"Io Mihailŭ, Împĕratul Românilor" - A Michael the Brave Romania Wank

[Avrorrange]

Roman = From Rome, Italy, the founders of the Roman Empire, those who were Roman Citizens before Caracalla's Edict.

Their blood descendents = Romanians, Italians, French, Iberians. (because of the Romanization process)

The Greeks = Descendents of Roman Citizens, not of Romans per se. (Greeks have never been Romanized)

The rest of the Europeans = Spiritual descendents of the Romans.


The idea in a nutshell is: Ethnicity is completely different from Citizenship (Subject of the State) and completely unrelated.

So: A Roman Citizen was NOT necessarily a Roman (ethnic Roman). It may have been a Roman, a Greek, a Briton, an Egyptian, a Dacian etc.
And: A subject of France (for example) may be French or may be some other ethnicity. And so on.

In fact, this is the way most Europeans see the things now in OTL.

Pretty certain that most Romanians,Italians,French and Spanish were descendants of people who were given Roman citizenship rather than being descendants of the true Romans themselves.It's just that their ancestors happened to be latinized while the Greeks were never latinized.The culture's almost the same though.Also pretty sure that most Greeks were already citizens prior to Caracalla's edict while most Gauls,Hispanics aren't.

Too bad though the Greeks can't do anything other than to complaint.I simply just couldn't help but feel sorry for the Greeks given it sounds as though they got trolled!

Does the Romanians have any designs on Anatolia other than having parts of it become Greek?I can see the Greeks try and restablish the ERE eventually in Anatolia by conquering the entire place,and if they do that,they will once again have their eyes fixed on certain Romanian territory.

 

[Zagan]

1. Pretty certain that most Romanians,Italians,French and Spanish were descendants of people who were given Roman citizenship rather than being descendants of the true Romans themselves.
2. It's just that their ancestors happened to be latinized while the Greeks were never latinized.The culture's almost the same though.
3. Also pretty sure that most Greeks were already citizens prior to Caracalla's edict while most Gauls,Hispanics aren't.

4. Too bad though the Greeks can't do anything other than to complaint.

1. Certainly correct.
2. Certainly correct.
3. Probably correct.
4. They were offended but not too much. The name Hellenes was pretty important to them and IOTL was chosen by themselves without any foreign intervention.

The fact is that in the 1600's, most people rationalized like this:
The Romanians, French, Italians, Iberians speak Romance languages. Then they must be blood descendents of the Romans! Nobody seems to forget his own language and start talking another one!
It is flawed, I know, but quite widespread.

 

[Zagan]

5. I simply just couldn't help but feel sorry for the Greeks given it sounds as though they got trolled!

6. Does the Romanians have any designs on Anatolia other than having parts of it become Greek?I can see the Greeks try and restablish the ERE eventually in Anatolia by conquering the entire place,and if they do that,they will once again have their eyes fixed on certain Romanian territory.

5. Romania is now the big bully. Even I, as a Romanian, feel a little sorry for the Greeks and the Hungarians ITTL. And I try to throw them a little bone from time to time.
Romania is thinking: "The Greeks must be happy we allowed them to have a country, however small. We could have annexed it all!"
Well... They could have not. The other Powers decided that a Greek State was desirable in order to limit a little the growing power of Romania.

6. Certainly. Romania wants a Colonial Empire starting with Anatolia. The plan is like this:
- The South-West to Greece (~1/3)
- The North-East to Armenia as a Sarmatian Vassal / Protectorate (~1/3)
- The rest to Romania as a Colony (~1/3) with territorial contiguity over the Dardanelles.

Note that this is only a plan of TTL Romanians, not my exact plan for the future of TTL.

 

[Zagan]

Imperial Family Questions

I am asking these questions to those of you more familiar than me with the mores and customs of the royal families in medieval Europe.

Future plans...
Imperator Mihai is 67 years old (in 1625) and a very recent widower.

