"Mound of spring: An early developing Israel in a late developing world TL"

What does one actually do with a Third temple?

Interesting. What precisely are they planning on doing with the new temple though?

Doing with it? Doing with it? It's THE THIRD TEMPLE. You don't need to DO anything with it. Why once it is built and the sacrifices of oxen and pigeons and rams etc, etc resume then, then.... well, something really great and world shaking has to happen! The redemption of the Jews and all of humanity will be at hand! nothing will ever be the same again! The sky will open up and the dead shall rise!

Well, that's the motivation behind one school of pro-temple enthusiasts. As this is alternate history rather than "Left behind" I am going to assume, for the sake of TTL that the antichrist is not behind the construction of the Third temple and that it's construction does not herald an apocalyptic war leading to Satan's empire on earth followed by redemption and the mass conversion of Jews to Christianity... (1)

Except that if TTL follows some of the script as OTL (Revolution, Totalitarian ideologies, WWII, atomic weapons, cold war, decolonization, racial conflict in the U.S) for the next 30 years, evangelical enthusiasts may well be excused in thinking that it does. What does that mean for Canaanite foreign relations? Relations with Britain? Or for Jewish life in the U.S.A, Britain and Germany? Not sure. But it will sure be interesting to explore.

There are also Jewish "Rebuilt temple in prophecy" enthusiasts. Yes, we have some. Which is somewhat ironic given that the prophecies involved were written after the destruction of the FIRST temple and can be credibly claimed to have actually been fulfilled by events following the construction of the second.

They can be divided into three camps:
a. Those who are going to interpret every possible occurrence from now on in light of those prophecies and who will try to hurry them into coming about. Thankfully, the Jewish prophecies do not include apocalyptic warfare or world empire as such. Or even mass conversion of everyone to Judaism. Essentially the vision is of Jerusalem becoming the world's cultural-religious-academic center and the entire world OOing and AAHing at how wonderful we are. They will be further split between those who think the Messiah is waiting for us to fully fulfill this perfect vision before he arrives- and those who are certain that he has already arrived in the form of this or that political or religious leader.

b. Those who are disappointed by how events are not following scripture- and who insist that the Temple needs to be built on the exact, original spot for them to be fulfilled and to hell with Al-Aqsa. They will probably tend to blame everything which goes wrong on the wrong placement and may prove to be a security threat and an international embaressment.

c. Those who are aghast at the temple being constructed by human agency rather than supernatural fiat. Their numbers will decline if Canaan is a success. But a certain anti-temple, ant-Zionist Charedi subculture will remain. They too may prove to be a security threat and an international embarressment.

However, explicit prophecy enthusiasts aside, the majority of the Jewish people, and certainly the predominantly secular people in the New Society actually funding the building have their own aims (2):


a. Attraction magnet for new Jewish immigrants. Building the Third temple, and possibly holding rituals within it, places an Halachic burden on all Jews to visit it every year, or at least once in their lifetime. (Muhamad's Haj? he stole the Idea from us). As long as they come, and spend money while visiting, many will choose to stay.

b. Tourist attraction. Seriously, the Christian tourism to the Third Temple will cover the costs of it's construction many, many times over.

c. Showing that we have the Biggest... cultural heritage. Seriously- the Greeks have the Parthenon, the French Eiphel tower, the British Big Ben, the Germans the rather unimpressive Brandenburg gate, the Itallians the Collesum, the Egyptians the Pyramids, the Americans the Statue of Liberty. In the early twentieth century showing a well maintained national landmark is part of getting to be part of the "family of nations". And only family members get to participate in international conferences and effect decisions. Those who don't end being partioned into spheres of influence and have other nasty stuff happen to them.

d. Morale booster for the population and legitimacy endower on the Canaanite government.

e. Greater cultural political unity among Cannanite and International Jews. Having one central spot as a focus for national energies will increase feelings of shared destiny and may inhibit assimilation.

f. Fundraising opportunity- and not just from Jews either. There is a joke in Israel that when Shamir was trying to raise money to raisemoney for the Lavi project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Lavi he sent Moshe Arens to the U.S to find wealthy Jews to donate for it. Moshe Arens returned and informed Shamir that the project was impossible and would need to scrapped. "How come?" says Shamir "You couldn't find enough donors". "I found 500 willing to contribute 1 million dollars each." replies Arens. "But the engineers in the air force tell me the plane won;t be able to get off the ground if we nail 500 plaques with the Donor's names to the wings". I'm picturing a gigantic wall of Plaques, maybe on the Western side of the temple....

g. Sacred Science- The Temple site is on Mt Scopus overlooking the Old city of Jerusalem from the East (Why there? because it's the highet hilltop in the region.) OTL it is the original site of the Hebrew university, largely abandoned during the 1948 war, today it houses the humanities faculties. TTL, the Third Temple is at the center of the projected Campus. This is a deliberate attempted to infuse modernism into the sacred- and the sacred into modernism. It might not lead to anything (OTL Tel Aviv university has a gigantic grove surrounded empty Synagouge of which most students are blissfully unaware while they make out). Or it might lead to scientists getting an even higher social statues than OTL Jewish society. Or it might lead to some form of Jewish Jadidism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadid. Or to "Jewish science" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gadad...-science-spirituality-intersect_b_967628.html. Or a mixture of all of the above.


Most interesting to me, however, are the potential unintended consequences of rebuilding the Third temple:

1. Restoration of Hierarchy in Judaism. Since the destruction of the Second temple Judaism had lacked a final ruling authority on Halakhic questions. While alternatives to the temple priesthood existed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exilarch They were destroyed by the Byzantines and the Mongols.

