A Land Longing For A Sun

Not weak rulers in such a way to compromise administrative efficiency, only weak rulers in so far as there is a strong clergy, in place of a strong nobility.

Which is going to make it accept this . . . why again?

Again, these are integral parts of England we're talking about, the only way they're staying independent is an England unable to bring them back.
 

scholar

Banned
Which is going to make it accept this . . . why again?

Again, these are integral parts of England we're talking about, the only way they're staying independent is an England unable to bring them back.
Integral in what sense? We are talking about a POD in the in 1200s and before the time of their independence they were already preexisting duchies with autonomous rule. If it was OTL and this suddenly occurred then the two duchies would very quickly be gobbled back up after a couple decades go by of peace provided the French or Spanish decide to meddle in those affairs, but this isn't OTL.

I'm not inflexible, I already said that I might remove them, but I want to make it clear what the situation actually is and not just a misunderstanding.
 
Integral in what sense? We are talking about a POD in the in 1200s and before the time of their independence they were already preexisting duchies with autonomous rule. If it was OTL and this suddenly occurred then the two duchies would very quickly be gobbled back up after a couple decades go by of peace provided the French or Spanish decide to meddle in those affairs.

I'm not inflexible, I already said that I might remove them, but I want to make it clear what the situation actually is and not just a misunderstanding.
Integral in the same sense as any other part of the Kingdom (or whatever it is calling itself) of England is integral.

A POD in the 1200s is too late.

And why would they be more autonomous than any other part of England? There's no point.

I can understand that in the short term, after a massive civil war, it isn't worth it. But that's a postponement, not an elimination, of the desire to ensure all of England is under the rule of _____.
 
Last edited:

scholar

Banned
I can understand that in the short term, after a massive civil war, it isn't worth it. But that's a postponement, not an elimination, of the desire to ensure all of England is under the rule of _____.
A compromise:

What if the duchies attained independence and managed to keep it with and following the civil war, but in time were brought back into the fold as subservient to the English crown, while still maintaining local autonomy?
 
I'm always open to suggestions!

George III could easily have held the one colony out of all his colonies that rebelled against him.


:confused: Your statement confuses

The difference here is that disatisfaction comes mostly in Britain, and not so much outside of it in the colonies. England never said "Do not settle beyond the Appalachian Mountain Range" nor did they increase taxes (or keep them raised if they were massively unpopular). And Cromwell and the other duchy don't push England around, they try to stay as far away from insulting them as possible.


Push who around now?

Sounds more like a Chinese tributary system than any actual European colonial system OTL...I'll note that the colonies OTL rebelled against taxes and duties actually lower than people in England proper did...the most likely result of so feeble a home country is the breakup of the American colonies into a number of smaller self-governing states very nominally under British rule...


Harsh winters, wet springs and autumns, and brief summers. The northern Russians were very resilient and determined to maintain their independence and as Muscovy was much more easily able to expand into a collapsing Golden Horde they eventually stopped trying.

Sweden was able to take over and dominate this region for those exact reasons.


So Sweden was able to take over and dominate the area for the same reason the Muscovite Russians were unable to? Logical problem here.

Its more complex than that.The Il Khanate was the traditional rival of both the Mamluks and the Golden Horde, and was often looking to increase its relations with the Christian powers. It wanted crusades, it wanted to support them, it even offered free horses. Numerous attempts at forging alliances failed. With renewed Crusading spirit they don't fail. The Khanate, even after its conversion to Islam, offered the city of Jerusalem to the christians if they agreed to aid them. Arabia, however, wouldn't really be invaded. Egypt, Syria, Judea, and the North African coasts, they would be the main areas of excursion. Penetrating into Arabia only occurred after the Il Khanate became too weak to resist effectively, and they would all be pushed out after the use of gunpowder became common in warfare.


Ah, ok, you might want to add a line on the effects of "but as the Khanate grew relatively weaker, it regretted its alliance, as the Christians penetrated ever deeper into the Muslim heartlands, even into Arabia proper.." to clarify.

There are over a dozen characters that represent the word "Jin", and there are other Chinese Dynasties that have the name Jin attached to them.


