Allohistorical convergence pet peeves
- Thread starter Thande
- Start date
Susano
Banned
Sure, but for my part, I consider that introducing utopic (as in, better-than-OTL, not as in ideal) elements in the TL
But you seem to mean that not in an allohistorical but historical sense and then, yes, its just factually wrong.
Interesting. Another example is the Mississippi. In the last few years only the frantic efforts of Louisiana and the US have kept New Orleans from becoming high and dry.
I agree with mrmandias on robot. It's perfectly fine to describe it in a way OTL readers will get instantly. Of course, one easy way to split the baby is to have the characters/publications of the ATL refer to it by their own word.
The point is the only reason Pakistan exists is because Britain decided to allow Indian Muslims to form their own state as some (but not all of them!) wanted to. Prior to that time, Pakistan had simply been one of the many disparate region of India and as "Indian"--whatever that meant--as the rest of the parts of the country, a country that had many differences in many areas between them. That was my point. Until the Muslim conquests that started the Islamization of the area, the Pakistan area was essentially united with India. It remained true even afterwards, but from that point on religion began to become gradually more of a divider until the split after WW2. Eventually religion overcame geography, but for the vast majority of the time, geography was determinant. I like balkanized China, but geography is against it. You can triumph over geography but it's not easy.
Okay, I'm going to ignore your Sarawak factoid straight up because it has no relevance to the discussion about India.
The point is the only reason Pakistan exists is because Britain decided to allow Indian Muslims to form their own state as some (but not all of them!) wanted to. Prior to that time, Pakistan had simply been one of the many disparate region of India and as "Indian"--whatever that meant--as the rest of the parts of the country, a country that had many differences in many areas between them. That was my point. Until the Muslim conquests that started the Islamization of the area, the Pakistan area was essentially united with India. It remained true even afterwards, but from that point on religion began to become gradually more of a divider until the split after WW2. Eventually religion overcame geography, but for the vast majority of the time, geography was determinant. I like balkanized China, but geography is against it. You can triumph over geography but it's not easy.
Last edited:
Susano
Banned
Oh, thats an allohistoric convergence that always annoys me:
UNITED India. Or even the ever-same AH detail of fully united India. Why do everybody ask for such TLs, or presents united Indias on maps (and that is what we largely have these days, so its an allohistorc ocnvergence) when India consists of dozens of ethnic groups and historically basically never has been fully united? Hell, even lingual groups with relatively neatly drawn borders, so an India full of nation states is certainly a possibility.
So, no youre wrong. Theres no gepgraphic reason for unity in India, and there is scarce a history of unity. And there certainly is no geographic reason for unity in China, and while it has been united most of the time, nearly as often it was disunited.
archaeogeek
Banned
And before the British took over, Pakistan was portions of the kingdom of Kashmir, Punjab, Sindh, and territory taken from the Emirate of Afghanistan plus the baluchi principalities. See a problem there?
If anything, when you leave the northern plateau (which was disunited over time) you end up with a bunch of hill and mountain chains which make any notion of unity a problem similar to that of united Europe. The only area that might have a geographic propension for unity is the hindi area to the north, and even that I call doubtful; geographic determinism is mostly ex-post-facto justifications to present things as inevitable; we'd probably say the same if the frankish had survived or even expanded from the Pyrenees to the Vistula...
Sir I am not wrong.
The only reason there is a Pakistan is because of religion. Everything else was shared enough with India for Pakistan to simply be another state of India. That DOES NOT mean I think India is homogeneous or does not have internal borders that foster different countries. But in as much as the various state under Britain were going to be ONE COUNTRY, Pakistan was as homogeneous as any other state--in other-words, had many differences but also similarities. It was part of the India-Sphere and that's because of geography. I'll lay it out, the only thing I am saying isi: Geography did not destine India for unity, but geography was close enough not to make their political desires of unity a pipe dream and Pakistan could have joined them had it wished to.
If you've read my TL you know I have completely avoided a United India so far and that is because there's no way it could happen in the TL as it stands.