As a result, new religious laws and customs have developed in a diffuse, consensus oriented manner, which variation nontheless existing between separate streams, regions, and even rabbinical courts. Ultimately, it is the popularity, political skill, personal charisma and scholastic reputation of Each Rabbi which determines the relative merit of his particular interpatation.

One the claims Rabbi Yihya makes is that all religeous-legal rulings made in this manner since 358 (when the Sanhedrin was disbanded) are null and void until a new Sanhedrin can be convened. If the Third temple is built, a new Sanhedrin pretty much automatically follows. Which will mark a clear division Between TTL's "orthodox" who view it's rulings as binding and schismatics who reject them, whether Reform or Charedim

Of course, Rabbi Yihya is trying to make sure that it is HIS school of anti-Kabbalist thought which dominates the Hasmacha process for new Sanhedrin members. And the secularist New Society, insofar as they understand the distinction, will tend to back him over his opponents.

2. Halakhic housecleaning. One of the most frusturating things about Orthodox Judaism (and in 1917 95% of East Hemisphere Jews are Orthodox) is the doctrine of "generational diminishment". What this doctrine means is that the "Great ones" of each generation are less capable of interperating the Torah than their predecessors. Accordingly, while they can make new rulings (if they do not conflict with older rulings) they can not overturn or abolish previous rulings. As the piles of rulings limiting the boundaries of life grow and as modern life becomes progressively more complex, what the Rabbis, including the "great ones" end up doing is finding ways to interpret around the conflicts that result. And then you wonder why Jews make such great lawyers...

Anyway, any body which runs the temple will almost automatically acquire the prestige and legitimacy to not only make new rulings but to clean out the accumulated debri of 2000 year old rulings. Do they? How?

3. Monarchy. The whole "divine right" and "anointed king" business originated with us, not the catholic church (well, it originated with the Akkadians but they're all dead and we aren't- so there) and the concept is strongly linked to the temple. One possible direction political conflict in Cannan can go in is the reintroduction of monarchy, either through political compromise between factions, a coup, or perpetuation of power by a faction scared of losing power. Granted that this is "So 17th century" and thus low liklihood but still a thought.

4. Iranian style clerical rule? This is the fantasy scenario of some Third temple enthusiasts. It is the nightmare scenario of secular, liberal Jews who want separation of Church and state. But if new East European immigrants to Cannan fail to undergo the secularization which the Founders of the New society expect, then democratic investment of the Temple priesthood and/or Sanhedrin might just happen ir at least become a serious political platform.

5. Something to fight about. Herzl viewed the Third temple as a mega-synagouge where Men and Women prayed seperately but in the same room and where non Jews are not explicitly forbidden to enter. No sacrifices.. That particular vision is going to be attacked from half a dozen different directions. Who wins and how they win will reflect the balance of power within the New Society and Canaan.

(1) If you view a TL which does not include the assumption of "Third temple>end time prophecies" within it as unrealistic then you can assume that this does not occur because the Temple is built in the wrong site and is therefore not "real".

(2) which does not mean they do not feel residual or subconcious motivations similliar to the prophecy enthusiasts. But they rationalize them differently
 
Last edited:
Doing with it? Doing with it? It's THE THIRD TEMPLE.
You can build a structure and call it the Third Temple, but that doesn't make it so. Absent the Vessels, and the Priests, and the Sacrifices, it's just a fancy shul.

I...have a hard time imagining the secularized sorts running things being down with all that stuff, and I can't see it being accepted as legitimate by the religious without them (also the lack of the Messiah and it being in the wrong place).

Then again, I'm rather vague about the actual details of Israel's early history; Zionism class at my Yeshiva Day School was really more indoctrination than education, I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:
You can build a structure and call it the Third Temple, but that doesn't make it so. Absent the Vessels, and the Priests, and the Sacrifices, it's just a fancy shul.

Which is, frankly, pretty much what Herzl describes in Alteneuland. http://myrightword.blogspot.co.il/2008/04/herzl-and-third-temple.html. For the more cosmopolitan elements, building the Third Temple on mount Scopus is one way to sidetrack any calls to rebuild it on Temple mount- which would at minimum be a major headache for the British and endanger Water supplies to the Sinai settlements.

I...have a hard time imagining the secularized sorts running things being down with all that stuff

Herzl, however is dead. OTL, the early Zionists on the ground tended to think in more nationalistic terms than their European counterparts. Zhabotinsky in particular went for paegentry and histroical revivalism based on biblical symbols (Though he kept his mouth shut regarding the Third temple). So I can see some of the secular types going for a ceremonial revival of the Three Raglim pilgrimages and sacrifices, though they would view in nationalist, rather than religious terms. An Zhabotinski is in a VERY strong position compared to OTL, due to his position in the Jewish legion. Also, the capitalist backers of the New Society prefer his pro-market views to that of his socialist counterparts so he has some pull with them as well.


, and I can't see it being accepted as legitimate by the religious without them (also the lack of the Messiah and it being in the wrong place).

OTL, the arrangement reached between the British and the WZO enabled the dominant, socialist-secular organizations to cherry pick new immigrants based on party affiliation (with minimal quotas for religious zionists and anti-zionist Charedim) up to 1948. TTL the absence of a quota system means and the Middle eastern population exchange means that religious zionist and traditional religious Middle Eastern demographics are going to be a much larger fraction of the early Israeli population.