Later ones?

Couldn't the same statement be made about Russia before the advent of such technologies,


Russia is pretty darn flat and threaded with navigable rivers, and the eastern bits are almost uninhabited before modern times. It is not split up by impenentrable jungle and one of the world's greatest mountain ranges.



None of it far from the navigable mediterranean and Black Seas, aside from the outlier of Britain (the first bit to be abandoned). Also, much smaller than South America, and no Andes and no Amazon jungle, either.

or the Tang which dared to invade Afghanistan and send out troops to the Caspian?


For very brief periods, and almost the entire population was in the Chinese core

Or the Mongol Empire?


Closer, but it was divided among Genghis's sons before it reached its full size, and what brief unity it had was driven by a Steppe unified and quickly crossable by an at-the-time unstoppable cavalry arm.

I'm not saying that it would be a centralized state, I'm stating quite the opposite: Its unstable, it already almost collapsed a number of times, early desires for expansion were dashed by physical realities, and so forth.


Color me unconvinced. What sort of communications do the elites in the Andes have with those in coastal Brazil in the early 1800s? There can be no tightly-bound group of "founding fathers" under these circumstances. If OTL Spanish America fell apart right away upon independence, this monster isn't going to hold together through the 19th century.

The colonial territories are not accurately shown... This is what Africa should look like:


The neat division of African coasts into huge one-nation stretches is unlikely in of itself...west Africa OTL goes France/Britain/France/Portugal/France/Britain/former USA/France/Britain, etc. - and it was more diverse before WWI - you have instead Aragon Aragon Aragon Aragon etc...


Such medicines are there, this is the year 1900. By this time Africa was almost completely under the control of European powers. Here is the map again:

OTL shows greater expansion than mine. :p

Also, there are colonial divisions. I just didn't put them in...


You will also note that OTL there are a lot fewer straight-line borders...heck, some of the ones you have need to bend a bit to show the earth's curve

1. Perhaps, the only reason why they are still there is because they are Orthodox and can be used to mess with Central Asian affairs without stirring up trouble with the Jin.


Orthodox? How did that happen?

2. Everything in Central Asia inbetween the dominant Muslim Indian state and the Il Khanate are Chagatai fraction states. The Chagatai inside Persia have largely assimilated into Persian culture and call themselves "Shah" more so than "Khagan".


I don't really think we can say the Chagatai are still around under those circumstances, but that's a minor quibble.

3. Yes! :D Polish Egypt too.


Egypt I'll buy, but this is geographical weirdness: a stretch of territory across an awesomely rugged land filled with grouchy muslims, and more hostile Muslims on both sides?
Give them the north coast and maybe some of the Caucuses, this won't work.


4. Duchy of Lisboa and Duchy of Cadiz, they were larger in the past and largely make up the pieces of Portugal and Castille-Leon that broke away from the Aragonese court after the extinction of the male Barcelona line.


The Cornwall Problem again rears its ugly head. :)

5. Its a bit complex, but it can ultimately be explained by bringing up the tributary system and a divide and conquer approach by the Chinese.


Never needed to divide and conquer to make the Viets tributaries OTL...


Bruce
 
Later ones?

There was the Jin (晉) which briefly ruled all of China; the ephemeral, weak, and historically significant Later Jin (後晉); the Jurchen Jin (金); and the dynasty which was renamed Qing but was originally called the Later Jin (後金).

I assume that the Jin Dynasty in this world would be named after the Jin/晉, though it might be called Great Jin or something to distinguish it. The historical Later Jin (後晉) would probably be renamed the Northern Jin or something, because the Western and Eastern Jin refer to the first Jin/晉.
 
Good job! My knowledge of pre-1900 history isnt too good but I like your scenario. What's the approximate tech level?
 

scholar

Banned
:confused: Your statement confuses
As it rightly should, its the American within me associating all of the 13 colonies as one entity.

Push who around now?

Sounds more like a Chinese tributary system than any actual European colonial system OTL...I'll note that the colonies OTL rebelled against taxes and duties actually lower than people in England proper did...the most likely result of so feeble a home country is the breakup of the American colonies into a number of smaller self-governing states very nominally under British rule...
I know, it was something like 1/6th of what the English paid. I would, however, remark that taxes were far from the only thing that caused the rebellion and that even with all those factors that it still couldn't have been prevented.

