AHC: Make France a Germanic nation

Status
Not open for further replies.
I personally don't see either culture as superior to the other: both have advantages and disadvantages.
I understood that, but I wanted (and still want) to point that the use of "morally superior/inferior" as a legit feature and the confusion between politics and actual cultural features can lead really easily to prejudiced views.

But to defend my OP, I never, ever meant something to do with racial background.
As I said in my previous post, one shouldn't confuse racial prejudice and cultural prejudice. One can abide by the latter without the former, and quite easily so.

Especially over an area of the Arab world: I have Lebanese friends who say they are culturally closer to the Mediterranean Greeks and Italians than they are to the Gulf.
And I've Syrians friends that say the contrary. We could play "I know someone that" all day, but eventually when it comes to fundamental cultural features, you'd end with a more important "kinship" within the Arabo-Islamic world than with European world.
Which it doesn't mean you don't have Arabo-Islamic cultures being more close to the latter than others, of course, or even having some AI cultures sharing same values with a non-AI culture.
But without making AI something totally foreign (which is not), you have eventually more closeness between Peninsular and Levant Arab cultures than, say, Syrian and Spanish cultures.

(A bit like, in spite of their differences, the overall Western European civilisation cultures tend to be more close from each other, even when having closer ties with other cultures).

The government abides by strict Islamic scruples because it needs to keep the clerics on side, because the clerics are popular with the people.
Frankly, I don't buy that the government is the victim of its people there. Wahhabism was imposed over by the ruling elites, and that was and still is trough sheer political means that Saudi Arabia culture had to integrate this.

Without a strong and authoritarian Wahabist take, politically, you can bet that it wouldn't be that of a popular issue. Unless arguing, which I know you don't but again taking it to its logical outcome, that Saudi Arabs were doomed to know a rigorist (religiously and socially) Islam.
But so did Mike - the fact he specifically stated "in my opinion" shows that.
I really don't care if he felt forced to sugar-coat what is still a cultural prejudice. It doesn't, at the slightest, make it more acceptable.

I personally believe that its ok for moral judgment to be used in history: I think it's fine to say that slavery was a great moral wrong, whatever people thought at the time.
You're entitled (I'm not sure if the word is as neutral in English that it's in French) to this opinion. But I can assure you that's a no-go in historical analysis, because it ends as considering our views, our moral and our conceptions as the pinnacle and the center of Human history.

A bit like an historical geocentrism/anthropocentrism if you will : it's simply not fit a serious analysis.

Doesn't mean one have to consider slavery as a non-moral issue of course, but one does need to put it in its historical context (where it can easily be considered as amoral or immoral : see the History of XIXth). But the existence of eternal truths is eventually an act of faith, not something you can use scientifically or academically.

We discussed it a bit there, and I'll stick with my answer.

That some moral values cristallized over time (being part of a cultural baggage), I'd agree and I'd agree as well about some being universal trough parallel development (order as a value being present in almost all organised states) or trough influence.

But they don't exist independently of society that can add some (We could say gender equality could become a basic value in Western societies, but could be reversed in time without having the opportunity to "cristallize") but as well remove or modify some values that were considered as basic or even vitals (such as what was considered as piety or honor before in Western societies).


But we may want to continue this particular discussion in another thread.

Rather than criticize you, I raised the contradiction of why I was struggling with it to elucidate an answer from others.
Okay, maybe I saw your reaction as more defensively that it was, due to the other poster having really running on my nerves. Sorry about that, even if it might be a bit understandable, I shouldn't have mixed at this point.

I cut out the bits I'm not responding to in order to save space. That is all.
But the bit you cut was quite significant to understand my post. There's saving space, and there's modifying (even unwillingly) the sense of a post.

But I don't think you have to be far right to not buy into the "every culture is equally moral" mentality.
You don't, but it's mostly because that's an artifact of XIXth/XXth tought, that far-right (at least in Europe) is the most active proponent to maintain conciously and wholly.

I think it's quite clear, for instance, that northern American culture in 1860 was superior to southern American culture.
It's not : again superiority in culture or morals essentially depend from a relative "superior" point of view (it's really rare that a whole culture considers itself as inferior : strangely enough only superior get to make the superior/inferior distinction).

Simply repeting it doesn't make it any more true, but makes it even more of an act of faith. There's no objective superior/inferior scale that you could refer to.
If anything should be learnt from History, it's that separating cultures, races or any human group as inferior/superior, and even for very "benevolent" reasons (IMO, I'd think it would be at least paternalism, which I found being...misplaced as a behaviour), is doomed to end very poorly and very nastily.

The whole principle behind European colonialism, for example, was about raising savages from their inferior cultures (rather than racial inferiority) to civilized behaviors. I find it disturbing and uncomfortable to be used on a "progressit" point of view, as a student on History.

as I think there are several cultures which have superior aspects to my own.
But you're doing so along your preconception, your moral features that doesn't come out of nothing, but are part of the cultural context you grew up in.

Would have you grew up in, say, early XIXth America, you won't have considered slavery as the proof Southern culture was flawed (Admitting that Southern culture was only about slavery, historically or today, which would be wrong, even if it did play an important role).