So if the Temple gets built, the religious are going to press for it to posses traditional temple-like characteristics. While Canaan is not exactly a universal equal suffarage democracy (again, details in next post), satisfying the religious demands wins more "votes" than are lost among the seculars, if only because the Religious give more of a damn about the issue (similiar to OTL coalition building in Israel). Getting the priests isn't an issue- any Cohen or Katz will do. The vessels can be reproduced (or ransomed back from Italy?) without too much trouble either. And if reproducing the sacrifices is too difficult they can always ask the Samaritans to give courses;)

Some religious, of course (especially the Charedim), are going to reject the authority of a temple built anywhere but on temple mount and by anybody save the Messiah. The result will be that their Rabbis are not recognized and paid for by the State/New Society. Like the "Old believers" in Tsarist Russia or the qadimite ulama in Soviet Central Asia that means that over the generations they will dwindle and become marginalized, at least in Canaan, though the process might take several generations.

As for the lack of a Messiah... Well, The extreme right of OTLs national religious camp does not seem to view that as an issue and for the more moderate factions the Messiahlessness conditions seem to be of lesser concern than Pragmatic political concerns. Besides, Messianism is rife and Yemen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shukr_Kuhayl_I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_ben_Shalom. Even in sections of Eastern Europe, Herzl was rumored to be the Messiah. http://daphneanson.blogspot.co.il/2010/12/herzl-and-messianism.html. Indeed, even the Rav Kook, the most dominant personality of Religous zionism in Palestine described Herzl as a precursor to the "Messiah ben David" or "Messiah ben Yossef"
http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2010/08/was-herzl-the-messiah-thoughts-on-american-zionism-today/. That view still has some traction in religous zionist circles http://www.jewishmag.com/169mag/theodor_herzl_and_messiah/theodor_herzl_and_messiah.htm.

Then again, I'm rather vague about the actual details of Israel's early history; Zionism class at my Yeshiva Day Shcool was really more indoctrination than education, I'm afraid.

The education I got regarding this period (1890-1917) in the secular school system was not much better. "There were a lot of separate attempts at Jewish settlement but only the labor oriented ones were successful. Most were East European though there were a few colorful but not important Yemenites. Here are the few important names. memorize them for the test" Pretty much sums it up. It got more informative for the post WWI period.

I'll run a comparision of demographics, political personalities and dominant ideological platforms between TTL and OTL next post. I'm pretty much exploring possibilities as I go along rather than proceeding in accordance to script. So the end result may surprise me.
 
Last edited:
What is the standard pronounciation of Modern Hebrew in this TL?

Yemenite Heberew of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemenite_Hebrew:p

Seriously, I am not sure. I am not even sure whether Hebrew will be the official language of Canaan.

Ottoman Palestine, between 1902-1917 is a backwater in terms of Zionist development TTL whereas Sinai takes central stage. Herzl, and his financial backers, favored Yiddish or German as the official language of the state so it may be that they, or English, become the official language in El-Arish.

Eliezer Ben-Yehuda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Ben-Yehuda, the father of modern Hebrew immigrated to Jerusalem in 1881, well before the POD. He and his coetrie may not survive the Ottoman expulsions and the war and may die before they complete their work.

OTL, the language issue was definitively decided in favor of Hebrew in 1913 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Languages. TTL, the issue may continue to fester until 1917 or even the 1920s. Yemenite and other Ottoman Jewish immigration during the Great war will push the decision towards Hebrew whereas the post Great war deluge from Poland and Russia will push the decision towards Yiddish/German. I suppose Esparanto is another option (though one more likely to be adopted by chaldea).

need to think about it a bit. Ideas?
 
Yemenite Heberew of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemenite_Hebrew:p

Seriously, I am not sure. I am not even sure whether Hebrew will be the official language of Canaan.

Ottoman Palestine, between 1902-1917 is a backwater in terms of Zionist development TTL whereas Sinai takes central stage. Herzl, and his financial backers, favored Yiddish or German as the official language of the state so it may be that they, or English, become the official language in El-Arish.

Eliezer Ben-Yehuda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Ben-Yehuda, the father of modern Hebrew immigrated to Jerusalem in 1881, well before the POD. He and his coetrie may not survive the Ottoman expulsions and the war and may die before they complete their work.

OTL, the language issue was definitively decided in favor of Hebrew in 1913 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Languages. TTL, the issue may continue to fester until 1917 or even the 1920s. Yemenite and other Ottoman Jewish immigration during the Great war will push the decision towards Hebrew whereas the post Great war deluge from Poland and Russia will push the decision towards Yiddish/German. I suppose Esparanto is another option (though one more likely to be adopted by chaldea).

need to think about it a bit. Ideas?
IIRC, a lot of religious types found the revival of Hebrew to be sacrilegious, so that might factor in; I'm not sure how prevalent that attitude was though.

Hmm, perhaps Aramaic gets a revival as a compromise?
 
language and numbers

IIRC, a lot of religious types found the revival of Hebrew to be sacrilegious, so that might factor in; I'm not sure how prevalent that attitude was though.

Hmm, perhaps Aramaic gets a revival as a compromise?


Interesting possibility. Aramaic is getting a revival in the French Levant, Cylicia, Chaldea and Ashur though the versions being revived are somewhat divergent. So those pushing towards alliance and a common cultural reference point with those neighbors might propose Aramaic. It's a bit late in the game for that proposal to gain serious traction though and Aramaic, unlike hebrew remains un-modernized in 1917.

What's the population of Canaan at this time?

By March 1917
1. Jews: 500,000
1a. 90,000 who lived in Ottoman Palestine prior to the Great war
1b. 250,000 Ottoman, Yemenite and Persian Jews who participated in the population exchange (another 50,000 remained in Chaldea).
1c. 30,000 British (And American and other westerners) Jewish veterans of the legion
1d. 130,000 Russo-Polish Jews "loaned" to the British and the Greeks for the duration of the war
2. Christians: 70,000
3. Druze: 40,000
4. Circassians: 15,000
5. Arab Muslims: 150,000

Insofar as electoral power goes #1c and #1d are over represented since suffrage is based on millitary or social service, with a veterans bill granting basic suffrage and New Society shares to anyone who served during the Great war beyond a minimum term of service. #1b are underrepresented since they contain many more women, children, oldsters and latecomers who were not enlisted during the Great war. To a greater extent so are #2-#4. The current generation of #5 is almost completely unrepresented.

