AHC:An evil world

Folks your challenge today is to with a POD of 1500 or later create a world that would be viewed as competently evil by someone from OTL. This world must be not just bad but legitimately evil. Some countries can be less evil then others but all have to be various shades of black morally.
 
Nazi victory in Europe. Germany rules Europe, Western Russia, the Middle East, and central Africa. Italy dominates North and East Africa, while an *apartheid South Africa dominates southern Africa. Meanwhile, Imperial Japan dominates Southeast Asia and India, with an endless Chinese guerrilla war brutalizing the Japanese people. The USSR both partners with the German Reich while supporting the Chinese guerrillas against Japan.

That leaves the Americas. It's not so hard for South America to go fascist. A fascist USA isn't that difficult as well.

All in all not so good.
 
The world of 1500 would look pretty evil to us, so you really just have to find a way to strangle a lot of the social changes of the past couple of hundred years in the crib. A world still run by the kind of brutal authoritarian conformist militaristic sexist monarchies that ran it in 1500 would look pretty grim to us. Maybe a decent start would be having the American revolution be more radical and end as badly as the French one.
 
The world of 1500 would look pretty evil to us, so you really just have to find a way to strangle a lot of the social changes of the past couple of hundred years in the crib. A world still run by the kind of brutal authoritarian conformist militaristic sexist monarchies that ran it in 1500 would look pretty grim to us. Maybe a decent start would be having the American revolution be more radical and end as badly as the French one.

The level of evil in medieval absolute monarchies and in ideologically-based totalitarian regimes are...different to say the least.
 
No sub forms of Christianity, so all western states are hardcore Roman catholic.
All civil liberties seen as herarcy, eg. homosexual still a sin and crime punishable by death.
No advances in science or medicine.
Other religions are banned.
Compulsory church on Sunday
Tyrant popes.
Censorship over poetry and fiction.
Religious wars are normal with atleast one every 10 years.
Police are replaced by inquisition.
The list can go on.
 
Thomas Clarkson does proceed to priests orders in ~1783, so doesn't continue academic studies and doesn't write an essay about slavery as an assignment in 1785. Bereft of what would be a critical source of inspiration OTL, British anti-slavery advocates in the ATL never really get momentum behind their cause. The British don't pass the Slave Trade Act in 1807, obviously don't pass the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833, and certainly don't influence other nations to abandon the practice either.

Over the course of the 19th century, slavery continues to be the norm in much of the western-controlled world, with OTL's American Deep South and Congo Free State being rather representative of conditions for slaves in the Americas, Africa, and Asia.

Come the 20th century, large-scale units of "colonial" troops are used as machine-gun fodder in Europe's industrialized wars, and the idea of decolonization is generally viewed as naive silliness taught by radicals in college.

Gee, that was fun.
 
No sub forms of Christianity, so all western states are hardcore Roman catholic.
All civil liberties seen as herarcy, eg. homosexual still a sin and crime punishable by death.
No advances in science or medicine.
Other religions are banned.
Compulsory church on Sunday
Tyrant popes.
Censorship over poetry and fiction.
Religious wars are normal with atleast one every 10 years.
Police are replaced by inquisition.
The list can go on.
Really dude? Really?
 
The level of evil in medieval absolute monarchies and in ideologically-based totalitarian regimes are...different to say the least.

Depends on who you are. Jews and gypsies, for instance, were often threatened with mass expulsion or downright extermination: and from the point of a 1500s American Indian, especially if you lived near a silver deposit, things could be pretty darn Gulag. And in 14th century wars, mass killing of peasants as a means of depriving your enemy of resources was hardly more than a peccadillo. Given modern weapons and bureaucracies, there are plenty of medieval monarchs who probably would have slaughtered their enemies on a Stalinist scale.

Bruce
 
Really dude? Really?

What, if you look at harry turtledoves take on a catholic Britain in 'to be free or not to be free' England is a less happier place.

And historic Roman catholic were seen in our way of life as scary. Banning certain scientists in fear it will disprove their bible. If they had carried on with no one disagreeing with them the catholic world would be more evil then otl.

So yes really dude really
 
Okay we have to analyze the different views of what is EVIL per say since morality has not universal stranded. So I think we should have various parts of the world that represent the extremes of evil held by various groups.