1. Would it be considered odd if he remarries 2 or 3 years later?

2. If he does remarry, would a royal princess from the Occident be available? Or would he still be considered lower than them by the Western kings?

3. If he does remarry, would his wife convert to Orthodoxy as expected?

4. If he does remarry (with a younger wife of course), could he father more children at his age (almost 70 years old at the time of the marriage)?

5. Mihai has been healthy and fit for all his life. How long is it feasable for him to live? Up to 90?? Would someone living so long be considered unusual at that time?

More...
Mihai has 2 children which reached adulthood: Crown Prince Nicolae and Queen Flora of Sarmatia (she and her descendents are out of the succession line by law and personal renunciation).
Nicolae has only one child which did not die as an infant, Princess Iulia (10 years old in 1625).
She will become Imperatrix (Empress) after Mihai's death (her father Nicolae, being already quite ill, will predecease Mihai).

6. Would any male children of Mihai from the second marriage raise any objections (normally they should not, the succession of Iulia to the throne being completely legal)?

7. If Mihai dies before Iulia is of age, who shall be in the Regency (her mother, the Orthodox Patriarch, someone else)?

8. Since Iulia is, ahem, a girl / woman, who shall lead the army?

9. Would at least Iulia be accepted as equal by the Western royal families and be able to marry a royal prince?

10. Would Iulia's husband convert to Orthodoxy?

11. Would Iulia's husband accept his position as a Prince Consort and not an Emperor without causing any trouble?

12. Other thoughts about family issues?

Thank you.

 

[Avrorrange]

I am asking these questions to those of you more familiar than me with the mores and customs of the royal families in medieval Europe.

Future plans...
Imperator Mihai is 67 years old (in 1625) and a very recent widower.

1. Would it be considered odd if he remarries 2 or 3 years later?

Not at all,considering how he only has one sickly son and that son of his only has a daughter,and that his other daughter and their children are disinherited,it would be surprising if his advisors did not urge him to remarry.

2. If he does remarry, would a royal princess from the Occident be available? Or would he still be considered lower than them by the Western kings?

Given the butterflies,we don't know which princess is available.As for considered lower than them by western kings,what exactly is Michael's origin in this timeline?There were several accounts.From wikipedia,it saids that he may be a member of the Draculesti line through illegitimate birth and that his mother may be a descendant of John VI Kantakouzenos.I assume quite a number of western powers would be quite willing to send their princesses to marry him provided they somehow benefit from it.Important treaties often had to be sealed with marriage.

3. If he does remarry, would his wife convert to Orthodoxy as expected?

Probably no,royal brides aren't generally expected to convert.They are usually given free choice of whether they convert or not.So it largely depends on the bride herself mainly.

4. If he does remarry (with a younger wife of course), could he father more children at his age (almost 70 years old at the time of the marriage)?

Definitely,the chance of an old man impregnating a young woman is less than a young man doing the task,but 70 year old men are still very capable of fathering more children if his body is still robust enough to perform the act of mating with his wife.

5. Mihai has been healthy and fit for all his life. How long is it feasable for him to live? Up to 90?? Would someone living so long be considered unusual at that time?

I don't think ten or more years is a problem.

More...
Mihai has 2 children which reached adulthood: Crown Prince Nicolae and Queen Flora of Sarmatia (she and her descendents are out of the succession line by law and personal renunciation).
Nicolae has only one child which did not die as an infant, Princess Iulia (10 years old in 1625).
She will become Imperatrix (Empress) after Mihai's death (her father Nicolae, being already quite ill, will predecease Mihai).

6. Would any male children of Mihai from the second marriage raise any objections (normally they should not, the succession of Iulia to the throne being completely legal)?

That depends on the law of the land,what does the constitution say?Is succession agnatic-primogeniture or through agnatic-cognatic primogeniture?I strongly suspect that it would be the nobles who challenge her right to rule than her young uncles.