All of them are about to be swamped by a deluge of Russo-Polish immigrants. But insofar as the 1917 constitutional convention goes this is the socio-demographic arena.

Sinai and the canal zone contain another 200,000 Jews but they remain formally part of Egypt.
 
Last edited:
more language issues

While I was reading up on the Rothschilds early support of Jewish settlements in 1880s Ottoman Palestine I found to my surprise that Zamenhoff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._L._Zamenhof#cite_note-maimon-8, the inventor of Esperanto, was an early Zionist and a personal fried of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahum_Sokolow, the translator into Hebrew of Herzl's "Old-New land", one the most important figures in Poland's Zionist circles, 1906-1911 secratary of the WOC and 1931-1936 president of the WZO.

Zammenhoff wrote a passionate call for a return to Palestine in 1884 http://www.esperantic.org/dosieroj/file/LLZ-Bio-En(1).pdf:

"" The way lies open before us and the goal is clearly defined. Let us colonize
Palestine and unite our people in the ancient homeland, family after family,
group after group. [...] Let us pay the Arab twice or three times its value and
he will sell us as much land as you need; a golden key will easily open
every Turkish chancery. [...] Like bees from flowers and plants, we will
succeed in bringing into our country divers traits drop by drop, one drop at
a time. Through concerted action, we will succeed in returning life and
glory to the land. Every wealthy person who settles there will perform
thereby a great service for his people; every school founded there will be a
step forward toward the clearest goal [...] Let us join together, brothers, let
us rise up beneath the only flag capable of uniting us! On that flag is written
the one word “Homeward!” (Mi estas Homo 26)""

However, His initial inclination was essentially territorialist: He wanted Jews to immigrate en-masse to the United states and there become a majority in one of the territories and eventually form their own, non-exclusive Utah like state. He said immigrating to Palestine would lead to hostility from both Muslim and Christian and could not, in any event, offer sufficient land for all of Russia's Jews.

The contradiction between head, heart and his passion for an international language and brotherhood led him to resign from the Warsaw Zionist organization in 1887, when he published his first version of Esperanto. Later, in response to growing persecution of Russian Jews, and pressure from Zionist friends to return to the movements he proceeded to publish arefutation of the Zionist solution to the Jewish problem, and his own, rather convoluted solution in 1906:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homaranismo

" With Hillelism we don't mean a new denomination; we mean a new corporate-religious order inside the old Jewish religion, which has existed for a long time. Everybody who lives ethically could take part in this religion with a clear conscience, no matter what the religious views he had before looked like."

His daughter, prior to her murder during the holocaust, embraced these values by converting to Baha'Ism and partly merging the esperantist and Baha'I movements. But that is not necessarily what Zammenhoff himself initially had in mind.

My POV is that the primary reason that Zammenhoff abandoned Zionism was that settling Palestine, as he rightly saw, was impossible without conflict, and as he was conflict averse and borderline pacifist, he sought other solutions, however implausible.

But TTL sees a successful Jewish settlement being set up in 1901 in the Sinai, which is truly a "land without a people for a people with no land". It also sees the USA closing it's gates to further Jewish immigration in 1905 rather than 1919. Under these circumstances might Zammenhoff not reconsider? Perhaps even immigrate to the Sinai to continue his work there? An Esparanto speaking Canaan, or a variant based on either Semitic, Germanic or English vocabulary might conceivably be the result. A anti-nationalist pacifist opposition movement within Canaan might also coalensce around his ideas.

So might a darker imperialist missionary faction:
"Through our ideas we can acquire the whole civilized world, just as the
Christians have succeeded in doing until now, even though they began as a
small group of Hebrews. Instead of being absorbed into the Christian world,
we will absorb it. (Mi estas Homo 253)


In his own words:
""An international language will become forever strong only if there exists a
group of people who accept it as their family, hereditary language. One
hundred such people are hugely more important to the idea of a neutral
language than a million other people. The hereditary language of even the
smallest and most insignificant human group has a much stronger guarantee
of a continued existence than a language without a people even if it is used
by millions. (Mi estas Homo 97) ""


"""In the course of time, I have arrived at the strong conviction that the first
group of Hillelists should not be multicultural, but should be an ethnically
homogeneous group that will add a Hillelist character to its own existing
traditions and ideals. In this way, acting as a sect, it will form a hereditary,
existing and historically-based group that will engulf first its own people,
then the whole of humanity. Only one group can do this, namely the
Hebrew people. Not until I have decided definitively to reject the idea of
Hebrew Hillelism will I propose in one of the Esperanto congresses the
creation of multicultural, Esperanto-speaking Hillelists. (Mi estas Homo
119)""""


Plausible? Interesting?
 
Last edited:
Some questions...

How is technology progressing?
Will Canaan have any Olympic athletes in the Olympic Games?

A thought: without American participation in WWI, Ernest Hemingway has a different career from OTL, assuming he is even famous.
 
Last edited:
"If you build it they will come..."

Heh.

Mt Scopus/Third temple/Weizmann university, Commonwealth of Canaan, April 1917

Lots of questions raised here.

1) Kohanim? It's 90 years too soon for genetic haplotyping to identify males of appropriate ancestry. What method will be adopted?

2) What happens to the Western Wall? There will be some who insist on praying there instead of the Third (false) Temple. This could lead to religious enforcement in Canaan.