So Sweden was able to take over and dominate the area for the same reason the Muscovite Russians were unable to? Logical problem here.
The Muscovite excursion was by a weaker force (at the time) and there were far better and easier spots to expand to, such as the steppe. Sweden was partaking in the Polish Crusades, something vaguely analogous to Polish-Muscovite Wars only with a more blatant attempt at conquest as well as catholicizing and with significant backing from the Church and Austria.

Ah, ok, you might want to add a line on the effects of "but as the Khanate grew relatively weaker, it regretted its alliance, as the Christians penetrated ever deeper into the Muslim heartlands, even into Arabia proper.." to clarify.
True, I probably should have. That being said it was the Christians that just stopped enforcing the alliance, rendering it worthless because it was against a very tolerant muslim state.

Later ones?
Yes, though it was by the Manchurians. :p

Its kind of unfair to use that as a counterargument, however. After the Jin Dynasty there were only really three major important dynasties that didn't die out in four or five years: Yuan, Ming, and Qing/Jin. The Song itself was contemporary to the Jin. Two of those dynasties were foreign, leaving only the Ming. If there was a greater amount of time, or a greater amount of internal discord to be in a position to propagate dynasties, then it would be better.

Russia is pretty darn flat and threaded with navigable rivers, and the eastern bits are almost uninhabited before modern times. It is not split up by impenentrable jungle and one of the world's greatest mountain ranges.
I am thinking about the Ural Mountains, harsh climates, and sheer distance.

The western and eastern halves of New Aragon can be fit together fairly well, and there is always the sea to make things navigable.

None of it far from the navigable mediterranean and Black Seas, aside from the outlier of Britain (the first bit to be abandoned). Also, much smaller than South America, and no Andes and no Amazon jungle, either.
No Andes, but there are the Pyranies, the Alps, the Balkans, and numerous rivers that were unpassable without development, not to mention parts of the various deserts. The only thing I was trying to say with that statement is the sheer size and magnitude with that level of technological development.

For very brief periods, and almost the entire population was in the Chinese core
True, but a few ten thousand soldiers in Afghanistan was a very major thing outside China, but inside it that may barely qualify as a border guard. Whenever China was united it always made its presence felt in the steppe. When it wasn't it was either fighting against itself or foreigners that lost themselves to chinese culture.

Closer, but it was divided among Genghis's sons before it reached its full size, and what brief unity it had was driven by a Steppe unified and quickly crossable by an at-the-time unstoppable cavalry arm.
It would take more than a year for someone to travel from one end of the empire to another. Its far less than that here.

Color me unconvinced. What sort of communications do the elites in the Andes have with those in coastal Brazil in the early 1800s? There can be no tightly-bound group of "founding fathers" under these circumstances. If OTL Spanish America fell apart right away upon independence, this monster isn't going to hold together through the 19th century.
Largely the communication would be through ocean traffic, but I think you overlooked something big: If Spanish America was ruled largely united by a crown in Madrid for centuries with far worse communication then, why do you think that any state with a capital and ruling authority much closer to the region would make it inevitably collapse?

The neat division of African coasts into huge one-nation stretches is unlikely in of itself...west Africa OTL goes France/Britain/France/Portugal/France/Britain/former USA/France/Britain, etc. - and it was more diverse before WWI - you have instead Aragon Aragon Aragon Aragon etc...
West Africa was so diverse because it was used as a focal point in travel from Europe and the Americas to the East. That wasn't the case here. Also, the division of the continent was initially by crusading rights. Basically a treaty of Berlin via the faithful. France, however, wanted to claim the continent for itself after largely having been shut out from the new world and already having a massive head start on everyone else. A checkerboard of interests, which was supposed to show that it was far worse than this, changed to only a few groups of interest as those with the capability to engage in the colonial process did so and those without that capability lost out. The reason why West Africa is all Aragon is that it mostly was before it was divided up into spheres of interest. Since Aragon controlled South America for the most part, Naples central America, and England north America, the only ones with a real vested interest in using west africa would be Naples and Aragon, and both got away with parts of it. All of those countries you referenced in the region there had a reason to be there.

