Deleted member 114175
While we're at it, let's add the rest of Europe to Denmark, and Canada, because Vinland.
(Historical) Annexxations/Mergers We Would Have Liked To See.
- Thread starter htgriffin
- Start date
Scandinavia are Denmark, Norway and Sweden and that’s it. It’s named after the Scandinavian people (Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, Icelanders and Faroese). The reasons that Iceland aren’t counted as part of Scandinavia was because, when Scandinavia was defined Iceland was a Danish colony/province and the Icelandic language aren’t mutual intelligible with either the three continental Scandinavian languages or Faroese. Faroese on the other hand are mutual intelligible with some West Norwegian (Nynorsk) dialects.
because all political and cultural cooperation in the Nordic countries either happens between the countries or as part of Nordic Council, Scandinavia have stayed a informal cultural grouping. If Finland had stayed in union with Russia, we would likely have seen a Scandinavian Council instead and Iceland would have been part of Scandinavian, while Nordic instead was a informal cultural grouping.
The Arab world becoming one nation plus territories from Atay in Turkey, the coastal regions of Iran (minus Baluchistan), Azawad, Greater Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, the Afar and Tigre regions from Ethiopia, and northern and central Niger. It would be the superpower of Africa and would be near-unstoppable in the Middle East.
Spain and Portugal being united as well as having the Americas (save Alaska and Greenland) under their rule as well as the Pacific Islands, the Malay archipelago, Philippines, Malay peninsula, Southern Africa, the eastern African coast, parts of the Indian region, parts of the southern Arabian peninsula and southern Persian coastal areas, coastal area of Mesopotamia, North Africa, the Levant, southern Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica all under their hands. It would be an epic empire.
Spain and Portugal being united as well as having the Americas (save Alaska and Greenland) under their rule as well as the Pacific Islands, the Malay archipelago, Philippines, Malay peninsula, Southern Africa, the eastern African coast, parts of the Indian region, parts of the southern Arabian peninsula and southern Persian coastal areas, coastal area of Mesopotamia, North Africa, the Levant, southern Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica all under their hands. It would be an epic empire.
A semi-Sinicized unified Austronesian kingdom composed of OTL Chinese provinces of Fujian and Jiangnan (southern Jiangsu and Zhejiang), Taiwan, the Philippine archipelago and northern tip of Kalimantan.
Last edited:
- Manchuria and Mongolia with the Russian Empire
- Flemish with Dutch
- Walloons with France
- Taiwan with China
- Italy with the Papal States
- All tiny states (Liechtenstein, Monaco, Luxemburg etc) to their surrounding nations
- Kurdistan
- One Cyprus
- Macedonia with Greece
- European Turkey to Greece
- Syria and Lebanon to Turkey
Etcetc
- The United States of Greater Austria
- Yugoslavia and Bulgaria
- Napoleonic France, Napoleonic Italy, and the Confederation of the Rhine
- Prussia and the Duchy of Courland
- The US and Liberia
- Gran Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia
- Dominium Maris Baltici (either Danish or Swedish)
- Pakistan and the Maldives
- United Kingdom of Scotland and Norway
- The USSR, Mongolia, and Manchuria
- Japan and Taiwan
- Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and all Anglophone Pacific islands
- Argentina and Chile
- Newfoundland, Cyprus, and Malta as directly ruled parts of the UK
This ‘Arab’ country would be one of the worst managed and strife ridden countries in human history, assuming it is not some sort of Neo-Abbasid like regime. It would make Austro-Hungary seem like Norway. In total, you would have massive linguistic, cultural, religious, economic, geographic and legal diversity (some sections do not use Islamic law, such as Tigrinya regions).
I'd envision this united Arab country to be a secular nationalist one formed out of the postcolonial period that focuses on progress, increasing its economic and political power within and worldwide, and focuses on secularization and modernization.
That is partly why this union would be so poorly managed and strife ridden. The Abbasid caliphate was more or less successful for a time ruling an area similar to what you discuss. However, the Abbasids were only such under the pretext of an extraordinarily decentralized government that took no taxes aside from jizya and was borne from the legacy of conquests and as such was expanding on its borders constantly under decentralized armies only vaguely loyal to the liege. Furthermore, the Abbasid had a massive sector of nobles who ruled their own lands and customs and a common sharia law code. To enforce upon all these lands a secular law system, centralized government systems like the west and taxes that according to Islam sends one to Hell Fire, is a recipe for disaster.