The simple fact of pulling a moral judgment about, not a feature that one can legitimately consider as moral or amoral, but about whole culture that you put into "Superior" "Inferior" classification is about making oneself and its cultural conceptions the objective judge of morality.

And one isn't going to consider itself as inferior, you can bet on that.

(But again, we may want to discuss it elsewhere, unless you think it's directly relevant to the matter at hand in this thread)
 
But I don't think you have to be far right to not buy into the "every culture is equally moral" mentality. I think it's quite clear, for instance, that northern American culture in 1860 was superior to southern American culture. I think (white) South African culture today is superior to that during the apartheid era. I wouldn't be thinking that if I was far right. It's not about my culture being superior, as I think there are several cultures which have superior aspects to my own.
Hm.
I, too, find freedom better than slavery, both from a personal and an ethical point of view, and the same goes for inclusivity and equal rights vs. apartheid.
I´ve always considered this a political statement. Evaluative judgements in the political realm are naturally legitimate, politics can`t work without them. Put this way, I disagree with the position that one shouldn`t judge political structures of the past.
If I turn it into a statement about cultures, what do I get? You may be right that no political structure will remain without cultural effects, so certainly there were / are cultural differences between the societies you mentioned. It´s hard to argue with / against a culture. Cultural criticism always provokes nothing but rejection, and cultures don`t change when asked to do so. As LSCatilina has pointed out, there is always the risk to slide down the slippery slope towards discrimination because this stubborn trait of cultures is easily mistaken as some inherent personal trait of its bearers. Thing is, cultures can be changed - they can be changed with the reform or revolution of political structures and also with economic developments (in the widest sense of the word).

So, to come back to your OP:
To reduce the tolerance of corruption in French society with a PoD before 1900, one could have the Hugenots be tolerated in France and have some sort of morally rigorist pietist movement grow among them when they grew elsewhere, too (18th and 19th centuries); perhaps have some influential characters from the French Revolution, if it still happens, be such Hugenot Pietists instead of, for example, atheists. It might raise the level of expectations concerning the moral integrity of civil servants, economic leaders and politicians somewhat, as well as the way politicians portray themselves.
 
Sorry but do you know anything about the french revolution ?

It was anti-pietist and anti-religious. There could be no such thing sur as puritan christians on the side of the revolutionaries. What you had were atheists or vaguely deists. One of the key principles of the french revolutionaries was : we no longer want power of religion or of and kind of priests weighing on the political process that muet be the rule of reason.
 
Sorry but do you know anything about the french revolution ?

It was anti-pietist and anti-religious. There could be no such thing sur as puritan christians on the side of the revolutionaries. What you had were atheists or vaguely deists. One of the key principles of the french revolutionaries was : we no longer want power of religion or of and kind of priests weighing on the political process that muet be the rule of reason.
Sure, in our French Revolution. But if the PoD is no or less persecution of the Hugenots, then French society would be considerably changed by hundreds of thousands of often well-educated and not-so-poor, often urban people not leaving France. That might butterfly the French Revolution as we know it away entirely - or it might alter its course and character.
 
That said, active persecution of French Protestants quickly come to an end by the death of Louis XIV.
Don't get me wrong, they weren't "official", but most of Catholicisation effort not only stopped but reversed by the XVIIIth century (as in, no longer put on parish list for baptism, deaths and so, but rather on officious pastoral lists).

Eventually, safe new police responsible (that saw there an easy "marking of territory" when they entered in function) and the usual half-paranoid semi-anonymous letters ("They gather in the woods with weapons to KILL US ALL"), you had a strong trend to uneasy cohabitation de facto.

What played more of a role was Protestant elites being largely crushed or assimilated (in a process that began before the Edict of Fontainebleau), and Protestantism being more defended as a form of anti-clericalism by philosophers than as striving for actual Protestanphily.

Not that these elites could have really could blossomed, even before Louis XIV. They were loosing more and more political influence and power, would it be because French kings saw (not entierly without reason, different organized religion as a "state within the state") and eventually went against.
At best, you'd have a slower decline, with an upper "Protestant" elite not being radically different from its "Catholic" counterpart : meaning mostly reformists and deists : while the social impact of the edict was important, one shouldn't exagerate its range (basically it less harmed France, than it really benefited its neighbours).
 
I'll leave aside the debate on the Pod implications of today, the cultural prejudice or preconceived ideas... which have already been identified and refuted in previous posts.

Focusing instead on how they could achieve a partial and early Germanisation of Gaul and prevent or decrease its Romanization... Maybe if Mario had not managed to make the Teutons and its allies Ambrones fell into their ambush and defeat.
Thus the threat posed still exist and would alter the subsequent events.

Another option would be, that even winning Mario, the Battle of Aquae Sextae... In Italy the Consul Quintus Lutatius Cátulo was responsible for intercepting Cimbrios.

The plan of Mario was to beat to the Cimbri and Teutons separately and simultaneously, then join the legions of both consuls and march together on the third group of Germanic tribes.

However, as Mario rightly doubted the military capabilities of Catullus, he ordered Sulla, to accompany him and even relieve him of command if this bumbling endangered by the Legions commanded.


