After Antiquity and before 1750, create a nation based mainly on immigration

Grokborg

Excluding colonies, could there be large, pre-modern-era countries based on widespread immigration? The rationale is that it is after Rome became expansionist and there was migration to Latium, but before modern liberalism, civic nations and modern times. Also after the Greek colonization era, and before the American and French Revolutions. The country should be a sovereign state.

Republic of Venice and other city-states perhaps?

Maybe Kyivan Rus' counted for this, with Varangians, but not certain.

Prussia might count, however was that really a large percentage of the population or just the army?
 
Last edited:

Kerney

Divide Russia into 2-3 competing states, perhaps having one made up of refugees. The otl Cossacks had a component of that.

Siberia hating European Russia is awesome.

Mess with the tl of the conversion of the Scandanavia/discovery of "Vinland" in a such away that Vinland becomes attractive to highly motivated religious refugees, probably of the Norse Pagan type.

Both are probably easy.
 
Last edited:

Simreeve

As you aren't specifying that the immigrants must be of European origins _

Some of the Bantu kingdoms in south- central & southern Africa, whose peoples had migrated from further north?
Burma and Thailand, where the Burmans and Thais (and various other peoples related to one or the other of those) had migrated south & displaced or subjugated Austroasiatic peoples?
Commancheria?
The empire of the Aztecs (who, by their own account, were an offshoot of the 'Chichimec' people who lived in the drier lands further north)?
 
Viking25

Viking25

Simreeve said:
As you aren't specifying that the immigrants must be of European origins _

Some of the Bantu kingdoms in south- central & southern Africa, whose peoples had migrated from further north?
Burma and Thailand, where the Burmans and Thais (and various other peoples related to one or the other of those) had migrated south & displaced or subjugated Austroasiatic peoples?
Commancheria?
The empire of the Aztecs (who, by their own account, were an offshoot of the 'Chichimec' people who lived in the drier lands further north)?
Click to expand...
Thats not immigration man. Thats a Migrating Population displacing the earlier inhabitants of the area through war.
 

Grokborg

Simreeve said:
Okay, then: a Hawai'i that was unified earlier? (No previous inhabitants to displace there...)
Click to expand...
164522 said:
This is literally origin of the Venetian Republic
Click to expand...
cloistered scholar said:
Does OTL Iceland count?
Click to expand...
These are good examples.

Basically, either immigration to a stable state, such as international immigration and the regular rural to urban migration, or to an uninhabited area so that it is not a political colony.

As for states, IIRC some of the Berber kingdoms and al-Andalus had officially invited Arab tribes, well after the Umayyads conquest and independence.

Srivijaya may have been the site of immigration at least for traveling Buddhists and some traders, while Majapahit saw immigration by Chinese and Muslim traders.
 
Last edited:

Simreeve

For that matter, not only were many aspects of the early civilisations that developed in both island & mainland S-E Asia developed from ideas taken there by Indian merchants & then missionaries but there was also significant Indian settlement in some places there as well. For example, Cambodian tradition says that their first royal dynasty was founded by an Indian prince who arrived there with a fleet of followers and married a native 'nature spirit' (possibly actually some sort of female religious leader?), whilst Wikipedia -- although admittedly that isn't always 100% accurate -- says that a DNA study found the modern Balinese people to have 12% of their Y-chromosomes of Indian origins.
 

Chercha

Dutch Republic outright wins the 80 years war somehow and ends up with (almost) all of the Netherlands, with an urban protestant ruling class ruling over a lot of catholics. Between the religious tensions dying down a bit post-war and a history of pragmatism and compromise dating back to the first dykes being built, catholics end up a bit better off than in other protestant dominated countries. The wealth and relative religious freedom attracts immigrants and this prosperity gives republicanist philosophy a shot in the arm, so that by 1700 we have a proto-US in place, manifest destiny knock-off possibly included.

Outside possibility: Poland-Lithuania does not become quite as unstable as IOTL and is strong enough to defend itself. Its stability attracts people from the HRE during the 30 years war and afterwards the Poles build on that, entering a virtuous circle.

Way outside possibility: the Transsylvanian edict of Torda stands and as the years pass gets extended so that we have a society with true religious freedom in 17th century Europe. Protestant Hungarians and Bohemians find sanctuary, as do Orthodox and Catholics from the Ottoman Empire. The Austrians lack the strength to take Transsylvania, while the Ottomans find it useful to have a vassal they can soft exile their own troublemakers to.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top