Because...

3) The basis of Third Temple Judaism doesn't have to be spiritual, it can be purely (or predominantly) ethnic-national-traditionalist. The model I am seeing is Japanese Shinto. AFAICT there is little or no spiritual element to Shinto practice. The Japanese do it because they have always done it, as an expression of their ethnic and national identity - which is very important to them. Whether the Shinto pantheon actually exist is irrelevant. Those with a need for deep spiritual expression take up Zen Buddhism.

Contemporary "Reconstructionist" Judaism seems to have a similar feel. Its practitioners follow the rules and rituals not because they believe they are serving God by obeying his commandments, but as an expression of their ethnic identity as Jews.

Thus the building of the Third Temple, and the practice of rituals in it, could be non-religious (in the sense of "religious" as used in the Christian sphere). Most of the upper echelon European Zionists were OTL and ITTL are (AIUI) atheist socialists. For them attendance at Third Temple rites will be an expression of nationalism - and loyalty to the nation which built it.

So the Western Wall loyalists may be viewed as disloyal to the nation.

4) The rituals of the Temple will seem completely alien to the Jews of Canaan. Pious traditionalists will see them as not even in the same space as the practice they've known all their own lives and for generations. It will be difficult to summon the same feelings of reverence.

(A comparative study of religious ceremonies in different cultures at different times would be a powerful tool here. The Christian model of Mass or services is one thing; what Hindus do for puja is something different; we don't really know what ancient Romans and Greeks did on a regular basis.

Modern Jewish practice has I'd bet been shaped by long exposure to the Christian model. Old Temple ritual was probably a lot more like pagan practice; Third Temple ritual might be the same, or a mixture of "reconstruction" and post-pagan models.

5) The ceremonies will be palpably synthetic. With the best will in the world, they will still come across as reconstructions to amuse and impress tourists.

6) Control of the Temple and its authority will be a huge political football. Debates over the design and rituals will get ferocious; control of the budget and jobs will be a prize. Think 17th century England.
 
How is technology progressing?

by 1923, progress in military technology and spinoffs such as motors a bit slower (since the war ended early), civilian progress is a bit quicker (for the same reasons).

The post Great-war tension and a less devastated Russia and world economy may mean that millitary technology eventually catches up and surpasses OTL in the 1930s, though with less field-tests I can't see Tanks being as well developed. aircraft have civilian uses and so will not be as retarded- though Zeplins may live on a bit longer with less experience of aerial warfare.

A rather discontenting possibility is that Germany, limited in what it is permitted to spend on conventional weapons, and with an advantage in theoretical physics (especially if jews are less persecuted) gets an early lead on developing the A bomb. Still, Considering the resources the US had to pour OTL into the Manhatan project to get a boom it seems unlikely that a WWII analog occuring prior to, or around the same time as OTL, will feature an early nuclear strike (or any Nuclear strike if the U.S stays out).

Will Canaan have any Olympic athletes in the Olympic Games?

Probably by 1928. Almost certainly by 1936.
 
Last edited:
Lots of questions raised here.

Bomb away. I'm making this up as I go along and the more questions people ask the more detailed the setting gets.

1) Kohanim? It's 90 years too soon for genetic haplotyping to identify males of appropriate ancestry. What method will be adopted?

Same as exists in any Shul today. Your father a known Cohen or a Lavi? If so, you are eligible to perform the ceremonies. You still need to pass the rabinical exams and be vouched for to get a official paying job performing them.

2) What happens to the Western Wall? There will be some who insist on praying there instead of the Third (false) Temple. This could lead to religious enforcement in Canaan.

Enforcement, no (at least not in the first 15-20 years). Dissension, yes. Official Third Temple Judaism may be the only recognized stream of Judaism in Canaan but "True Temple" Judaism, "Charedi" Judaism, one or more stream of Hillelic Judaism (assuming I go with the Zhmenhoff option) with possible overlap with Baha'Ism, small pockets of reform and "independent Conservative" Judaism (those that do not merge into the Reform or Third Temple variants) and possibly Lurianic mysticism will all be practised. I expect that Third-Temple Judaism will come to predominate if it has a monopoly on state subsidized jobs and schooling. Will it ever seek to crush the other streams by force or legal persecution? The initial constitution of Canaan will certainly prevent that. Whether the constitution holds under external and internal pressures is another story.

Because...

3) The basis of Third Temple Judaism doesn't have to be spiritual, it can be purely (or predominantly) ethnic-national-traditionalist. The model I am seeing is Japanese Shinto. AFAICT there is little or no spiritual element to Shinto practice. The Japanese do it because they have always done it, as an expression of their ethnic and national identity - which is very important to them. Whether the Shinto pantheon actually exist is irrelevant. Those with a need for deep spiritual expression take up Zen Buddhism.

I'm not sure that in the 1930s-1940s State Shinto Japanese didn't BELIEVE. Sure, the belief system was a practice in social engineering, but it had authentic roots and those who grew up in it did not really recognize it as artificial. If Japan had "won" WWII, or avoided it, A genuine "faith" in the "christian" sense, may well have been apparant to us in contemporary Japan.

But yes, certain similliarities may exist between "Third Temple" Judaism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokugaku. Major differences exist as well- I'll make a point of making a post comparing interwar Japanese and Canaanite developments. The fact that both are struggling between an identity as self conciousess "others" to the West Vs emulating and seeking acceptance by the West makes for some interesting commonalities.

Contemporary "Reconstructionist" Judaism seems to have a similar feel. Its practitioners follow the rules and rituals not because they believe they are serving God by obeying his commandments, but as an expression of their ethnic identity as Jews.