Britain had the virgin isles and Guyana, it also had West African colonies in Nigeria and the region which served as starting points to the Cape, the East Coast of Africa, British Raj, and their other colonial interests. France had the French Virgin Islands, it had most of West Africa in its interests, it had its interests in India, and its colonial interests across the Indian Ocean. Portugal had used their colonies since the dawn of their colonial empire and their mercantile interests in Mozambique, Angola, Goa, Macao, Timor, etc. Those colonies had their purpose and reason for being, something that a variety of nations wouldn't have in a setting like this. Even so, initially all of Africa was divided into an initial division far more diverse than OTL as almost every Christian nation had a piece of the African pie.

You will also note that OTL there are a lot fewer straight-line borders...heck, some of the ones you have need to bend a bit to show the earth's curve
I know that, but I have no paint skills and what I had done reflected the arbitrary way that I wanted it to look. :p

By the time the regions start getting anywhere near effectively colonized the straight lines will fall apart. For instance the poles already have nearly complete control over their region. Do you think a colonial power will simply stop at an arbitrary line when it might be decades before any other power notices it because they only claim the land? I feel as though in the original Berlin conference it probably looked something similar to this. Preexisting colonies were recognized while the big powers played fill in the blanks with very straight and arbitrary borders. This became more organic as time went on and reality hit them.

Orthodox? How did that happen?
The big Muscovy in the region.

I don't really think we can say the Chagatai are still around under those circumstances, but that's a minor quibble.
Its not, no more than we can say there's a Korea or a China.

Egypt I'll buy, but this is geographical weirdness: a stretch of territory across an awesomely rugged land filled with grouchy muslims, and more hostile Muslims on both sides?
Give them the north coast and maybe some of the Caucuses, this won't work.
Often times they were invited in by the local leaders in the region to help them in their wars with their local rivals. The Poles came, helped, and once the conflict was over they stayed. If this was a head on conquest they may have held briefly before being kicked out, if at all. However they came in with invitation, much to the detriment of those that asked for help in their minor squabbles. This was at a time when the Il Khanate was fighting against the Chagatai and the Turks were having a free for all in Anatolia. Who had the time or the resources to kick them out, especially since they had the wealthy regions of Trebizond and others to support them?

The Cornwall Problem again rears its ugly head. :)
CORNWALL!!!!!

:p

Never needed to divide and conquer to make the Viets tributaries OTL...
No, but they did it alot in regards to the steppe peoples. Southern states always seemed much more prochinese. It wouldn't be impossible for them to apply this strategy everywhere. But, here's another way to look at it is this:

Say there's a Kingdom that has a bunch of subordinate rulers or governors. The King breaks away from the tributary state while some of the subordinate rulers do not. When the Chinese come after either the neighboring Kingdoms or governors go there to appeal for permission to invade or request assistance in defense, when the state if finally brought back into the tributary system those rulers that remained loyal are made official rulers of their holdings.

I have to say I appreciate the time you're taking out of your day/night to do this. So far the biggest problems are the independent duchies of in England, Muscovite nonexpansion northwards, the fact that New Aragon is still nominally the same entity, and Polish Eastern Anatolia?

Any part of those that I didn't address let me know and I'll do my best to provide explanations or fix, and if there are any major issues that we didn't cover I'll gladly go over that as well. :)

LeoXiao said:
Good job! My knowledge of pre-1900 history isnt too good but I like your scenario. What's the approximate tech level?
Pre World War I levels, though no one has ever heard of aviation and would call you mad if you told them about a plane or a blimp.
 
This is relevant... how? The Mongols had very little experience in this type of warfare when they invaded Vietnam, after their initial invasion and being beaten back after killing tens of thousands of Vietnamese with the Mongols only providing a limited attempt at conquering them, Vietnam agreed to become a protectorate of the Yuan Dynasty and paid tribute until the Yuan was destroyed.