7. If Mihai dies before Iulia is of age, who shall be in the Regency (her mother, the Orthodox Patriarch, someone else)?

Someone Mihai trusts,and most likely there will be a regency council which the mother and the patriarch would be included.

8. Since Iulia is, ahem, a girl / woman, who shall lead the army?

What's the structure of the army?The trend of monarchs leading armies in person should be on the decline by this stage.

9. Would at least Iulia be accepted as equal by the Western royal families and be able to marry a royal prince?

It all depends on interests.Although,I don't think trying to finding royal suitors for the heiress of a large state would be difficult.In fact,I would assume that unmarried princes and rulers all over Europe would be flocking to the Romanian capital to try and woo her.You do remember the motto of the Habsburgs,correct?It pretty much sums up the European attitude to this regard,it's pretty much 'as long as there's land,we are quite happy to marry your daughter,even the ugly ones'.

10. Would Iulia's husband convert to Orthodoxy?

I'd assume he would be forced to do so unlike his female counterparts.

11. Would Iulia's husband accept his position as a Prince Consort and not an Emperor without causing any trouble?

No,I don't think anyone would object him being made an emperor AT ALL.Most likely,he will end up being the one ruling on behalf of his wife,assuming he is capable and actually has strong backing from whatever family or dynasty he's from.If he's an idiotic foreigner no body likes though,and without foreign support,he will most likely still be emperor,but a powerless one.

 

[Zagan]

1. As for considered lower than them by western kings, what exactly is Michael's origin in this timeline? There were several accounts. From wikipedia, it saids that he may be a member of the Draculesti line through illegitimate birth and that his mother may be a descendant of John VI Kantakouzenos.

2. That depends on the law of the land, what does the constitution say? Is succession agnatic-primogeniture or through agnatic-cognatic primogeniture?

3. No, I don't think anyone would object him being made an emperor AT ALL. Most likely, he will end up being the one ruling on behalf of his wife, assuming he is capable and actually has strong backing from whatever family or dynasty he's from. If he's an idiotic foreigner no body likes though, and without foreign support, he will most likely still be emperor, but a powerless one.

1. Almost everybody thought that Mihai's claim was false and he was not really of voivodal blood. No one questioned any more his rule though, because of his achievements.

2. Cognatic male-preference primogeniture (no salic law).

3. The fact is that the Romanians are already nationalistic and would dislike to be ruled by a foreigner. And of course, the law reflects this by clearly stating that the husband of an Imperatrix (Empress) Regnant will be Prince Consort.
That is why I asked if the Prince Consort would try to stir up something...

 

[Avrorrange]

1. Almost everybody thought that Mihai's claim was false and he was not really of voivodal blood. No one questioned any more his rule though, because of his achievements.

It doesn't really matter if it is in the interest of a country to align with Mihai.

3. The fact is that the Romanians are already nationalistic and would dislike to be ruled by a foreigner. And of course, the law reflects this by clearly stating that the husband of an Imperatrix (Empress) Regnant will be Prince Consort.
That is why I asked if the Prince Consort would try to stir up something...

It depends on a couple of factors:how respected is the law?How misogynist are the Romanians at this time(they might decide that having a foreigner rule is better than having a woman rule)?What is the relationship between the Empress and her husband?How respected is the Empress?How respected is her husband?Does the Empress even want to rule?

And by the way,I don't think the term Prince consort was even invented at this stage.Until later,the husband of the female monarch is usually given a title that's the male equivalent.I think an exception can be made though if the female ruler is crowned Imperator instead of Imperatrix by law and leave the husband untitled(I think Poland tried that?).

 

[Zagan]

1. It depends on a couple of factors:how respected is the law?How misogynist are the Romanians at this time(they might decide that having a foreigner rule is better than having a woman rule)?What is the relationship between the Empress and her husband?Does the Empress even want to rule?

