's too much looking at North Korea like its a meme, rather than a nation shaped both by internal circumstances like their leadership, but also external things like colonization, war and sanctions; but more pointedly, not looking at it as a place where actual people, you know, exist.

 

[Aluma]

Honestly I'd be fine with a TL having North Korea playing a meme country if they cut them some slack for once
Like sure the leadership can be crazy or have a comedic foreign policy, but come on the people there deserve better

 

[boredviewer1234]

One trope trope I'm not sure how to put into words is ''lessening'', it does not matters how good the state, how weak everyone else can be around, how much logic there is in expanding or even if they would be welcome a nation is guaranteed to always at best stagnate in it's current position or shrink and lessen in power, importance ability over time.

It tends to come up a lot when people write about China, Russia, Austria Hungary the basic idea is that they would never take advantage a current situation to push their weight around or grab some land, and attempts of such are doomed to failure as well as attempts to recover lost land and resources will never work out. It's not ''sickman'' syndrome where the idea that everything they do is because they are doomed to failure as they can reform and change, it's not rooted in the idea the people in the nations are inherently weak either. Rather it seems any actual patriot's or even just person who works for the state actions are cursed because of their association with it.

Though on the topic of why Spain often comes up as villain state, I believe it's the'' weakness is sin'' trope. Generally one thing often commonly mentioned in stories with villain nations in them is that that nations actions where often no evil than the time it was in and it's rivals where doing the same.

The thing what makes a villain state often a villain is the idea that's it's inherently possible to defeat it, when people imagine Spain as a villain it's because they know roughly the balance of power in Europe at the time, the inherent cracks in the Spanish state and relative poverty they feel their chosen nation can beat it to a bloody pulp.

For Ottoman timelines for example the often chosen villain nation is Russia, less often because the author thinks it's demands and ambitions are far more threatening than say Greece who wants a large portion of empire but rather they feel they can managed manage to write a victory for the Ottomans knowing of the issues of Russian empire and have it later collapse given world war 1 will happen in the next couple of decades.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

One trope trope I'm not sure how to put into words is ''lessening'', it does not matters how good the state, how weak everyone else can be around, how much logic there is in expanding or even if they would be welcome a nation is guaranteed to always at best stagnate in it's current position or shrink and lessen in power, importance ability over time.

It tends to come up a lot when people write about China, Russia, Austria Hungary the basic idea is that they would never take advantage a current situation to push their weight around or grab some land, and attempts of such are doomed to failure as well as attempts to recover lost land and resources will never work out. It's not ''sickman'' syndrome where the idea that everything they do is because they are doomed to failure as they can reform and change, it's not rooted in the idea the people in the nations are inherently weak either. Rather it seems any actual patriot's or even just person who works for the state actions are cursed because of their association with it.

Though on the topic of why Spain often comes up as villain state, I believe it's the'' weakness is sin'' trope. Generally one thing often commonly mentioned in stories with villain nations in them is that that nations actions where often no evil than the time it was in and it's rivals where doing the same.

The thing what makes a villain state often a villain is the idea that's it's inherently possible to defeat it, when people imagine Spain as a villain it's because they know roughly the balance of power in Europe at the time, the inherent cracks in the Spanish state and relative poverty they feel their chosen nation can beat it to a bloody pulp.

For Ottoman timelines for example the often chosen villain nation is Russia, less often because the author thinks it's demands and ambitions are far more threatening than say Greece who wants a large portion of empire but rather they feel they can managed manage to write a victory for the Ottomans knowing of the issues of Russian empire and have it later collapse given world war 1 will happen in the next couple of decades.

The problem with this argument is that in many cases the author wildly ignores the "balance of power" from the moment he assumes that England (almost always England is the leading country in this type of story) will be able to cut off huge chunks of the Spanish Empire. ..

...and none of the other powers (not even those that are allies of Spain/rivals of England/both) will feel at all threatened by England grabbing a lot of land and resources to make itself stronger and richer. In the most atrocious cases they will even turn against Spain to try to keep a piece for themselves as well.

This is despite the fact that, when the situation is reversed, it is expected and demanded that all other powers immediately jump to the aid of England and against Spain because "you are destroying the balance of power in the world and we cannot consent to that".

Regarding the Ottoman victory over Russia, I suspect that the real reason has more to do with the dislike of Russia for political reasons than OTL, the fact that this allows to justify the entry of the UK in support of the Ottoman (when they would hardly support the Ottoman over Greece) , and above all that Russia is much more credible as an existential threat to the Ottomans than tiny and impoverished Greece.