I am quite sure, from personal acquintance, that is true for many Orthodox Jews as well- or Hindus and Christians and Muslims for that matter. Reconstructionism is different in that it makes that premise an explicit option rather than a shameful secret (in the case of Islam) or a quietly accepted, but not officialy sanctioned option (in the case of moderate Orthodox Jews and certain protestant sects).

Hmmm... but how about a version of reconstructionist Judaism, let's call it "Objectivism" or "beyondism" championed by Ayn Rand/ Maayan Nevo?

"God is dead. The fountainshead of divinity lies within us, the self chosen elite selected by milennia of persecution and evolution. What did not kill us has only made us stronger. There is no fate but what we make. The Will is master. The Will prevails."

At any event, that is not quite the premise of the religous practioners of the ceremonies in the Third Temple or of the masses who make the pilgrimage to them- whatever may have been the initial intentions of it's secular sponsers.

Thus the building of the Third Temple, and the practice of rituals in it, could be non-religious (in the sense of "religious" as used in the Christian sphere). Most of the upper echelon European Zionists were OTL and ITTL are (AIUI) atheist socialists. For them attendance at Third Temple rites will be an expression of nationalism - and loyalty to the nation which built it.

Yes, pretty much. That is the way the Third temple and it's ceremonies will be interpeted by the secular sponsers of it's construction- which is not to say that the same form will not have a different content for those Middle Eastern and East European Jews who are still highly religious. The trick will be to find a form which can contain the two overlapping, but distinct meanings.


BTW, re-reading Herzl's Biography and the early history of the zionist movement has made me re-evaluate the dominance I thought Labor zionism enjoyed in zionism's early years. Prior to WWI, religious zionism, and the Mizrachi (Not Middle Eastern Jews- religous russo-Polish Jews) movement, were much more dominant than I thought. A combination of the Bolshevik revolution and the de-facto severance of Russian Jewry from zionism and the rest of the Jewish world, Labor supported British persecution of the revisionists, and an immigration quota system which allocated most immigrants to the socialist zionism transformed Labor zionism from a plurality to a monopoly. So the leadership may contain a larger religous faction than I initially thought- again, next post.

So the Western Wall loyalists may be viewed as disloyal to the nation.

In some respects, yes. Sort of like the Old Believers in Russia or those Muslims who worship at the tombs of saints. Though if the people running the Third temple have any brains they will make clear that worshipping at the Western wall is perfectly acceptable and even incorporate it into the rituals of the three Raglim ("This is what happened when we were irreverant/lacked vigilance/ fought among ourselves"). This should prevent either the "True temple" or "wailing wall" faction from making it a wedge issue. If they have even more brains they will halt the clearance of the Mhugrabi quarter and make sure the West Wall plaza is as small as possible.

4) The rituals of the Temple will seem completely alien to the Jews of Canaan. Pious traditionalists will see them as not even in the same space as the practice they've known all their own lives and for generations. It will be difficult to summon the same feelings of reverence.

Really? you ever watch a פרןצק Rooster get it's neck wrung before Yom-Kippur? Slitting the throat of a lamb may come as a shock to Western Reform/secular Jews but for orthodox East Europeans, let alone Middle Eastern Jews this is not much of a leap. Especially when prayers and Torah readings describe, at great length, The sacrifices and the mintiuae of priestly vestments, etc.

As for the seculars, many are in search of the paegentry which they have witnessed the christian churches display (incense, Music, stained glass, vestments, etc. Of course, they took much of that from us- and various Greek and Eastern mystery cults). Consider how early reform Synagouges and services looked- basically a reproduction of christian churches, organ and chorus included, with some exotica thrown in to make it feel different and therefore still theirs.


Modern Jewish practice has I'd bet been shaped by long exposure to the Christian model.

Orthodox services in the 1910s actually... no. There are almost no points of commonality between Orthodox services, at least East of Vienna, and Christian services. Early Reform sevices in Germany did self-consciously seek to emulate Chrsitian services- but Canaan contains almost no Western Reform Jews. (Proper disclosure- I was raised a Dor Daim Orthodox with exposure to Samaritan customs. Currently belong to a Conservative community. My predjudices probably show.)


Old Temple ritual was probably a lot more like pagan practice; Third Temple ritual might be the same, or a mixture of "reconstruction" and post-pagan models.



5) The ceremonies will be palpably synthetic. With the best will in the world, they will still come across as reconstructions to amuse and impress tourists.

The Samaritan rituals are probably the best reflection on how old Temple rituals looked like. In spite of the heavy and growing tourist presence over the past decades they never felt synthetic to me. Will a reconstruction based on this template and scriptual descriptions of the rituals seem synthetic? To people who have simultaneously been dislocated from their birthplace and mostly separated from their parents and entire older generation? who have experienced a modern day political miracle? who are subjected to an incredibly heavy workload, rationing, un-ending millitary service? who have only three yearly rituals in which they can go to town, meet people outside the collective and even the country and then get to witness a re-affirmation of their independence- followed by a meal much better than what they have eaten for the past few months?

Maybe. But I think for many, perhaps most, the experience will be "authentic". Bear in mind these aren't 21st century, Internet generation Westerners. This is the age of national reconstruction and awakening as well as various totalitarian ideologies. people want to BELIEVE. Jews might be somewhat more intellectual and skeptical than Japanese or Romanians, but the desire for a framework and foundation giving life meaning is still there.

6) Control of the Temple and its authority will be a huge political football. Debates over the design and rituals will get ferocious; control of the budget and jobs will be a prize. Think 17th century England.

Not quite as bad (no Burnings at the stake. I hope.) and hopefully slightly more dignified (then again, OTL Knesset...). But yes. I'll give political jockyoing within the emerging temple Hierarchy a respectable stage.
 