Is this supposed to be an argument against the current Tributary system? Its the opposite. The fact that the Mongols were even able to wage war in the island of Java should speak mountains about their extension with only two emperors in control of China, one of which being a rather poor ruler. In this timeline the Mongols get six competent rulers which expanded their authority throughout Southeast Asia. In OTL they had already gathered the obeisance of most of the region.

Not weak rulers in such a way to compromise administrative efficiency, only weak rulers in so far as there is a strong clergy, in place of a strong nobility.
It was not the weak rulers that stopped them was basically the Climate just like what happened to Napoleon, the Cambodian Empire was undefeatable until the Thais destroyed them from inside only to create a similar empire, I respect your opinion on that because we have different points of view on this matter.
 
Last edited:
As it rightly should, its the American within me associating all of the 13 colonies as one entity.

I know, it was something like 1/6th of what the English paid. I would, however, remark that taxes were far from the only thing that caused the rebellion and that even with all those factors that it still couldn't have been prevented. .


Well, yes - I'm saying that I fail to see why these British colonies should remain under homeland ruler either. And what was the date again for first Brit colonies in America in this world?

The Muscovite excursion was by a weaker force (at the time) and there were far better and easier spots to expand to, such as the steppe. Sweden was partaking in the Polish Crusades, something vaguely analogous to Polish-Muscovite Wars only with a more blatant attempt at conquest as well as catholicizing and with significant backing from the Church and Austria. .


Russia takes Novgorod, later loses it to Sweden in a anti-Orthodox crusade allied with Poland, Austria, the Teutonic Knights, etc. (Teutonic Knights nearly took Novgorod OTL 1242: google "Nevsky Battle of the Ice.") Or the Swedes get it first (OTL Muscovy didn't get around till 1478 to swallowing it - might take even longer to getting around to it if there are jucier opportunities to the south and west) - when do these "Polish Crusades" get going? Later holds onto it when Russia gets stronger because allied to Big Fat Poland. I don't think we really need the bit about Muscovy getting beaten back by Pskov and Novgorod.


I am thinking about the Ural Mountains, harsh climates, and sheer distance. .


The Mongols refer to the Ural Mountains as "speedbumps." :D After all, the Russian center ruled over Siberia like Earth might rule over a Mars colony: for a long time, Siberia was too thinly populated with Russians and too dependent on human and other resources from the European bits to break off as an independent state.

The western and eastern halves of New Aragon can be fit together fairly well, and there is always the sea to make things navigable. .


Still a long trip. I would find a big 'ol eastern Brazil-Argentina state and maybe a unified Andean state just believable, but not the whole darn thing.

It would take more than a year for someone to travel from one end of the empire to another. Its far less than that here. .


Mongol relay riders could go from one end to another of the Empire in something like a month.

Largely the communication would be through ocean traffic, but I think you overlooked something big: If Spanish America was ruled largely united by a crown in Madrid for centuries with far worse communication then, why do you think that any state with a capital and ruling authority much closer to the region would make it inevitably collapse?.


But it wasn't ruled as a unified area: initially, when it was a small number of Conquistadors squatting atop a mass of Indians, it was so, but as the population grew and local centers of power developed, it had to be increasingly divided https://qed.princeton.edu/images/6/...ns_of_Spanish_and_Portuguese_America_1780.jpg

So it was a bunch of seperately administered areas each tied to the Crown: when the authority of the crown collapsed, all hell broke loose.


(West Africa was so diverse because it was used as a focal point in travel from Europe and the Americas to the East. That wasn't the case here. Also, the division of the continent was initially by crusading rights. Basically a treaty of Berlin via the faithful.).


Trading posts - was there no slave trade in this TL? Also, access to the east sans having to pay Suez canal tolls or whatever would probably lead to some folks trying to encircle Africa anyway, if later than OTL. Treaty of Berlin didn't require anyone to give up preexisting colonial claims on the coast, it just divided up the interior.



. Even so, initially all of Africa was divided into an initial division far more diverse than OTL as almost every Christian nation had a piece of the African pie. .


You have several little "leftover" bits in the Americas, put some more in Africa, it will make it look more plausible.


The big Muscovy in the region. .