2. And by the way,I don't think the term Prince consort was even invented at this stage.Until later,the husband of the female monarch is usually given a title that's the male equivalent.I think an exception can be made though if the female ruler is crowned Imperator instead of Imperatrix by law and leave the husband untitled(I think Poland tried that?).

1. I see. I shall make up my mind until then.

2. That is correct I think. And yes, Poland tried that, albeit with little success. I will think about it.

Thank you for all the pertinent information.

 

[Chrispi]

From a PM made yesterday...

I thought this a minor technicality, but Zagan said otherwise, so here it is:

The character ∫ (long s) was very popular in the seventeenth century Latin alphabet.

What is its significance in Romanian? Is it merely the non-terminal s, does it represent the IPA /∫/ sound, or was it simply never used?

I'm asking because it is a very elegant symbol in mathematics (calculus thanks to Leibniz) and would hate to see it go...

First of all, please comment in the TL, not through Private Messages, because:
- I might not see the PMs;
- Others might be interested in the discussion;
- The thread gets bumped.

If you accept, I would like to move this discussion into the TL thread.


And now the answer:

The long S was not used either in TTL or in OTL Romanian either medieval or modern. At least not to represent a letter / sound.
Some foreign words / proper names were written with the original spelling, so a long S might appear sometimes in print.

In mathematics it will be probably used again, because the development of Mathematics in the Occident will be influenced by the butterflies very little. We can not really hope that instead a Leibniz, some Romanian mathematician would invent calculus. TTL may be a wank, but not that great a wank.

The Romanian alphabet will have little to no influence upon the alphabets used in the Occident much less upon mathematics.

The IPA /∫/ sound is represented in Romanian (TTL and OTL) by Ș (S with comma below).


Thank you for your interest.

 

[Chrispi]

Maybe it's a good thing that Zagan wanted me to post on this thread: I find it implausible that the ATL Romanian alphabet, devised in the early 17th century, would be almost identical to the OTL Romanian alphabet that developed in the mid 19th century. It seems like discussing something as seemingly trivial as the long s (∫) could actually bring down the whole Romaniawank!

The main line of attack would be: How would Mihailŭ reform or replace the Cyrillic alphabet then in use? Even in OTL Peter the Great of Russia was not this ambitious! Would we see something like the transitional alphabets seen here? Would it, to be extremely radical, use the Classical Latin alphabet strictly (without even J, U or W?) The answer to this question depends on, and will influence greatly, the very existence of the new Romanian nation-state, for the use of local alphabets stands against the Emperor, while the Classical Latin alphabet is insufficient for Modern Romanian. Keep in mind l'Académie Française has not even been established yet, which would make standardization even harder.

 

[Zagan]

Maybe it's a good thing that Zagan wanted me to post on this thread: I find it implausible that the ATL Romanian alphabet, devised in the early 17th century, would be almost identical to the OTL Romanian alphabet that developed in the mid 19th century. It seems like discussing something as seemingly trivial as the long s (∫) could actually bring down the whole Romaniawank!

I know, I know... I did that for several reasons:
1. It was fun. I am not a linguist.
2. These little things make the TL more interesting for reading and easier to publish.
3. I wanted the alphabet to be neither identical (obvious absurdity), nor too different (it would have been very difficult to read by us in OTL). It was simply extremely convenient to adopt this middle-line variant.

The main line of attack would be: How would Mihailŭ reform or replace the Cyrillic alphabet then in use? Even in OTL Peter the Great of Russia was not this ambitious! Would we see something like the transitional alphabets seen here? Would it, to be extremely radical, use the Classical Latin alphabet strictly (without even J, U or W?) The answer to this question depends on, and will influence greatly, the very existence of the new Romanian nation-state, for the use of local alphabets stands against the Emperor, while the Classical Latin alphabet is insufficient for Modern Romanian. Keep in mind l'Académie Française has not even been established yet, which would make standardization even harder.