As for the lessening thing, I agree.

 

[Leonidas]

What do people here think of Look to the West?

I like it a lot for how Thande has managed to cover so many aspects of history, like art, technology, and music, while having a cast of OCs and very different national development across the world. The world of LTTW feels very fleshed-out and vibrant, representing its own unique take on history rather than just feeling like everything's the same except for what the author has specifically decided to alter. It's also nice to have more focus placed on traditionally unexamined regions like South America. However, I don't think Societism is very compelling beyond being a "evil space-filling empire." I also think the author's central thesis/motivation for writing it, namely trying to show that history doesn't follow deterministic lines, sometimes goes too far in dismissing the role of economics and class conflict in politics.

 

[Beatriz]

I like it a lot for how Thande has managed to cover so many aspects of history, like art, technology, and music, while having a cast of OCs and very different national development across the world. The world of LTTW feels very fleshed-out and vibrant, representing its own unique take on history rather than just feeling like everything's the same except for what the author has specifically decided to alter. It's also nice to have more focus placed on traditionally unexamined regions like South America. However, I don't think Societism is very compelling beyond being a "evil space-filling empire." I also think the author's central thesis/motivation for writing it, namely trying to show that history doesn't follow deterministic lines, sometimes goes too far in dismissing the role of economics and class conflict in politics.

Also, his secondary motivation of opposition to internationalism sometimes overrides plausibility, like the Societists replacing Spanish in their domain with Novalatina instead of minority rule by a Greater Hispano-Catholic Identity or even a Hispanophone Abrahamic identity as the Reunion of the sons of Abraham (Catholic Hispano-/Luso-phones, Jews and Muslim Indonesians) , or the role of societist ... cabal that sounds too much like NWO stuff occasionally

 

[boredviewer1234]

Regarding the Ottoman victory over Russia, I suspect that the real reason has more to do with the dislike of Russia for political reasons than OTL, the fact that this allows to justify the entry of the UK in support of the Ottoman (when they would hardly support the Ottoman over Greece) , and above all that Russia is much more credible as an existential threat to the Ottomans than tiny and impoverished Greece.

Which admittingly is a curious, like Greece up to the collapse of the Ottoman empire has spent up a century fermenting and supporting uprisings and nearly all of it's expansion has been done against the Ottomans or fighting for land that belonged to them, they claimed pretty much the heart of the empire, while the Russian empire could and did back the Ottomans against their Balkan ex vassals largely to maintain the balance of powers such as during the first Balkan war. I wonder if it the present nature of Greece influences this idea that they would not be a existential threat to the Ottoman empire versus say how people threat to the threat of Arab nationalism given how much the latter won.


Just find it rather odd in Ottoman timelines rather try and form a somewhat exploitive likely but true accord with one of the largest power surrounding them against their mutual enemies (Austria Hungary, Britain, Balkan powers upsetting them) they decide to try and focus on dealing with Russia, rather than say Greece which and has when it has been staging sometimes yearly revolts and British student, Bulgaria which is claiming Constantinople and briefly apex in the region and is feuding with Russia, Serbia which wants Albania and elsewhere and has gone between Austrian satellite to problem child in the region also backed by Britain , Romania which wants their land and somewhat conveniently is also feuding Russian as it wants some of their land as well, Austria which has been for sometime seeking to expand in the Balkans and is also a enemy of Russia.

Just always strikes me as a bizarre the general idea is to try and pick a fight with Russia and hope it gives the Ottoman empire the reputation as a power, rather than have the weakened Ottoman empire immediately after a large and deadly war not be picked apart by it's many enemies if it wins, as it's not like when the cards came down to it they stopped Greece from attacking the Ottomans.

Then again you do have a good point in that dislike of Russia likely has to do with this.

...and none of the other powers (not even those that are allies of Spain/rivals of England/both) will feel at all threatened by England grabbing a lot of land and resources to make itself stronger and richer. In the most atrocious cases they will even turn against Spain to try to keep a piece for themselves as well.

True enough, I suppose I should clarify I mean for Doylist reasons, a timeline where the Villain state does not get crushed is rare, so the reasonable assumption the villain state is chosen for weaknesses.

Though yeah it certainly would be curious I admit to see a England get's dismembered timeline because of the constant land/power grabbing.