Catullus, as Mario was as Mario had anticipated, he had chosen to camp his legions in a very bad locking, in a narrow valley that could be easily surrounded by the Germans; Sila had caused a riot among the centurions, getting Cátulo listen to reason and step back into a more favorable positions without presenting combat.

Sila believed that the Cimbric lose precious time in plundering these fertile lands before proceeding with the invasion, time in which Mario must meet him. The facts finally occurred, in OTL, as has predicted.
In addition, the third group of Germanic invasion very numerous that was composed mostly of Queruscos (German: Cherusker), Tigurinos and Marcomanni, were a powerful force of combat.

Which they were only for their numerical weight a serious challenge even for the renewed Legions of Mario and a very serious threat to Rome, and not to mention the damage that would cause these tribes in their passage through Italy.

They had become before crossing to Italy, after hearing the fateful defeat of the Teutons and ambrones at the hands of Mario... But if they had not been defeated? or maybe if Sulla had failed to force the Proconsul to abandon the dangerous position he had chosen to camp and therefore his legions had been massacred by the Cimbri.

It was in Vercellae near the Sesia River in OTL, where Mario demonstrate the superiority of the new Roman legions and cavalry. In this devastating defeat, the Cimbri were virtually wiped out.

But if these events have evolved differently... What if Mario had not achieved these total victory over the Germans ...

Perhaps to happen this, Rome had to face and to battle the three Germans groups or at least two of them... which once again after defeating the Romans and pillaging everything in their path in Italy, they had withdrawn into Gaul... either voluntarily by a peace agreement with the Romans or forced after a defeat happen but maybe that defeat would not be as decisive as it was in OTL.

The consequence fundamental could be, perhaps of delaying or preventing the Roman expansion in the Gaul and from this way encouraging the next wave of Germanic tribes by their example to migrate and settle in Gaul...
 
Last edited:
I'll leave aside the debate on the implications of today pod and cultural preconcebtos ... which have already been identified and refuted in previous posts.

Focusing instead on how they could achieve a partial and early Germanisation of Gaul and prevent or decrease its Romanization... Maybe if Mario had not managed to make the Teutons and its allies ambrones fell into their ambush and defeat.
Thus the threat posed still exist and would alter the subsequent events.

Another option would be, that even winning Mario, the Battle of Aquae Sextae... In Italy the Consul Quintus Lutatius Cátulo was responsible for intercepting Cimbrios.
The plan of Mario was to beat to the Cimbri and Teutons separately and simultaneously, then join the legions of both consuls and march together on the third group of Germanic tribes.

However, as Mario rightly doubted the military capabilities of Catullus, he ordered Sulla, to accompany him and even relieve him of command if this bumbling endangered by the Legions commanded.


Catullus, as Mario was as Mario had anticipated, he had chosen to camp his legions in a very bad locking, in a narrow valley that could be easily surrounded by the Germans; Sila had caused a riot among the centurions, getting Cátulo listen to reason and step back into a more favorable positions without presenting combat.

Sila believed that the Cimbric lose precious time in plundering these fertile lands before proceeding with the invasion, time in which Mario must meet him. The facts finally occurred, in OTL, as has predicted.
In addition, the third group of Germanic invasion very numerous that was composed mostly of Queruscos (German: Cherusker), Tigurinos and Marcomanni, were a powerful force of combat.

Which they were only for their numerical weight a serious challenge even for the renewed Legions of Mario and a very serious threat to Rome, and not to mention the damage that would cause these tribes in their passage through Italy.

They had become before crossing to Italy, after hearing the fateful defeat of the Teutons and ambrones at the hands of Mario... But if they had not been defeated? or maybe if Sulla had failed to force the Proconsul to abandon the dangerous position he had chosen to camp and therefore his legions had been massacred by the Cimbri.

It was in Vercellae near the Sesia River in OTL, where Mario demonstrate the superiority of the new Roman legions and cavalry. In this devastating defeat, the Cimbri were virtually wiped out.

But if these events have evolved differently... What if Mario had not achieved these total victory over the Germans ...

Perhaps to happen this, Rome had to face and to battle the three states Germanos groups or at least two of them... which once again after defeating the Romans and pillaging everything in their path in Italy, they had withdrawn into Gaul... either voluntarily by a peace agreement with the Romans or forced after a defeat happen but maybe that defeat would not be as decisive as it was in OTL.

The consequence fundamental could be, perhaps of delaying or preventing the Roman expansion in the Gaul and from this way encouraging the next wave of Germanic tribes by their example to migrate and settle in Gaul...

2 things:

1: It's marius, not mario.

2: Why the necro?
 
Unintentional Necro!

2 things:

1: It's marius, not mario.

2: Why the necro?

First, do not be so pedantic about minimum details .. I was missed my correction and not corrected writing the name of Marius in my language... :eek:

Second, apologies for the Necro, sorry, I did not realize the date of the previous post, to mine. :(

Third instead of quote me to ask me, questions about minute details, to warn me of the Necro or report this thread and not post, helping to continue the Necro of the thread. :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top