The Cyrillic alphabet was not in use. No alphabet was in use. More than 99% of the Romanians were illiterate! It was used only in the Church.

The whole idea was to emphasize latinity, to drop everything foreign (Slavic, Greek etc) and break with the past completely and abruptly. Mihai was a revolutionary and a visionary.

Result: In just 25 years, literacy increased to 7%. This means that about 90% of those who were literate in 1626 have never seen or used the Cyrillic Alphabet, but only the new Romanian Latin-based Alphabet!

Was this possible / plausible? Well, in OTL we had the Transylvanian School in the 18th Century (only a century later) which did lots of language related reforms without having the backing of a central State authority.
So, I think that it is not very far-fetched.

 

[Chrispi]

I know, I know... I did that for several reasons:
1. It was fun. I am not a linguist.
2. These little things make the TL more interesting for reading and easier to publish.
3. I wanted the alphabet to be neither identical (obvious absurdity), nor too different (it would have been very difficult to read by us in OTL). It was simply extremely convenient to adopt this middle-line variant.



The Cyrillic alphabet was not in use. No alphabet was in use. More than 99% of the Romanians were illiterate! It was used only in the Church.

The whole idea was to emphasize latinity, to drop everything foreign (Slavic, Greek etc) and break with the past completely and abruptly. Mihai was a revolutionary and a visionary.

Result: In just 25 years, literacy increased to 7%. This means that about 90% of those who were literate in 1626 have never seen or used the Cyrillic Alphabet, but only the new Romanian Latin-based Alphabet!

Was this possible / plausible? Well, in OTL we had the Transylvanian School in the 18th Century (only a century later) which did lots of language related reforms without having the backing of a central State authority.
So, I think that it is not very far-fetched.

Addressing the points above: it seems to me that the ATL alphabet is too close to the modern Romanian alphabet, rather than being too different. How far would Michael take Romanity? Will he use not only the Latin alphabet, but Latin itself against demotic Romanian? (This would dispose of most if not all of the diacritics used!) Would he establish an earlier Academia Romana? How would this be consistent with the gathering of the Romanian nation against the Roman Catholics in his dream?

Admittedly, this is a chicken-and-egg problem (how to make a Romanian nation without a unified Romanian language and script.)

 

[Zagan]

Addressing the points above: it seems to me that the ATL alphabet is too close to the modern Romanian alphabet, rather than being too different. How far would Michael take Romanity? Will he use not only the Latin alphabet, but Latin itself against demotic Romanian? (This would dispose of most if not all of the diacritics used!) Would he establish an earlier Academia Romana? How would this be consistent with the gathering of the Romanian nation against the Roman Catholics in his dream?

Admittedly, this is a chicken-and-egg problem (how to make a Romanian nation without a unified Romanian language and script.)

Yes. It is very close to OTL alphabet. If it were any more different, reading it by us would have been very difficult. That is why I kept it quite similar: I wanted to be readable without difficulty.

Oh, no! No Latin. The vernacular (Romanian Language) was just fine.
Just get rid of those pesky Cyrillic letters and of some Slavic, Hungarian and Turkic loadwords.

Mihai would not be anti-Catholic. The Catholics in the dream were only the Habsburgs (or were interpreted as such).

"Academia României" would indeed be established in the near future.

The Romanian language was actually remarcably unified. A Romanian from Bessarabia and one form the Banat could understand each other with no difficulty whatsoever (OTL and TTL, Medieval and Modern).

 

[Chrispi]

Yes. It is very close to OTL alphabet. If it were any more different, reading it by us would have been very difficult. That is why I kept it quite similar: I wanted to be readable without difficulty.

Oh, no! No Latin. The vernacular (Romanian Language) was just fine.
Just get rid of those pesky Cyrillic letters and of some Slavic, Hungarian and Turkic loadwords.

Mihai would not be anti-Catholic. The Catholics in the dream were only the Habsburgs (or were interpreted as such).