This union would also have to ensure a balance between the central government and the various regions. Also, I expect this nation mostly focus on areas that are Arab rather than a lot of non-Arab areas like Persia or Spain. And that this nation would have to be lead by someone so great and popular that most countries wouldn't mind being under their leadership.
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
Ottoman Empire Annexing the Crimean Khanate, North African vassals and the Danubian Principalities.
Poland-Lithuania annexing Bohemia and Moravia
Spain taking over Portugal and ruling it from Madrid
Ost Friesland as a part of the Netherlands
Poland-Lithuania annexing Bohemia and Moravia
Spain taking over Portugal and ruling it from Madrid
Ost Friesland as a part of the Netherlands
In short, a pan-Arab state is unworkable save at late-stage "H""R""E" level decentralization?
A union between say Syria, Jordan, Hatay (Antakiyya), Palestine, Iraq, etc might be more plausible. The issue is, when you add all of Arabia, Egypt, North Africa, parts of Iran, etc... Somalia, Afar, Sudan, etc is simply too much, these areas were not even part of the Abbasid or Umayyad caliphate are not Arab in any serious sense.
Iraq comes with many issues, it is divided religiously, ethnically and economically. Most of the southern reaches are heavily Shi’a and these in some areas are so dense that Sunni rule is accepted only through repression and or with amounts of autonomy or the historical usage of taqiyyah. The upper Euphrates especially, along Karbala was untenable for even unity to the Sunni areas of Anbar frankly and is distinct from Bagdad on the Tigris. This whole area would in the past, much prefer the rule of a legitimate Shi’a monarch from Iraq than be united by Arabism. The people in this region bemoaned for centuries Ottoman rule and the loss of the Safavid monarchy. Many Twelver Shi’a scholars in that area historically also, are not too charitable to the Arab ethnicity either, as the work al-Kafi stated, ‘the Arabs are the most vile folk, they murdered the prophet and rejected the Imamate’.
Iraq also possesses large amounts of Kurds, both Sunni, Shi’a and Yazidi who live throughout its territories. These Kurds had existed within relative decentralism for approximately 400 years. Forcing them into a pan-Arab state is going to make what the Turks have in their Kurdish areas seem easy. They will resist, radicalize and fight for every inch they can. The added dynamic of minorities among them complicated issues too, in 1900 a larger percentages of these areas are both Yazidi, Christian and Jewish. All of whom either survived as distinct due to high level autonomy given by Muslim states or by way of paying jizya tax. In this secular Arab state, their very existence is at stake more than ever.
Syria has much the same issues, as with the Levant. These areas though majority Sunni and Arab, have significant Christian presence, Druze, Twelvers and Alawites who all present difficulties. Kurds also, are united into bloccs with their neighbor cousins and likely have some sort of agreement with other minorities like the overarching Shi’a.
Egypt is too populous and ethnically-economically United, they will dominate the interests of this country and ruin and pretense at fairness in terms of election.
Arabia has so many tribes, Bedouin, divergent Islamic beliefs and disputes to be a positive addition. Yemen, Nejd, Ahsa, Oman and so forth are all divided religiously and to a degree ethnically. Yemen and Oman for instance, has villages who do not speak Arabic to any degree. In otl, these areas are often afforded a level of autonomy and liberty and attend to their tribal customs as they had always done. In the Nejd, too many Bedouin and Arabs will refuse public education or progressive political narratives.
Maghreb, Algeria, Chad, Libya, Tunisia, etc. Much of these peoples are not Arabs and many will not speak Arab without education. The Tuareg, Fulani, Berber, etc for instance do not speak Arabic, especially in rural areas. All of these areas too, are less economically developed and economically distinct to everywhere else in the union.
Somalia and the sectors mentioned of Ethiopia, were never ruled by the Abbasid or Umayyad and I do not know what to say for them.
Overall, my view is that the Ottomans could rule all of these areas aside from Somalia mostly. As could many states that utilize Islam and high levels of decentralism as is stipulated by traditional Islamic statecraft. However, the large centralized Arab secular state will have difficulties. Even in just the localized varieties of these states in Syria, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, etc, all we have is disaster and issues.