Last edited:
By the rivers of babylon: Post #25a retcon

Major retcon. Following constructive criticism from Rich_Rostom, deeper digging into Ottoman and contemporary administrative divisions of Iraq, historical populations of these administrative divisions, OTLs Messopotamia campaign, OTL contact between the Assyrians and the British in 1915 (almost non), British and Anglo-Perisan oil relations with the tribes of southern Iraq and Persian politics during WWI and it's aftermath I've come to the conclusion the Rostom was right regarding the plausibility of Chaldea as I described it coming into existence.

Almost Three times as many Shia as I thought lived in the territory the British occupy (roughly 1.3 million), it's shrines are the center of most Shia pilgrimages, the British need to take into consideration relations with the Persian government, Persian Arabistan and Yemen, The religious composition of India and the Indian army,and they have little contact with the Assyrians in late 1915. So no mass expulsion of Shia from south Iraq. No Chaldo-Assyrian state supplemented by Mandeans, Zoroastrians and Baha'I. No hanging Baha'I gardens or tower of Babylon (sigh) and much smaller Indian and Jewish immigration.

Some Chaldo Assyrians trek southwards to Basra. Others join their eastern Kin in Northwestern Persia, under the "benevolent" protection of the future Khan Ungern Sternberg AKA Kurtz. Others flee into Vaspurakan, Cylicia and the Levant.


Colony of Chaldea (1)
1922 Population: 1.45 million
Capital:Kuwait/Ur
Population distribution: Shia Arab (80%), Mandean* (5%), chaldo-Assyrians Christians (4%)
,Jews** (5%), Indian*** (6%).

*Many still pretending to be Shia
** Persians, Iraqis and Kurdish Jews. Some Indians. Also a few Maccabees.
*** Mostly from the Bombay region and the Rajput princely states.
Language of administration: English, Arabic.
Administration: Colony of India attached to Bombay presidency
Exports: Oil, Rice, Agricultural products

Unlike the other territories occupied by the entente during the brief war against the Ottomans, no exchange of population took place between Chaldea and the Ottoman Empire. The sheer size of the territory and the population involved, and British sensitivity to the mood of the tribes of Persian Arabistan mitigated against it, as did the small number of Assyrians who reached British protection. Instead, Britian sought, with limited success, to conciliate the independent minded tribes under it's rule by recognizing and subsidizing Shia clergy and friendly Sheikhs, using a system of punishments and rewards to ensure overall British rule was never seriously challenged. Following the end of the Great war and Mustefa Kemal's acquisience to British rule in Southern Messopotamia in return for British aid in Securing Akkad against Djemal Pasha and Kurdish rebellion it seemed as if this policy would eventually result in a tranquil province.

Three factors averted this outcome. The first was the ill founded decision in 1917 to award Chaldea to India as a colonial prize for it's participation in the war. The climate of Chaldea was then thought unsuitable for Europeans, whereas it's marshes and rivers were viewed as holding great potential for subtropical agriculture. It was therefore thought that Chaldea might might offer a relief for India's teeming masses (2). The ceremony transferring possession of Chaldea to a governor nominally appointed by the Indian government (3) was soon followed by a subsidized resettlement of famine stricken Indian farmers from Bihar and Gujarat (4). Massive investment in reclamation projects made new farmland avaliable for both immigrant and native- but also disrupted the traditional way of life of many of the semi-nomadic tribes of the southern marshes (5). A further aggravation was British favoritism and protection showed towards the mandean minority and Chaldo-Assyrian refugees.

The second factor was, of course, the Mecca war. The continuous fighting between Shia Yemen and the Sunni forces backing khalil Pasha between 1917-1923, resulted in inflamed passions between the Shia majority and the Sunni minority in Chaldea, just as it did between the Sunni majority and Shia minority in Akkad. While the Anglo-Indians made good use of the heightened sense of Shia identity, their failure to protect the Sunni, and the population exchange carried out between Chaldea and Akkad empowered the more extreme Shia religous leadership in Karbala. With many Chaldean Shia traveling to Yemen to participate in the war against Khalil, it is small surprise that many of those who returned

The third factor was the Anglo-Indian government policy of extracting the most in terms of revenue out of the new colony. Having failed to strike oil, it imposed a significant tax on pilgrimages to Karbala and burials in Najaf (7), further inflaming religious opposition to their rule.

This tinderbox of outrage was waiting for a spark. Such a spark was provided by in the day of Ashura (8) in 1920, when tens of Thousands of Shia gathered in Karbalah to commemorate the martyrdom of Husayn Ibn Ali. It remains unclear whether any overt political demonstration was ever intended when the multitude marched to the Imam Hussein shrine. What is clear is that Brigadier General Reginald Dyer, newly arrived from India's NorthWest frontier, clearly viewed it as such (9). Surrounding the enterances to the Shine's plaza with detachments of Ghurka and Balochi troops he Ordered the crowd to disperse. Facing both refusal and outraged rock throwing he calmly ordered his troops to open fire.


(1) More than OTLs Basrah Vilayet. Basically, everything south of a line between the Persian border, Kut, the ruins of Babylon and karbala.
(2) OTL. But post war unrest in India made the idea untenable. TTL, Indian unrest develops abit later and in a different way.
(3) Which is still effectively ruled by Englishmen, though with a little more Indian input than OTL
(4) The people carrying out this struggle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champaran_and_Kheda_Satyagraha where Ghandi became a national figure. TTL they are not suffering QUITE as badly since the war ended earlier and the Brits are more willing to listen and compromise since they don't view every outbreak of unrest as evidence of a German-Ottoman plot.
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Arabs
(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandean
(7) OTL.
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Ashura
(9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Dyer. Well... you can probably see where this is going. Though our own Ashura incident in 1983 is also an inspiration. And Satyaghara really doesn't translate well into Arabic. Especially empowered Shia Arabic.
 