So I think we should have one country in which various socially recognized races of people live together in peace and intermarry regularly. This will be seen as evil by racists of course. As well as being completely accepting of homosexuality and the freedom to practice it. This will be seen as evil to conservatives of Abrahamic religions.

Also I think scientific advancement generals came help promote social systems that may be deemed as evil. Nazi Germany couldn't have killed so many people without the advanced chemistry needed for their war machine and zyklon-b.

Also general we need more jingoism and ethnocentrism around the globe. As well as just plane ol' good racism to spread the hate ya know. This should help cause more violence and wars I think.

Also how can we spread the general practice of having 'Warrior cultures' because having a culture in which a persons value is measured by how many people they can/have killed will look pretty evil to most others.
 
Thank you spj that I was trying to imply. To a religious person my idea of evil earth could be their haven and my idea of haven is pure evil for them.
 
Jonathan, I think you're generalizing religious people just a tiny bit, and exaggerating the evils of "hardcore catholic" countries. France and Italy are two of the most Catholic countries on Earth, and both are pretty nice places to live, from what I've been told.

A truly evil world would probably involve eugenics, extreme racism, and a totalitarian country that dominates Europe and commits genocide both there and in Africa. So Nazi Germany, basically, but stronger, and on a larger scale (e.g. genocide in Africa in addition to Europe).
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
What, if you look at harry turtledoves take on a catholic Britain in 'to be free or not to be free' England is a less happier place.

And historic Roman catholic were seen in our way of life as scary. Banning certain scientists in fear it will disprove their bible. If they had carried on with no one disagreeing with them the catholic world would be more evil then otl.

So yes really dude really
You know what a REALLY dumb thing to do is?

It's creating a puppet account, then using it to play a second player in an on-going game AND troll with it the day its approved.

Kicked for a week
 
I was not trolling.

I was comparing catholic church as it wad in 14-1600s, the Vatican of today has changed a lot. In medieval times no one was safe from being accused a heretic or a witch by their enemy, people lived in fear of the inquisition.
I know this from talking to a catholic church deacon while on a funeral (I am a funeral director) who loved going on about the church's history.

As a FD I also see many faiths in an internment way, most funerals are committed in the churchs only traditional ceremony.
 
I was comparing catholic church as it wad in 14-1600s, the Vatican of today has changed a lot. In medieval times no one was safe from being accused a heretic or a witch by their enemy, people lived in fear of the inquisition.

This is the kind of painful ignorance which needs to die a quick death. Yes the Catholic Church run by the Borgias from the late 1400s to early 1500s was corrupt, inept, political, and fairly Machiavellian by any standards, but it had at this point less and less power over Europe and couldn't exactly topple empires (despite its dreams of doing so). Not to mention rulers flouted its authority as it suited them.

This is right around the time the Reformation started too, cutting the Church's power off near the knees. These two centuries merely showed the stagnation, corruption, and ineffectual nature of the Church, all of which served to propel the Protestant Reformation.

Frankly if the Church was as powerful as many people like to imagine it was they would have quashed the Reformation in its cradle.

Also, you were more likely to get a fair trial (and far, far more humane sentence) from an inquisition court than you were a secular one.

Though on an an unrelated note but one which addresses a previous point of yours, the Church was hardly anti-science or arts, considering how much money they donated to the paragons of art of the time.

I know this from talking to a catholic church deacon while on a funeral (I am a funeral director) who loved going on about the church's history.

I can see where your misinformation comes from then.
 
In medieval times no one was safe from being accused a heretic or a witch by their enemy, people lived in fear of the inquisition.

*You heard that sound? It was me, doing the mother of all sighs*

1) Inquisition isn't a short for Catholic Church. It existed various inquisitorial tribunals, existing from XIII century up to...well technically it does exist on another name today.
Anyway, whatever medieval Inquisition (that was taking orders from church) and Spanish one (that was taking orders from royal administration) did had procedures.

Basically, accusing someone of heresy without proof, could lead to have the same condamnation that if you were yourself heretic.

Is it to say inquisitorial trials were clements? Hell, no. But they weren't much different to secular trials on the use of torture (non-systematical, by the way and seen suspiciously, officially at least, read Ad extirpenda) and condamnation.