 

[Leonidas]

Also, his secondary motivation of opposition to internationalism sometimes overrides plausibility, like the Societists replacing Spanish in their domain with Novalatina instead of minority rule by a Greater Hispano-Catholic Identity or even a Hispanophone Abrahamic identity as the Reunion of the sons of Abraham (Catholic Hispano-/Luso-phones, Jews and Muslim Indonesians) , or the role of societist ... cabal that sounds too much like NWO stuff occasionally

Even without the conspiratorial overtones, the way Societism takes over the UPSA is a head-scratcher for me. I don't think that an ideology that's canonically stated to be a fringe position only taken seriously by intellectuals, with little to no mass support, would be able to take over and keep control of an entire country, let alone expand onto multiple continents. Propaganda of the deed didn't work out so well IOTL, so there's no reason to think it would work that well in LTTW. It's frustrating to me because I like the timeline when it isn't talking about the Societists.

One thing I'm curious about that isn't really a gripe per se is what's the deal with the nobility in the Empire of North America. I don't remember Thande really talking about it beyond how prominent families like the Washingtons got noble titles, so it would be neat to see more about how the existence of a formal aristocratic class affects society.

 

[Beatriz]

Also, transcription: even in French India TLs I never see francized terms like djati or Bengalourou
English/French words are also never respelled for an in-Universe IAL even though these are influential languages by 1800: Esklut for exclude or riflek for reflect or paradas for paradox or prinsipol
or ubliye or preshong or dasu or Orefwa

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Which admittingly is a curious, like Greece up to the collapse of the Ottoman empire has spent up a century fermenting and supporting uprisings and nearly all of it's expansion has been done against the Ottomans or fighting for land that belonged to them, they claimed pretty much the heart of the empire, while the Russian empire could and did back the Ottomans against their Balkan ex vassals largely to maintain the balance of powers such as during the first Balkan war. I wonder if it the present nature of Greece influences this idea that they would not be a existential threat to the Ottoman empire versus say how people threat to the threat of Arab nationalism given how much the latter won.


Just find it rather odd in Ottoman timelines rather try and form a somewhat exploitive likely but true accord with one of the largest power surrounding them against their mutual enemies (Austria Hungary, Britain, Balkan powers upsetting them) they decide to try and focus on dealing with Russia, rather than say Greece which and has when it has been staging sometimes yearly revolts and British student, Bulgaria which is claiming Constantinople and briefly apex in the region and is feuding with Russia, Serbia which wants Albania and elsewhere and has gone between Austrian satellite to problem child in the region also backed by Britain , Romania which wants their land and somewhat conveniently is also feuding Russian as it wants some of their land as well, Austria which has been for sometime seeking to expand in the Balkans and is also a enemy of Russia.

Just always strikes me as a bizarre the general idea is to try and pick a fight with Russia and hope it gives the Ottoman empire the reputation as a power, rather than have the weakened Ottoman empire immediately after a large and deadly war not be picked apart by it's many enemies if it wins, as it's not like when the cards came down to it they stopped Greece from attacking the Ottomans.

Then again you do have a good point in that dislike of Russia likely has to do with this.


True enough, I suppose I should clarify I mean for Doylist reasons, a timeline where the Villain state does not get crushed is rare, so the reasonable assumption the villain state is chosen for weaknesses.

Though yeah it certainly would be curious I admit to see a England get's dismembered timeline because of the constant land/power grabbing.

I think it also matters that too many people believe that non-Anglo-Saxon rulers (especially those of "doomed countries" like Russia or Turkey) "operate" under a "face mentality" in which their first, only and last goal is to "show strength, not to lose face and not to appear weak"...

...not because they fear they will be invaded and dismembered otherwise, oh no!

Although it is obvious that their neighbors want to do this, the reason they are so keen to "show strength" is because the empire is supposedly on the verge of economic collapse (and thus revolution that will topple the rulers). because "mumble mumble economics mumble mumble longing for open markets"

...which will normally translate to Turkey deciding to "show strength" by declaring war on Russia for some very silly reason, to "not lose face by looking weak"...only for both of them to tear each other apart and this allows for the Britain's entry into the war because of "balance of power" (actually expansionist and militaristic warmongering, as evidenced by the fact that in many cases what they are trying to do is make a massive land grab in the Middle East and fuck the Turks).

Essentially, Turkey/Ottomans is treated, not as a country, but as a mere plot device for the author to weaken Russia. I talked about this in the case of "Turkey joins the Axis and attacks the USSR".