"Academia României" would indeed be established in the near future.

The Romanian language was actually remarcably unified. A Romanian from Bessarabia and one form the Banat could understand each other with no difficulty whatsoever (OTL and TTL, Medieval and Modern).

The readability of the Romanian alphabet, at least on this English forum, is already difficult, to be honest (too many diacritics on the letters!)

The making a "pure" Romanian language would face many of the same problems as Katharevousa had in Modern Greek. People would want to say "supermarket" instead of "hyperagora/'υπεραγορά."

The task Michael has in front of him is monumental; I compare it to that of another reformer, Sejong the Great of Korea in the 15th century, when he promulgated Hangul.

 

[Chrispi]

I like this AH. I would love to see what national symbols arise from this timeline. Here's my best guess at what the Romanian flag would/should look like:

 

[Zagan]

1. The readability of the Romanian alphabet, at least on this English forum, is already difficult, to be honest (too many diacritics on the letters!)

2. The making a "pure" Romanian language would face many of the same problems as Katharevousa had in Modern Greek. People would want to say "supermarket" instead of "hyperagora/'υπεραγορά."

3. The task Michael has in front of him is monumental; I compare it to that of another reformer, Sejong the Great of Korea in the 15th century, when he promulgated Hangul.

4. I like this AH. I would love to see what national symbols arise from this timeline. Here's my best guess at what the Romanian flag would/should look like:

1. I mean, readability for us, Romanian speakers.

2. Sure. The project (partially) failed TTL.

3. I did see the parallel with the adoption of hangul as well. A difference though: Latin letters already existed and were widely used all over Europe. Hangul was a new invention.
Given that more than 99% of the Romanians were illiterate, the change was easier and was felt less in the populace.

4. If you continue reading the TL, you will see that the flag was already posted on page 3 (waving in a breeze) and on page 4 (flat). The flags of the other countries (around 20) will be presented in the next update.
I also hinted about a coat of arms, great seal, motto, patron saint and anthem.
Sadly, I am not such a good graphics designer to be able to create the coat of arms and great seal myself.

Edit: How did you make that animated gif?

 

[Zagan]

While I am busy preparing the new chapter, have a nice map!

The Iberian Empire, the Italian Confederation and Croatia in 1627​

Legend:

Red: Iberian Empire
- Iberia
--- Portugal (Portugal proper, Algavres, Galicia, Olivenca included of course, Azores, Madeira)
--- Castile (Castile proper, Leon, Extremadura, Murcia)
--- Navarre (Navarre proper, Basque Country)
--- Aragon (Aragon proper, Catalonia, Valencia, Baleares)
--- Andalusia (itself)
- Italia
--- Naples
--- Sicily
--- Sardinia
--- Corsica
--- Malta
- North Africa
--- Canaries
--- Cape Verde
--- Ceuta-Tanger
--- Melilla
--- Oran
--- Algiers
--- Constantine
--- Tunis-Bizerte-Djerba
--- Tripolitania
--- the rest of Roman Africa (claimed, de facto Berber States & Saharan People)
--- the rest of Roman Mauretania (claimed, de facto Morocco)
- The Americas (La Plata, Chile, Peru, Granada, Mexico, Cuba, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, Florida, etc)
- Other Colonies (Philippines, Pacific Islands, East Indies Islands, Macao, Indian Enclaves, Mozambique, Angola, Enclaves in Guineea, other Islands, etc)

Yellow: Italian Confederation
- Papal States (Rome, Romagna)
- Venice (Venice proper, other small Italian States, Istria, Adriatic Islands, Southern Dalmatia, Catarro, Valona, Corfu, other Ionian Islands, Crete, etc)
- Lombardy (Milan, other small Italian States)
- Ticino (including parts of the former Three Leagues Swiss Canton)
- Emilia (small Italian States)
- Tuscany (small Italian States)
- Liguria (Genoa, other small Italian States)
- Piedmont (Turin; under French occupation)
- Nizza (Nice; under French occupation)

Yellow Contour only: Italian State annexed by France (Savoy)

Green: Croatia

Black Contour only: Other Countries
- France (South)
- German Empire (Extreme South)
- Romania (Extreme West)
- Ottoman Empire (Extreme West of Cyrenaica)

 

[Ryan]

has Iberia spread the inquisition to north Africa to re-Christianise it?