Post #29: Sha Mat

And… It's back. I'm going to finish this TL if it kills me. And now, to Persia, where the shit is about to hit the fan.

People:
Persian contenders for the throne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Pessian
titular ruler of Persia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Qajar

Separatist leaders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaz'al_al-Ka'bi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simko_Shikak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar_Shimun_XXI_Benyamin

Foreign puppets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Persia_Rifles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Cossack_Brigade



January 1918, Hamedan, Persian empire
"Sons of Darius!" The ranks of the Gendarmerie stiffened as Colonel Pessian paced before them. "The soil of the fatherland has suffered in a war that was not it's own. The Foreign boots of the unbelievers have defiled the soil of the land of the Aryans. They have conscripted us into their armies, imprisoned the Shah and now, though the war is over, they yet remain. Worse, they have armed the Dhimmi who even now plunder and ravage their betters. Enough. The time has come to take back what is ours! Today, we take back Hamadan. Tomorrow, Teheran. And then, we will liberate Urmiah!".

The Fight for Oil: Russia, Britain and the partition of Persia

Early victories against the Ottoman Empire were accompanied by effective Anglo-Russian occupation of Persia. This occupation was both unofficial and supposadely temporary, with the Sha being induced, following Ottoman defeat in the Cilicia campaign, to declare war on the Ottoman empire. The regular Persian forces took little part in the war against the Ottomans, however. Instead, the Russians armed and greatly expanded the Persian Cossacks while the British did the same with the tribal mercanaries of the South Persian rifles.
While a strong pro-German sentiment existed within the officer ranks of the Persian Gendarme, it remained submerged given the fourtunes of war. However, with the eruption of the 1917-1918 troubles Russian regular forces were largely withdrawn from Northern Persia, leaving a power vaccum in their wake. Two men sought to fill that void.

The first, Reza Khan, held a powerful position in the Persian Cossacks, the best armed and trained force in the Persian empire. That force, however, remained small and was cut off from support as the Baku commune, the Jadidist rebels of the Cis Casacuas and the Basmaji rebels of central Asia severed the vital land link to Russia.

The second, Colonel Mohammad Taqi-Khan Pessian, was officially no more than commander of the Hamedan Gendarmerie. In practice, however, he was the center of a submerged, yet anticipatory, conspiracy of patriotic Persian officers dedicated to eliminating Russian and British influence over Persia. When he raised the standard of revolt and defeated the Persian Cossacks commanded by Reza Khan in the battle of Mussala many he gained followers, enabling him to march on Teheran and capture it.

He failed, however, to capture either Reza Khan or Ahmad Shah Qajar. Both fled to Reza Khan's home province of Mazandaran where the remmanants of the Persian Cossacks made common cause with Regional Gilani sepratists. Following Ungern Sternberg's bloody suppression of the Casaucas rebels and the coronation of Tsar Nicholas III, the royalist rump would receive significant support from it's traditional backer, enabling it to survive as a puppet state and to restore it's authority over the oil rich Caspian littoral as well as much of the Azeri Northwest.

Pessian was no more successful in forcing the far flung provinces and tribes of Southern Persia to submit to his authority. Following his hasty decrees concerning Persian sovereignty over it's natural mineral wealth, The Anglo-Persian oil company quietly subsidized Sheikh Khaz'al bid for independence in Arabistan, enabling it to gain a definitive, and cheap, control over the majority of Iran's oil wells. Bribes and subsidies led the Bakhtiari and Luri chieftains to recognize him as titular overlord. Oman was similiarly encouraged to reoccupy Bandar Abbas, and the Khan of Kholat to invade Baluchistan.

By June 1919 The final restoration of Russian authority to it's central Asian and Caucasian possesions coincided with an all out counterattack by Reza Khan on Teheran, leading to great alarm in London. Afghanistan and Akkad were quietly encouraged to press their own claims to Persian Kurdistan and Khorasan, even when those claims encroached into the 1907 defined Russian sphere of influence.

While outraged, Nicholas III was well aware of the enduring weakness of his country and of the inadvisability of entering into conflict with Britian while Germany remained a threat. Accordingly, the Shah's advance was brought to a halt in Quo and Pessian was permitted to retain control of Isfahan and it's environs as a buffer state between to British and Russian spheres of influence. The governor of Shiraz and Fars province had, by then, denounced both regimes and had been granted "protection" by the British Empire, completing the unbroken land link which now existed between the British holdings in India and South Africa.

Regardless of the legal statues of the various protectorates, subsidiary states and buffer states which were all that were left of the ancient Persian Empire, one thing was clear. The greatest treasure of Persia, it's oil, was now under full foreign control.
 
Last edited:
Post #29: Sha Mat

persia.jpg

a caption from a 1911 English satirical magazine reads: "If we hadn't a thorough understanding, I (British lion) might almost be tempted to ask what you (Russian bear) are doing there with our little playfellow (Persian cat)."

persia.jpg
 
Partitioned Persia

gimped persia.jpg

Shades of Red are British protectorates, subsidary allies, Client states etc. Shades of Blue Are Russian. The Green colored Republic of Iran in the middle is hostile to both but quietly cooperating with Britian. It's also a mess. Not nearly as screwed up as Rump Turkey though.

Can anyone advise me on how to add more than one map/image onto a post?

You updated, great!

Thanks! I need all the encouragement I can get to finally carry a timeline to conclusion

gimped persia.jpg
 
Top