@Archaeogeek: No actually I don't see a problem. Those regions are on the Geographic border, and so obviously would be a mixture. I'm no scholar of geographic determinism so I can't say anything except I have no choice to believe it because it fits the facts the best.
Last edited:
Uh, that's not what I meant:
This here is for example a map of the Khanate itself, but it's obviously generalised. Kazakh identity is fairly old (oppositional to the rulers of Moghulistan and Bukhara), but it also remained fluid enough that there were people outside the clan structure, and some clans switched from one juuz to another, not to mention the Bukeev horde that simply up and left in the 18th c. into Russian lands.
It all depends on the depth of the POD, but there's not guarantee of the same borders at all. If anything, Russia to the north actually helps the unchanging Kazakh Border - other conquerors could have easily assimilated, displaced or decimated the Kazakhs, regard Dzungars as an example.
EDIT: And regarding how Europeans regarded them? They divided them into Black and White Kirghiz, as opposed to the settled "Sarts", and this is even more true in Turkestan area where the division really was mostly between the nomad and the Persianised Turc rather than between Kirghiz and Russian.
How about the inevitable emergence of quickly-expanding Roman Republic? In almost every ancient TLs (except the one that have Rome destroyed) the Republic always seems invicible and stronger than any other Mediterranean states.
Strangely, Rome as an Empire always looked weak and easily defeated by Germanic tribes, Persians, Huns, and Arabs...
(we are all agree that Roman Empire was FAR stronger than Roman Republic, aren't we?)
Strangely, Rome as an Empire always looked weak and easily defeated by Germanic tribes, Persians, Huns, and Arabs...
(we are all agree that Roman Empire was FAR stronger than Roman Republic, aren't we?)
archaeogeek
Banned
Came close, twice; in the 19th century because it was felt the danish branch of the house of Holstein-Gottorp (outside of its Romanov branch) was dying out; in the 18th century because before adopting Bernadotte, the next in line for the swedish throne was the king of Denmark-Norway (the Vasas, who were also at this point a subbranch of the house of Holstein-Gottorp, were dying out), although I suspect they'd have looked under every rock to get a suitable heir somehow who wasn't already ruling in Copenhagen.
And I thought a dutch Maranhao happened quite a bit >.>
In all fairness to the "Germany gets all of western Russia in CP victory" scenarios most (if not all (or at least the ones I've seen)) of them tend to end around 1918 or around very late in the war when Russia is already in chaos, so it would be somewhat acceptable to assume that the region would be under German influence.
maverick
Banned
And then Norway was given to Sweden in 1815.
Although that could be limited Scandinavian Unity as it doesn't include Denmark.
The average AH.commer version seems to always be Kalmar Union 2.0 of course.
NothingNow
Banned
Yes! Maya is if anything a catch-all phrase, I mean off the top of my head, you've got the Itza, Ch'ol, Tzeltal, Tzotzil, and plenty of others. It's like expecting the French, Spanish, Portugese and Italians to be in the same Country.
At least with my Cuba-wank TL, there was a damn good reason as to why a Mayan empire was developing.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
Both the initial CP demands and the final settlement were a reflection of the frontline at the time. This was territory that Russia would've only renounced if it was either already occupied or in imminent danger of occupation. If you're talking about local anti-Bolsheviks forming survivable pro-CP regimes without piggybacking a CP occupation, this could work for Finland and the Baltic Germans but not elsewhere.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Don't be hating on the Kalmar Union. It's sexy looking on the map.
Africa always ending up mostly colonized by Europeans is a personal pet peeve of mines, I mean sure I'm not immune that Africa didn't have the advantages of Europe but come on. There were plenty of kingdoms especially during the 1500s that could've saved itself from outright conquest like Kongo, Songhai, Mali, etc.
Thande
Donor
The thing is, arguably some of them did; it's just that they're not acknowledged on maps of the period any more than the princely states of India are. For example, the Kongo Empire survived as a client state of Portugal in Angola up until WW1. It depends on what you mean by 'conquest' - some of the traditional Bugandan kingdoms still survive today, but they are subordinated to the republican government of Uganda.