Actually, there is a consensus about how inquisitorial condamnations were more clement than secular (Admittedly, it wasn't too hard). Death condamnations (and we're talking of the ones actually executed, not the commutated) were in a range of 10% to 1%, both being extremes, the more average being something like 4 or 5%.

It's huge, and for a religion that gives on mercy and charity, isn't that much coherent. But nothing like an unstoppable death machine.

2) Belief in witches was actually condamned by church up to the XV, as (to resume it) "nobody can fly, and if you believe that, you must be under some demoniac influence". It was explained as that devil DID tempted witches by making them believing they had powers, which of course they hadn't. Some een said people believing being such were mentally ill.

The great witches trials and executions would happen after the XV, critically in an atmoshpere of religious confrontation between protestant and catholics (basically, more on the religious frontline, more executions. Spain did had the lowest execution rate of witches).

3) People didn't feared inquisition. They actually asked for more deaths, more harsh treatment. Witches trial were often matter of mob justice.

Remember that medieval and renaissance society (up to the XVII) is based on religion. It's the cement of the community, and when someones renounce it to another or shows different beliefs, it was interpretated as a threat to community itself.
It's maybe the more dramatic mistake you did : if people lived in fear of it, they could have pressured or at least revolted against it. But if something, they accompanied it when not blaming for being to pointillous (too much procedures and verification) and relativly clement (again, not along our standards or merciful ones)

Now targeted groups did feared it. They were usually minoritaries, rejected by the bulk of the people, for aforementioned reasons.
In post-medieval Spain, it was aggravated by the suspicion about conversos, judeos or moriscos and the resistance of these groups to assimilation (while many converted were the most virulent against their former social groups), but even in these conditions, it certainly didn't turned to 1984.
 
This is the kind of painful ignorance which needs to die a quick death. Yes the Catholic Church run by the Borgias from the late 1400s to early 1500s was corrupt, inept, political, and fairly Machiavellian by any standards, but it had at this point less and less power over Europe and couldn't exactly topple empires (despite its dreams of doing so). Not to mention rulers flouted its authority as it suited them.

This is right around the time the Reformation started too, cutting the Church's power off near the knees. These two centuries merely showed the stagnation, corruption, and ineffectual nature of the Church, all of which served to propel the Protestant Reformation.

Frankly if the Church was as powerful as many people like to imagine it was they would have quashed the Reformation in its cradle.

Also, you were more likely to get a fair trial (and far, far more humane sentence) from an inquisition court than you were a secular one.

Though on an an unrelated note but one which addresses a previous point of yours, the Church was hardly anti-science or arts, considering how much money they donated to the paragons of art of the time.

I can see where your misinformation comes from then.

The way the deacon described it, I was basing it on that and and world with no Martin Luther, so the church is just that THE church and THE only church spaning the globe (like the fear Americans felt when JFK was elected - a president controlled by the pope)
 
I was not trolling.

I was comparing catholic church as it wad in 14-1600s, the Vatican of today has changed a lot. In medieval times no one was safe from being accused a heretic or a witch by their enemy, people lived in fear of the inquisition.
I know this from talking to a catholic church deacon while on a funeral (I am a funeral director) who loved going on about the church's history.

As a FD I also see many faiths in an internment way, most funerals are committed in the churchs only traditional ceremony.

I will direct you to a quote from EnglishCanuck in the thread "Popular historical Misconceptions that bug you"

The Inquisition was some continent wide boogeyman who could kill people at a whim and was infamous for torturing people and burning them at the stake.
Actually since they weren't allowed to spill blood the most they could do was lock people in cells or threaten to turn them over to secular authorities (who could torture/execute people) if they didn't repent and recant. There's a reason the Inquisition left us so much paper work to sort through, and that was because they actually operated moderately like a modern court of law and had o document so many of their cases.

It also wasn't the lapdog of the Catholic Church, since Rome really only controlled the Roman Inquisition. The Spanish Inquisition operated more like a modern secret police force and was more of a personal spy agency for the Spanish monarchy than the Pope who had very little say in what they did.


Perhaps you should do more research. :D
 
Top