"Everyone is eager to immediately jump into shedding tons of blood and treasure going to war against our enemies in defense of our interests, regardless of how immensely detrimental or diametrically contrary to their national interests this may be."

In this case, since the Soviet Union is only slightly less hated than Nazi Germany, Turkey joining the Axis satisfies the triple goal of:
1) Further weaken the Soviet Union so that it does not pose as much of a threat in the future Cold War, through forcing Soviet Union to spent blood and treasure in waging a war against Turkey.
2) Weaken Turkey so they can't put up a fight when heavy contingents of US troops raise the flag in Istanbul and give the Turks the "Now we're in charge, you're going to become our local sepoy" memo.
3) Offer an absolutely unquestionable casus belli to carry out step 2, since Turkey joining the Axis becomes a de facto enemy of the Western Allies even if it is limited to fighting the Soviet Union.

This is even more evident when we consider that all of Turkey's enemies decide that they are going to suspend hostilities and sit back and watch Russia and Turkey tear each other apart. Instead of, I don't know, take the opportunity to attack from behind and grab the Turkish lands they want.

As for the villain, usually the author gets them to start shooting themselves in the foot and making stupid decisions just to make sure their leading country can beat that bunch of assholes. So "perceived weakness" is not a factor here.

This is noticeable in cases where on Monday war is declared and on Friday mass riots start to break out in the "villain country" because "mumble mumble economy mumble mumble you are too evil".

Also Im working in a TL where, between other things, England was dismembered

 

[boredviewer1234]

In more positive tropes, I don't mind the cities remain static thing, while we know say Delhi being made part of Pakistan would change it to being a border city with a hostile neighbor and thus force India to find a new capital perhaps construct one it is fine is the writer does not like to address it. How cities and capitals adjust to changing circumstances and status of a nation is a interesting thing but very complex and I can understand the desire to move on to other things.

I do think the general trope of people actions and treaties they sign mattering even when circumstances change reflects a admirable faith and belief in humanity.

What are some some tropes you feel content about?

 

[tus3]

Also, transcription: even in French India TLs I never see francized terms like djati or Bengalourou
English/French words are also never respelled for an in-Universe IAL even though these are influential languages by 1800: Esklut for exclude or riflek for reflect or paradas for paradox or prinsipol
or ubliye or preshong or dasu or Orefwa

Hmm, your comment about Francized terms reminded me of the TL The Coronation of the Hun. As in it the British Isles ended up being taken over by the Franks instead of the Angles and Jutes, leading to such placenames as Eborique (OTL York), oh, and France being located in Britain.

 

[Viking25]

In more positive tropes, I don't mind the cities remain static thing, while we know say Delhi being made part of Pakistan would change it to being a border city with a hostile neighbor and thus force India to find a new capital perhaps construct one it is fine is the writer does not like to address it. How cities and capitals adjust to changing circumstances and status of a nation is a interesting thing but very complex and I can understand the desire to move on to other things.

I do think the general trope of people actions and treaties they sign mattering even when circumstances change reflects a admirable faith and belief in humanity.

What are some some tropes you feel content about?

I am more or less content with the fact most TL's don't spend much if any time on how Languages have changed and developed because of the POD because while it is a interesting topic. It is also very complex and their are just so many more other things to focus on like you said. In depth Economic Figures and stuff like that is also something I can also usually do without unless the TL is explicitly focused on it.

 

[Aluma]

I enjoy language changes but when it come to the name of common things(like say, a rabbit) its not worth it unless you're willing to go all the way with the worldbuilding because otherwise it'll be very inconsistent
Like best case scenario is something odd like a lion being called "Pantera" but New York is still New York and worst case scenario is you making a change that you then proceed to forget and ignore for the rest of the story, like calling the aforementioned lion "lion" after estabilishing people in universe call it pantera

 

[Viking25]

I enjoy language changes but when it come to the name of common things(like say, a rabbit) its not worth it unless you're willing to go all the way with the worldbuilding because otherwise it'll be very inconsistent
Like best case scenario is something odd like a lion being called "Pantera" but New York is still New York and worst case scenario is you making a change that you then proceed to forget and ignore for the rest of the story, like calling the aforementioned lion "lion" after estabilishing people in universe call it pantera

IDK maybe you could make the new word something the Average Joe uses in his everyday life but isn't used among the people writing your Fake History Books who use the old forms of word essentially as a way of showing how Smart and cultured they are. Kind of like the divide between Norman and Anglo Saxon words in English.