Different definition of "Europe"
- Thread starter Scarecrow
- Start date
- Status
Max Sinister
Banned
For North Africa: Let them fight off the Muslims and stay Christian. The Sahara becomes the new "natural border" instead of the Med.
For some time, the border between Europe and Asia wasn't the Urals, but the Don river.
For some time, the border between Europe and Asia wasn't the Urals, but the Don river.
Bright day
Wendell- I would say more recent PoD is possible as well.
After all you started calling the area "Middle East" only after WWII, nevermind that it is actually "Near East".
And for eastern border- yes it was more westward once- but that was back before there were states in the region. Our modern border copies inner Russian districts.
Wendell- I would say more recent PoD is possible as well.
After all you started calling the area "Middle East" only after WWII, nevermind that it is actually "Near East".
And for eastern border- yes it was more westward once- but that was back before there were states in the region. Our modern border copies inner Russian districts.
Gladi said:
There's no need to be rude about it... Obviously usage in your neck of the woods is somewhat different to what we use over here.
Certainly in Britain, I haven't really encountered the term 'Near East' in any other context then as the pre-1912 term for the European possesions of the Ottoman Empire- the idea being that the "Near East" was Turkey west of the Straits, the "Middle East" was the Ottoman Empire in Asia (and often Persia), and the "Far East" was anything beyond. Obviously this system became somewhat redundant after Turkey-in-Europe stopped being a going concern just before WW1.
Having done a bit of googling, I see that Americans in particular seem to use the two terms interchangably- FWIW, I can't think of the last time I've heard anyone in the UK use the term 'Near East'
Max Sinister
Banned
But this definition made in the Anglosphere leaves one thing unclear: Is India part of Middle East, or Far East?
EdT said:
obligatory wiki article
And you don't hear people in UK speak about milliards anymore either, and yet you change to short scale not that long ago.
Leo Caesius
Banned
These guys seem to have their own definition of "Near East," but what do they know?
University of Chicago
Yale University
Harvard University
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
University of Toronto
Hebrew University
Scanning through the course offerings of these various institutes of higher learning, I find the Balkan offerings to be surprisingly sparse.
I was always taught that the "Near East" comprises the former domains of the Ottoman Empire, sometimes including the rest of North Africa and Iran, sometimes not. Today the term has fallen out of use outside of academia. The Middle East, at a time, was the Indian subcontinent, sometimes including Afghanistan and Iran, sometimes not; today it generally does not refer to India but it does include Iran and the Muslim countries to its west. The Far East is East and Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands immediately off the coast (Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, etc.).
University of Chicago
Yale University
Harvard University
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
University of Toronto
Hebrew University
Scanning through the course offerings of these various institutes of higher learning, I find the Balkan offerings to be surprisingly sparse.
I was always taught that the "Near East" comprises the former domains of the Ottoman Empire, sometimes including the rest of North Africa and Iran, sometimes not. Today the term has fallen out of use outside of academia. The Middle East, at a time, was the Indian subcontinent, sometimes including Afghanistan and Iran, sometimes not; today it generally does not refer to India but it does include Iran and the Muslim countries to its west. The Far East is East and Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands immediately off the coast (Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, etc.).
Xen
Banned
What if you have a POD where either the Persians stay Zoroastrian or convert to Christianity, maybe a competent leader just before the Arab invasion. The Arabs also fail miserably when fighting the Byzantines in the Levant.
The Arabs are strong enough to defend their holy cities against the Persians and the Byzantines, but not expand as they did. Maybe they're able to take the Horn of Africa, the east African coast from Somalia to South Africa, on around to Angola which becomes the heart of the Arabian Caliphate with its rich farm land. Its possible to see the Arabs or another Muslim group (perhaps an indigenous African peoples) to conquer west Africa, and have as you said the Sahara as the border between the Muslim world and the old world.
Africa could possibly be somewhat better off for it, the Muslims build roads, grand cities, unite the various ethnic groups under a single religion and language, so there is no more infighting on the same scale as OTL. Plus the arrival of technology from Arabia.
The question is what do you do with the Turks? They are still going to be coming, but they will have to deal with the Persians, meaning its possible that they convert to the Persian religion, would they still be interested in Anatolia? Or perhaps they decide to settle in Mesopotamia. It would make it interesting if they didnt convert to the Persian religion and adopted Islam, or if the Persians are Christian they convert to Zoroastrian when they settle. Or the Turks cant pass through Persia so go through Russia or go east, perhaps eventually discovering Australia?
What of the America's? Without the Moor Conquest of Iberia, there will be no Spain as we know it, I wonder if the Goths would be interested in exploring the America's. The British and French are a safe bet, perhaps somewhere in this ATL there is a successful reformation of the Western Roman Empire that is very interested in the new world.
The Arabs are strong enough to defend their holy cities against the Persians and the Byzantines, but not expand as they did. Maybe they're able to take the Horn of Africa, the east African coast from Somalia to South Africa, on around to Angola which becomes the heart of the Arabian Caliphate with its rich farm land. Its possible to see the Arabs or another Muslim group (perhaps an indigenous African peoples) to conquer west Africa, and have as you said the Sahara as the border between the Muslim world and the old world.
Africa could possibly be somewhat better off for it, the Muslims build roads, grand cities, unite the various ethnic groups under a single religion and language, so there is no more infighting on the same scale as OTL. Plus the arrival of technology from Arabia.
The question is what do you do with the Turks? They are still going to be coming, but they will have to deal with the Persians, meaning its possible that they convert to the Persian religion, would they still be interested in Anatolia? Or perhaps they decide to settle in Mesopotamia. It would make it interesting if they didnt convert to the Persian religion and adopted Islam, or if the Persians are Christian they convert to Zoroastrian when they settle. Or the Turks cant pass through Persia so go through Russia or go east, perhaps eventually discovering Australia?
What of the America's? Without the Moor Conquest of Iberia, there will be no Spain as we know it, I wonder if the Goths would be interested in exploring the America's. The British and French are a safe bet, perhaps somewhere in this ATL there is a successful reformation of the Western Roman Empire that is very interested in the new world.
Leo Caesius
Banned
I'd like to see them head south to India and see what they do there, actually. A Turkish India, ruled by a Buddhist Turkish elite, might make for an interesting TL.Xen said:
Leo Caesius
Banned
That is the conventional definition. It usually starts off from the successor states of the Ottoman Empire. Among academics, "Near East" generally has connotations of antiquity whereas "Middle East" connotes the modern region. I believe this might have something to do with the rise of "area studies." The first such department was the Center for Middle East Studies founded at Harvard University by W. Montgomery Watt in the 50s, as a split from the preexisting "Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations." The major distinction was that CMES focused primarily upon the contemporary Middle East, whereas NELC focused primarily upon the whole span of recorded history in the region (but took a traditional Orientalist approach to it, and still does to a certain extent).Thande said:
The US Bureau of Near East Affairs (NEA) deals with Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.
In French, "Proche-Orient" would refer to the countries bordering the eastern coast of the Mediterranean (Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Jordan by extension) but excluding Turkey (which would be "Asie Mineure". "Moyen-Orient" would include the Arabic peninsula, Iraq and Iran.
- Status