DBWI: No Plantagenet Dual Monarchy of England and France

[FairlyUninformedGraduate]

There's also the fact that religion in a nation-state (previous poster mentioned they'd probably dominate, and I agree) could probably be a messy thing. Religion is a huge part of people's identities, and with that much rampant nationalism already, you can imagine the "we are an (insert x religion) nation!" shit that would go on. Being part of a minority faith would be terrifying, and the whole border mess in Eastern Europe would be so much worse, trying to divide between Kazakhs, Russians, Poles, Croats, Serbs, ect. would be a nightmare. Nationalism causes way more problems than we can even foresee here.

To be fair, our own world isn't exactly a peaceful Platopolis [ooc: Utopia] either. Look at the continental wars of the last century - as the HRE lost control of its outlying provinces during the Great Contraction [ooc: depression] the local rulers fought to free themselves of the empires economic stranglehold, only to find themselves a kickball between larger powers; there was a school of thought that said that if the nation were defined on shared entho-cultural identity then the desire to integrate smaller units of different identities would be less - why would group A be interested in group B if Group A's identity is so tied up with being what they are? It's just storing up problems. In a system like ours where fealty is in essence a matter of reciprocal duty underscored by personal relationships between the symbolic heads of state expressed (these days) through contracts between the domains and the centre, in theory ANYONE can become part of ANY grouping (I mean, the Grand Duchy of Cyprus, the Skraeling Baronies, and the Duchy of Nri happily swear fealty to the Dual Monarchy for goodness sake [ooc: ITTL its more common for nations to enter into unions with one another, rather than conquest, so for example the English/French crown also holds domains with mostly local populations in diverse locations]), so there's more to fight for. Its not like nations would go around displacing entire populations. So I think without the Dual Monarchy, you MIGHT get more of a drive to ethno-cultural nations, with a stable but stagnant territorial make up - more internal fighting, but less external fighting perhaps? if so, does the Atlantis Crusade ever happen? Surely these hypotehtical entho-states would have zero interest in incorporating Sindri city states or northern Skraelings, and probably be more interested in trade concessions?

 

[FairlyUninformedGraduate]

To be fair, our own world isn't exactly a peaceful Platopolis [ooc: Utopia] either. Look at the continental wars of the last century - as the HRE lost control of its outlying provinces during the Great Contraction [ooc: depression] the local rulers fought to free themselves of the empires economic stranglehold, only to find themselves a kickball between larger powers; there was a school of thought that said that if the nation were defined on shared entho-cultural identity then the desire to integrate smaller units of different identities would be less - why would group A be interested in group B if Group A's identity is so tied up with being what they are? It's just storing up problems. In a system like ours where fealty is in essence a matter of reciprocal duty underscored by personal relationships between the symbolic heads of state expressed (these days) through contracts between the domains and the centre, in theory ANYONE can become part of ANY grouping (I mean, Cyprus, the norhtern Atlantans, and in Africa the Duchy of Nri happily swear fealty to the Dual Monarchy for goodness sake [ooc: ITTL its more common for nations to enter into unions with one another, rather than conquest, so for example the English/French crown also holds domains with mostly local populations in diverse locations]), so there's more to fight for. Its not like nations would go around displacing entire populations. So I think without the Dual Monarchy, you MIGHT get more of a drive to ethno-cultural nations, with a stable but stagnant territorial make up - more internal fighting, but less external fighting perhaps? if so, does the Atlantis Crusade ever happen? Surely these hypotehtical entho-states would have zero interest in incorporating Sindri city states or northern Skraelings, and probably be more interested in trade concessions?

{OOC: To clarify, I am not advocating homogenous nationalist states - its jsut that the in charachter comments come from someone to whom our concept of nationalist agression, ethnic violence and conquest are outliers he doesnt think could ever be the norm, just as we dont really think the type of state we are describing here could realistically exist; also, even if they did, it wouldnt mean no war or racism or persecution]

 

[IanSupremo]

Oh please, we all know it was started by King Peter I whose first and second wives only give him daughters, it took him three wives to get gimself a son, later King Peter II.

Don't be mean 😂 Peter I remains, to this day, one of the most colorful heads of state in the history of anywhere. He was a real 'never say die' type of guy- probably owed to the decade he spent as a privateer hunting Lotharingian and Iberian shipping near New Marseille (ooc: Carribean). The fact that he was also the colony's governor is BESIDES THE POINT. The 'Patron Saint of the Navy' deserves to be remembered for more than his 'prodigious capacity for love'