 

[Zagan]

has Iberia spread the inquisition to north Africa to re-Christianise it?

Oh, yes... With horrendous results!
And an unintended consequence: hardening the resolve of Morocco and the remaining Berbers to defend themselves!
As I already said previously, Iberia will finally pacify North Africa after more than a century (hopefully no more Inquisition by then).
More in the next chapter(s).

Note: Since the Board Upgrade, some of my posts (including the flag post on the following page) have been in need of some edits. Because of the New Board rules (no more than 20 linked images per post) that post cannot be edited anymore and I had to split its content in these two previous posts. I hope that this is not inconvenient to any of you.

Flags​

While I am busy preparing the new chapter, enjoy some flags!

Note:
The National Flags (mandatory since the Great Power Conference), are something like OTL Civil Flags.
The Royal Flags (like OTL State Flags) are usually defaced with the Royal Coat of Arms and thus subject to frequent changes.
The Naval Flags and War Flags are identical with the National Flags.
So, TTL has only two kinds of Flags: National and Royal.

National Flags of Europe​

1. Iberian Empire

Variant 1, featuring: Blue Symmetric Cross of Portugal, Red Burgundy Cross of the Habsburgs, Colors Blue and White of Portugal, Colors Red and White of Castile, Colors Red and Yellow of Aragon.

Variant 2, proposed by chrispi

Variant 3, proposed by Karolus Rex

2. Kingdom of France

Variant 1: Royal Flag of France (no change from OTL).

Variant 2, proposed by chrispi

3. Kingdom of Britannia

Variant 1, featuring: Red Symmetric Cross of England, White Saltire of Scotland, Red Saltire of Ireland, Colors Red and White of England and Ireland, Colors White and Blue of Scotland, Similar with the OTL Union Jack.

Variant 2, proposed by chrispi

4. Empire of Germany

Featuring: Nordic Cross, Colors White, Black and Gold of various German States; proposed by Caranaar

5. Commonwealth of Sarmatia

Featuring: Colors Red and White of the Three Sarmatian Peoples (Poles, Lithuanians and Ruthenians), Similar with OTL Polish-Lithuanian Flags.

6. Imperium of Romania

Variant 1, featuring: Colors Blue, Yellow, Red and Black of the Three Romanian Lands and of the Balkan Aromanians.

Variant 2, proposed by chrispi

Continuing in the next post.

 

[Zagan]

Flags​

National Flags of Europe
(continued)​

7. Commonwealth of Scandinavia (after the accession of Sweden)

Featuring: Nordic Cross, Colors White and Red of Denmark and Norway, Colors Yellow and Blue of Sweden.

8. Tsardom of Russia

OTL Flag of Russia (created OTL and TTL in the 17th century).

9. Principality of Slovakia

Featuring: Cross of Great Moravia, Slavic Colors White, Red and Blue.

10. Principality of Croatia

Featuring: Croatian Checkerboard.

11. Principality of Greece

Variant 1, featuring: Greek Cross, Colors Blue and White of Athens.

Variant 2, proposed by chrispi

12. Italian Confederation

Featuring: Colors Green, White, Red and Yellow of various Italian States
Three different variants were created by the Great Power Conference and proposed to the Italian States to vote for one of them.

Variant 1, including a change proposed by chrispi

Variant 2, including a change proposed by chrispi

Variant 3

13. Principality of Hungary (a little later)

Featuring: Cross of Hungary, Colors Green, Red and White of Hungary.

Continuing in the next post.