Not an answer. Muslims don't convert to Orthodoxy unless they are conquered outright.

Its not, no more than we can say there's a Korea or a China. .


:confused:

Often times they were invited in by the local leaders in the region to help them in their wars with their local rivals. The Poles came, helped, and once the conflict was over they stayed. If this was a head on conquest they may have held briefly before being kicked out, if at all. However they came in with invitation, much to the detriment of those that asked for help in their minor squabbles. This was at a time when the Il Khanate was fighting against the Chagatai and the Turks were having a free for all in Anatolia. Who had the time or the resources to kick them out, especially since they had the wealthy regions of Trebizond and others to support them?.


If you were a Turk, would you want a solid wall of Christian land at your back when you are fighting Christians in the west? Given the suitability of the land for irregular warfare, it wouldn't take much assistance to keep the place a hornet's nest for the Poles. And one would think once the first small states ally with the Poles only to be swallowed, the rest would fall out of the habit... :)

Anyhoo, stuff to do - will be a while before I get back to this...

Bruce
 

scholar

Banned
Well, yes - I'm saying that I fail to see why these British colonies should remain under homeland ruler either. And what was the date again for first Brit colonies in America in this world?
The first colonies started showing up in the early 1600s and would become profitable in the late 1600s, early 1700s. Much of the interior is lightly or barely colonized allowing almost free and unrestricted movement outside of the coastal and river settlements. The Indians have their presence as well, scattered and not unified but enough to cause a lot of hell for anyone trying to take over. The west coast was first colonized in the 1800s and remains lightly populated.

The colonies are tied economically to England and the rest of the English Empire, many traders and colonists have grown rich off of the wealth of the North American continent and have no reason to rebel. The poorer levels of society find that they have almost real freedom should they head west far enough and would not shed blood over being poor in a different Empire. Remember, this is a timeline where most republican ideals are not seen as Christian or seen as going against Christianity and that this is a timeline where Europe became more religious than OTL. The Church, the institution they are perhaps the most loyal to, says that this land is Englands by divine right and papal mandate, who is anyone so greedy and full of ambition enough to disagree? So far the only "successful" rebellion is in New Aragon and that unstable mess is hardly something to be envied.

Russia takes Novgorod, later loses it to Sweden in a anti-Orthodox crusade allied with Poland, Austria, the Teutonic Knights, etc. (Teutonic Knights nearly took Novgorod OTL 1242: google "Nevsky Battle of the Ice.") Or the Swedes get it first (OTL Muscovy didn't get around till 1478 to swallowing it - might take even longer to getting around to it if there are jucier opportunities to the south and west) - when do these "Polish Crusades" get going? Later holds onto it when Russia gets stronger because allied to Big Fat Poland. I don't think we really need the bit about Muscovy getting beaten back by Pskov and Novgorod.
Fair enough, not beaten back and the states were either absorbed or never having gotten into a serious conflict before they were taken over by the Swedes and Poles.

The Polish Crusades were a collection of war efforts beginning in the 1600s and lasted for almost a century.

The Mongols refer to the Ural Mountains as "speedbumps." :D After all, the Russian center ruled over Siberia like Earth might rule over a Mars colony: for a long time, Siberia was too thinly populated with Russians and too dependent on human and other resources from the European bits to break off as an independent state.
New Aragon isn't thickly settled, nor is its population evenly spread out. Brazil's coasts are the most densely populated, with the lands of Peru being the second most populated. Almost everywhere else has a range of thinly populated zones and heavily populated zones.

Still a long trip. I would find a big 'ol eastern Brazil-Argentina state and maybe a unified Andean state just believable, but not the whole darn thing.
I concede this point, I'll work on making it more acceptable.

Mongol relay riders could go from one end to another of the Empire in something like a month.
I know, but that would be for truly exceptional circumstances, not for everyday things such as local administration.

