DBWI: Have Europe be the center of the modern world

[acrsome]

Everyone seems to be concentrating on grand historical what ifs, and the determinism of geography, and whatnot. But why don't we discuss what the problem really is today (at least in a significant chunk of the continent) and work back from there?

Warlordism.

How could Europe avoid it's slide into warlordism? Deo!, we've had peacekeeping forces in the Ruhr for, what, thirty years now? Stronger governments would help. So, how does Europe get stronger and legitimized governments, especially given the European tradition of the Strong Leader Model? When there are a hundred warlords with private militias tooling around in technicals, all trying to embezzle as much as they can and then arrange a World Xeer amnesty to flee to Awal and live off their thieved riches, how can Europe possibly prosper?!? And let's face it, even the internationally recognized leaders are really just warlords, albeit ones who also try to siphon funds from other nations rather than just their own.

That's why England is the exception, here! A strong government! And certainly Europe's technological backwardness doesn't really appear until the late modern age. Granted, preventing warlordism- which is fairly recent- does not really change Europe's standing as a world backwater, but it at least prevents it from becoming the hellhole that parts of it are now.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Warlordism exists everywhere historically. How many times have the heirs to the Chin empire fallen apart into waring states? Difference is after a generation or maybe two a new central emperor & administration emerges & the warlords morph back into provincial governors. So, why did no central power reemerge in Europe after the brief Frankish effort?

 

[Kirook]

Maybe there's some kind of rediscovery of old Roman and Greek texts? A lot of them have been preserved in the Dar al-Islam; if something drives a new wave of interest in the old European empires, we might see a push toward centralization in an attempt to recreate the glory of Rome.

 

[Deleted member 92121]

I think we should be giving England more credit. Sure, they are far from a Great power and never really had a colonial empire besides Avalonia, but they have quite the hold on western Europe. Scotland, and the Peninsula of Britanny are both their protectorates(little more then colonies if you ask me) and the Irish Confederation is a client state, completely under the english thumb. The adoption of Militarism in the 1350's AH (1930's AD) by king Henry really turned the country into a respectable force. Their king are seen as representatives of god on earth now, not just fighting the church constantly. If king James continues to threaten Norway and Denmark with Annexation, we could see a North sea powerhouse develop in Europe. But i doubt the international community will just let the english invade two countries like that.

 

[avernite]

Everyone seems to be concentrating on grand historical what ifs, and the determinism of geography, and whatnot. But why don't we discuss what the problem really is today (at least in a significant chunk of the continent) and work back from there?

Warlordism.

How could Europe avoid it's slide into warlordism? Deo!, we've had peacekeeping forces in the Ruhr for, what, thirty years now? Stronger governments would help. So, how does Europe get stronger and legitimized governments, especially given the European tradition of the Strong Leader Model? When there are a hundred warlords with private militias tooling around in technicals, all trying to embezzle as much as they can and then arrange a World Xeer amnesty to flee to Awal and live off their thieved riches, how can Europe possibly prosper?!? And let's face it, even the internationally recognized leaders are really just warlords, albeit ones who also try to siphon funds from other nations rather than just their own.

That's why England is the exception, here! A strong government! And certainly Europe's technological backwardness doesn't really appear until the late modern age. Granted, preventing warlordism- which is fairly recent- does not really change Europe's standing as a world backwater, but it at least prevents it from becoming the hellhole that parts of it are now.

The problem in the Ruhr is that the Frisians and Burgundians have recently gotten wealthy and are both way too interested to let the other control the whole Rhine. If Burgundy had managed to follow the English path just a bit longer, they would've crushed the warlords of the Rhine and Frisia, and who knows even restored the Carolingian realm entirely.

Even Bharat has devolved into Warlordism several times in history, but they've managed to reunite and a decade or two after such a period noone notices. If we want peace in Europe, we need to give someone real power - the other warlords will suffer painfully, sure, but our own waffling about keeping them from finally settling ANYTHING without getting smacked around by the peacekeeper-industrial complex is what keeps warlordism going.


But eh, give it a decade or two and the Wolf economies will be strong enough to ignore the peacekeeper industry and just fix things themselves. A couple thousand of people might die extra in the first ten years, but from there, it's only up. Europe might even stop exporting so annoyingly many refugees.