But it wasn't ruled as a unified area: initially, when it was a small number of Conquistadors squatting atop a mass of Indians, it was so, but as the population grew and local centers of power developed, it had to be increasingly divided https://qed.princeton.edu/images/6/...ns_of_Spanish_and_Portuguese_America_1780.jpg
I'm aware.That said, it wasn't just because the population was too large, rather that there was significant geograhic boundaries preventing it from being governed as one unit by the Spanish Authorities. No, I didn't just shoot my argument in the foot. :p

So it was a bunch of seperately administered areas each tied to the Crown: when the authority of the crown collapsed, all hell broke loose.
Crown authority here didn't so much as get replaced, but was rather usurped. A new crown was made to replace it and it was one that had support from both the nobility and the theocratic order, only after the damn thing nearly tore itself apart (IE: All Hell would have broke loose) and it still remains notoriously unstable.

Trading posts - was there no slave trade in this TL? Also, access to the east sans having to pay Suez canal tolls or whatever would probably lead to some folks trying to encircle Africa anyway, if later than OTL. Treaty of Berlin didn't require anyone to give up preexisting colonial claims on the coast, it just divided up the interior.
Actually no. The slave trade never attained the significance it would have in OTL. The Crusades had lead to the annexation of many African territories leading to a large influx of Arab, Meghred, Berber, Turkish, and African citizens into the respective kingdoms. The development of the rationalization of slavery in the New World (White Supremacy) never really developed. Instead the Indians were seen as ignorant souls desperate for the teaching of the gospel even if they say otherwise and must be instructed by the sword or in the fields if necessary.

You have several little "leftover" bits in the Americas, put some more in Africa, it will make it look more plausible.
Alright, I'll do that.

Not an answer. Muslims don't convert to Orthodoxy unless they are conquered outright.
So those of other religions may adopt a new religion without conquest, but if they happen to be Muslim (or, I'm guessing, Christian) they do not do so unless they are conquered? The fall of the Chagatai lead to a large portion of the empire falling to the Russians (see Kazakhstan and central Asia in general), this led to a large body of nomads becoming Orthodox. Not a majority, not even resembling such, but this Orthodox group, with support of Muscovy, was able to establish themselves in amidst the many groups clamoring to both the Chagatai and the Mongol legacy.

There is no Korea or China anymore, there is the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China, the People's Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Korea.

If you were a Turk, would you want a solid wall of Christian land at your back when you are fighting Christians in the west? Given the suitability of the land for irregular warfare, it wouldn't take much assistance to keep the place a hornet's nest for the Poles. And one would think once the first small states ally with the Poles only to be swallowed, the rest would fall out of the habit... :)
True, which is precisely why Poland does not control even more of the region. The Turks themselves would not be united under one group until the 1720s and by then the Christians had largely diverted focus elsewhere and no longer try to lay claim on them with any more than a nominal gesture. That said it is rather unlikely for them to continue to hold it as time progresses and the Turks gradually become more united. I had believed that Swedish, French, and English presences in the region would allow Poland to maintain that position, especially since the Il Khanate was busy with the Chagatai and the Turks were fighting amongst themselves.

Anyhoo, stuff to do - will be a while before I get back to this...

Bruce
Fair enough, I'll be waiting. ;)
 
Looking at this map and scenario again, it reminds me of the TL that the anime Code Geass follows, where you have a superpower France [perhaps on its way to dominating Europe], a British Empire that conquers the whole of America, and a massive Mongol-influenced China with territory covering all of Eastern Asia.
 
The first colonies started showing up in the early 1600s and would become profitable in the late 1600s, early 1700s. Much of the interior is lightly or barely colonized allowing almost free and unrestricted movement outside of the coastal and river settlements. The Indians have their presence as well, scattered and not unified but enough to cause a lot of hell for anyone trying to take over. The west coast was first colonized in the 1800s and remains lightly populated.


Hm - no effort by the chaps in Central America to settle there? They're in a better position to get there, until the Brits get some sort of transcontinental route going (since settlement seems to be at least half a century behind OTL, the *Lewis and Clarke expedition might be surveying where to put railroads... :))

The colonies are tied economically to England and the rest of the English Empire, many traders and colonists have grown rich off of the wealth of the North American continent and have no reason to rebel.


OTL, the restrictions on trade with anyone other than Britain and the British desire to prevent any local manufacturing to compete with British goods pissed off plenty of wealthy people - not sure why it wouldn't be the same here, unless the British replace mercantilism with free trade pretty darn early.