 

[Deleted member 92121]

But eh, give it a decade or two and the Wolf economies will be strong enough to ignore the peacekeeper industry and just fix things themselves. A couple thousand of people might die extra in the first ten years, but from there, it's only up. Europe might even stop exporting so annoyingly many refugees.

But that's assuming that the wolf economies don't fight each other. I mean, Serbia and Bulgaria are constantly at each other's throats. And Norway and Frisia are threatened by the English and their expansionism and belief in the "superiority of the Briton people". I don't think any of them have any problem with Venetia and Aquitane. But Venetia is so small, even with a big economy, and Aquitane is surrounded by the chaotic french kingdom.

 

[Whiteshore]

Have you read the timeline where Europe became the center of the world? Ironically, it's POD lies with the Rhomanians collapsing.

 

[Deleted member 92121]

Have you read the timeline where Europe became the center of the world? Ironically, it's POD lies with the Rhomanians collapsing.

Yeah, and then there's a cultural golden age in europe, i think it's called the rebirth or something like that. Then there's a bunch of breakway christian sects and religious wars, the Portucaleans and Aragonese(called spanish in that story) discover the Easternlands and begin to colonize it, and europeans are using gunpowder in wars by the 900's AH(1500's AD). Really crazy stuff.

 

[avernite]

But that's assuming that the wolf economies don't fight each other. I mean, Serbia and Bulgaria are constantly at each other's throats. And Norway and Frisia are threatened by the English and their expansionism and belief in the "superiority of the Briton people". I don't think any of them have any problem with Venetia and Aquitane. But Venetia is so small, even with a big economy, and Aquitane is surrounded by the chaotic french kingdom.

No, I'm saying if we just LET THEM, they will fight for 5 years, half of them will be utterly crushed or united into a country, and from there, peace.

Bharat and Zhongguo were not united by people's pretty eyes. Dar al Islam did not expand with flowers and candy. It is blood and iron that made the great states of the world, and constantly forcing Europe into disunity without letting them settle scores is what is killing it.

 

[Thesaurus Rex]

I think we should be giving England more credit. Sure, they are far from a Great power and never really had a colonial empire besides Avalonia, but they have quite the hold on western Europe. Scotland, and the Peninsula of Britanny are both their protectorates(little more then colonies if you ask me) and the Irish Confederation is a client state, completely under the english thumb. The adoption of Militarism in the 1350's AH (1930's AD) by king Henry really turned the country into a respectable force. Their king are seen as representatives of god on earth now, not just fighting the church constantly. If king James continues to threaten Norway and Denmark with Annexation, we could see a North sea powerhouse develop in Europe. But i doubt the international community will just let the english invade two countries like that.

People ITT seem to be giving England too much credit. It's not like they were a great industrial power (one could say they're still not quite as developed as Thailand or Ogonkaigan) or spread their culture outside Europe. At best they're like late imperial Sulawesi, minus the long distance trade. Not that pre-modern England's style of government isn't off to a good start, but it takes more than a centralized state and military control to really wank a region.

Even Bharat has devolved into Warlordism several times in history, but they've managed to reunite and a decade or two after such a period noone notices. If we want peace in Europe, we need to give someone real power - the other warlords will suffer painfully, sure, but our own waffling about keeping them from finally settling ANYTHING without getting smacked around by the peacekeeper-industrial complex is what keeps warlordism going.

But eh, give it a decade or two and the Wolf economies will be strong enough to ignore the peacekeeper industry and just fix things themselves. A couple thousand of people might die extra in the first ten years, but from there, it's only up. Europe might even stop exporting so annoyingly many refugees.

Let's try to veer away from present-day politics here; we don't want SunBear sending people off to Dejima.

 

[Whiteshore]

So, what do you think of the Rhomanians, BTW?

 

[Thesaurus Rex]

So, what do you think of the Rhomanians, BTW?

My first impressions with them was that they were rather Qin-like, but even at their height their bureaucracy seemed very small, poorly organized and focused on trivialties. Maybe if they actually instituted a meritocratic system of government and focused on improving the art of statecraft they'd survive longer, at least until newer kingdoms or dynasties can sufficiently replace them.

 

[Whiteshore]

My first impressions with them was that they were rather Qin-like, but even at their height their bureaucracy seemed very small, poorly organized and focused on trivialties. Maybe if they actually instituted a meritocratic system of government and focused on improving the art of statecraft they'd survive longer, at least until newer kingdoms or dynasties can sufficiently replace them.

Well, if Justinian had better successors, the Rhomanian Empire could have hung on to Justinian's conquests and could have become like Zhongguo instead of being restricted to Anatolia and Hellas (although even in this state, it's still a world power in it's own right).

 

[Al-numbers]

Rhoam did for several centuries act as a conduit for the flow of civilization into western Europe. Perhaps had they survived the Latins could have established the same sort of unifying tradition the Chin (sp?) empire did in the east.

Or provide Europe with an ideological base of reaching for knowledge.

If there is one thing that unites Bharat, Zhongguo, and the Dar-al-Islam above all, it is their under-current of... not philosophy, but a certain drive of learning new things, and having an educated class that examines those new things. Despite all the coups, wars, censures, and empire break-ups, the three regions always had tradition for having a learned class of people that tries to tinker with what they had.

Zhongguo has their Confucian mandarins, Bharat has their mathematicians, and Islamic cities like Cordoba and Esfahan have their clerical polymaths. All three regions have a class of learned men that learned new things, and what's more, all three regions have an... undercurrent of reaching for knowledge. Wasn't there one Arabic figure whom said: "Seek knowledge, even if it leads you to Nippon." ?

Maybe, with a POD centered around ancient Rhom or the early Franks, a new philosophy or... mental drive (I don't know?) develops that seeks men to better themselves through knowledge and education? I remember there being one Frankish prince that did try to learn the world around him.

 

[Whiteshore]

Maybe, with a POD centered around ancient Rhom or the early Franks, a new philosophy or... mental drive (I don't know?) develops that seeks men to better themselves through knowledge and education? I remember there being one Frankish prince that did try to learn the world around him.

Well, Orthodox Christianity developed something similar IIRC.

 

[Al-numbers]

Well, Orthodox Christianity developed something similar IIRC.

True, but that was due to continuous communication with the Dar-al-Islam. Why the rest of Europe did not go through it, I still don't know.

EDIT: Wait, I found something interesting. I found a woman who lived in the dark times after the fall of Rhom who is very interesting: Hildegard of Bingen.

What a woman! She seems to be a person who would fit right in to the early days of the Dar-Bahrat-Zhongguo discourse! So there were people in Europe who sought knowledge for themselves and for others.

So why did her works fade from time? Please don't tell me it's because of her gender.

EDIT 2: Spelling errors. Whoops!

 

[Deleted member 92121]

Also we can't forget the consequences that the Indirect Conflict took on Europe. Bharat and Zhongguo are friends now, but for decades proxy wars were fought on that continent Between the two. A lot of German states, the state of Magyar, and Swiss cantons all still practice Communal Spiritualism. Or at least, a distorted version of it. And you can't get more anti-clerical then with Communalism.

The French civil war during the Indirect Conflict was very bloody, and sent that country back decades. Communalists are very hated there now, along with Bharat, even if said ideology is no longer in power there.

 

[Indicus]

How could Europe avoid it's slide into warlordism?

Europe has had warlords since the Middle Ages.

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

Wasn't there one Arabic figure whom said: "Seek knowledge, even if it leads you to Nippon." ?

"One Arabic figure"? I'm very disappointed. I assume you're not from the Abode of Islam so it's understandable, but this figure you mention is no other than the Prophet pbuh himself:

‘Utlub il ‘ilma wa law fis-Sin.
Seek knowledge, even unto China. ​

As a devout Muslim from Gharnatah I would appreciate it if you did not misquote and misattribute the sayings of the Perfect Man.

OCC: Actual Hadith, though I'm not sure you meant to reference it.

 

[Deleted member 92121]

No, I'm saying if we just LET THEM, they will fight for 5 years, half of them will be utterly crushed or united into a country, and from there, peace.

Bharat and Zhongguo were not united by people's pretty eyes. Dar al Islam did not expand with flowers and candy. It is blood and iron that made the great states of the world, and constantly forcing Europe into disunity without letting them settle scores is what is killing it.

Yeah, letting the Wolfs fight might stabilize the region under a strong power.

Look at what happened with the Invasion of Osterreich. Zhongguo fought it could bring stability to the region and they couldn't. the Ostervolk fundamentalist tribes* living in the Alps continue to raid and prove a heaven to terrorists. If they backed the Swiss Cantons, or Bayern, or the Magyars into taking control of the region, maybe it would be stable now.

OCC: Taliban. ALSO, now i really would like to see a map of this eastern dominated world. It would be really cool.