The poorer levels of society find that they have almost real freedom should they head west far enough and would not shed blood over being poor in a different Empire.


Hmm - American Cossacks? :)

Remember, this is a timeline where most republican ideals are not seen as Christian or seen as going against Christianity and that this is a timeline where Europe became more religious than OTL.


Where does that come from? You didn't mention anything about republics save the Indian one.

The Church, the institution they are perhaps the most loyal to, says that this land is Englands by divine right and papal mandate, who is anyone so greedy and full of ambition enough to disagree?


Church moralizing in favor of submission to monarchs has rarely dissuaded powerful and ambitious men OTL. But anyhoo, what sort of government does British America have? OTL there were a bunch of colonies with varying sorts of government arrangements and ties to the British government, not very standardized. There was also no local nobility - the British government had made a couple of stabs at establishing American noblemen, but it never really worked out. How is the American system arranged? Are there large colonial regions like in Spanish America? Is the local elite non-noble as in OTL, or have the British "planted" a nobility - is there, say, a Duke of New England? Really, the map you have, with that huge pink blob, is deceptive: large swathes of the interior, from what you say, seem as yet to be "unclaimed territory" with Indians or borderlands inhabited by people looking to get away from government (and how, BTW, do they govern themselves?)



New Aragon isn't thickly settled, nor is its population evenly spread out. Brazil's coasts are the most densely populated, with the lands of Peru being the second most populated. Almost everywhere else has a range of thinly populated zones and heavily populated zones.


So, a *Peruvian state and a *Brazilian state, as I said... :p


Crown authority here didn't so much as get replaced, but was rather usurped. A new crown was made to replace it and it was one that had support from both the nobility and the theocratic order, only after the damn thing nearly tore itself apart (IE: All Hell would have broke loose) and it still remains notoriously unstable.


Hmm - so there was a local claimant to the royal throne? A heir on site, so to speak? Well, we have seen a number of TLs in which transplanting royals to the Americas seems to act as superglue for Latin America (see, Look To the West)... :)

Actually no. The slave trade never attained the significance it would have in OTL. The Crusades had lead to the annexation of many African territories leading to a large influx of Arab, Meghred, Berber, Turkish, and African citizens into the respective kingdoms. The development of the rationalization of slavery in the New World (White Supremacy) never really developed. Instead the Indians were seen as ignorant souls desperate for the teaching of the gospel even if they say otherwise and must be instructed by the sword or in the fields if necessary.


So what did they do about the labor shortages in areas where there weren't enough Indians left to do the work after the plagues were done? (Most of the Americas outside of Mesoamerica and the Andes, that is...)


So those of other religions may adopt a new religion without conquest, but if they happen to be Muslim (or, I'm guessing, Christian) they do not do so unless they are conquered?


Islam is very emphatic about how very very very bad it is to change your faith once you have become Muslim, and no Muslim-run state before modern times would tolerate that sort of thing (and I'm talking popular piss-off as well as that of the government).

The fall of the Chagatai lead to a large portion of the empire falling to the Russians (see Kazakhstan and central Asia in general), this led to a large body of nomads becoming Orthodox. Not a majority, not even resembling such, but this Orthodox group, with support of Muscovy, was able to establish themselves in amidst the many groups clamoring to both the Chagatai and the Mongol legacy.


Ok, so some Orthodox nomads leave Russian territory and carve out their own state in the post-Chagatai chaos, later to fall back under Russian influence? I can see that.

There is no Korea or China anymore, there is the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China, the People's Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Korea.


the PRC contains the vast majority of all Chinese, and they haven't been assimilated by anyone else the way the Chagatai in *Persia appear to be: of course, some might argue that the cultural changes brought about by 100 years of war, revolution, etc. make the PRC fundamentally alien to Old China, although I think that would get a lot of argument. As for whether the division of Korea is significant, as Mao said re the significance of the French revolution, it's too early to tell...

(The business about the Poles drilling a core sample through the mountainous heart of eastern Anatolia still bugs me, but I don't feel like arguing about it). :D

Bruce
 
Top