Look to the West: Thread III, Volume IV (Tottenham Nil)!
- Thread starter Thande
- Start date
- Status
Thande
Donor
Ah, I hadn't realised it was only made the capital in 1808 OTL. I will edit that in the final release version.
A timely reminder of the rather epic scale of this TL; I find it interesting how federalism here seems to be emerging as anti-democratic in nature and possibly in principle, which is going to be... interesting (in the Chinese sense).
As we go forward in all of this, I can begin to understand why much of Europe seems to regard this 'Democratic Experiment' as something worth forgetting or, at the very least, ignoring the more unpleasant aspects of. The U.K./Britain is in a very strange position (there seem to be some parallels with French history IOTL; was this intentional?). But it's going to influence the post-19th century political landscape in some fashion? The People's Kingdom is a pretty strange beast. Still, it's very cool to see how each place in central and western Europe is dealing - or not dealing - with this 'awakening,' I suppose, of their people in regards to having a say in their governments. It's nice to see that France has had a steady increase in stability compared to much of the 19th century IOTL, though.
But the implication in the latest update made it seem that, eventually, some nations will shed their monarchies more peacefully in favor of republican forms of government. Would I be right or was I reading you wrong?
The crime syndicates that are going to pop up probably won't go away, even when proper law and order is restored. Will a national stereotype of the country ITTL revolve around organized crime, or at least specific areas? I still can't wrap my head around deciding doing away with the police was a good thing, but I suppose that reactionary policies never really had to be logical either.
Still, an earlier national health care system will be interesting to see unfold, if only to see how other nations react to that.
Spain looks like it could definitely turn very ugly, very quickly. Ferdinand VII seems like the kind of guy whose reaction to these protests will be ham fisted, making the situation much worse than it perhaps have been otherwise. Certainly seems like the end of the line for the House of Bourbon, no puns intended. Equally bad looks like the constant demonization of France by Flanders; doesn't seem too conducive for long term stability in that region when your head of state constantly emphasizes how terrible they are.
I'd also have to agree with Roberto: 'the Concordat' seems like something that's going to be a part of the Great American War period. Seems pretty accurate as far as war aims would go as well. But losing the war opening the door for Societism? I'm not so sure that it'll necessarily involve Old World aristocrats coming in; after all, the latest text mentions that Sanchez was barely relevant when he was alive.
Since he dies in 1868, I'd think instead that we're going to see a long, gradual slide towards a Societist state. The UPSA is likely to go through a lot of soul searching in the aftermath of the Great American War. If it 'wins,' it'll probably be an enormous cost. People will look to make sense out of the world in the wake of it and will find their way to various radical groups (it's a hotbed of that anyway). Slowly, but surely, Societism creeps more and more into Meridian government, etc. and at some point in the future, the UPSA goes through a transition process rather than in a coup.
But the implication in the latest update made it seem that, eventually, some nations will shed their monarchies more peacefully in favor of republican forms of government. Would I be right or was I reading you wrong?
The crime syndicates that are going to pop up probably won't go away, even when proper law and order is restored. Will a national stereotype of the country ITTL revolve around organized crime, or at least specific areas? I still can't wrap my head around deciding doing away with the police was a good thing, but I suppose that reactionary policies never really had to be logical either.
Still, an earlier national health care system will be interesting to see unfold, if only to see how other nations react to that. Spain looks like it could definitely turn very ugly, very quickly. Ferdinand VII seems like the kind of guy whose reaction to these protests will be ham fisted, making the situation much worse than it perhaps have been otherwise. Certainly seems like the end of the line for the House of Bourbon, no puns intended. Equally bad looks like the constant demonization of France by Flanders; doesn't seem too conducive for long term stability in that region when your head of state constantly emphasizes how terrible they are.
I'd also have to agree with Roberto: 'the Concordat' seems like something that's going to be a part of the Great American War period. Seems pretty accurate as far as war aims would go as well. But losing the war opening the door for Societism? I'm not so sure that it'll necessarily involve Old World aristocrats coming in; after all, the latest text mentions that Sanchez was barely relevant when he was alive.
Since he dies in 1868, I'd think instead that we're going to see a long, gradual slide towards a Societist state. The UPSA is likely to go through a lot of soul searching in the aftermath of the Great American War. If it 'wins,' it'll probably be an enormous cost. People will look to make sense out of the world in the wake of it and will find their way to various radical groups (it's a hotbed of that anyway). Slowly, but surely, Societism creeps more and more into Meridian government, etc. and at some point in the future, the UPSA goes through a transition process rather than in a coup.
Last edited:
Thande
Donor
It started out as a "Europeanisation" of Britain and a stabilisation of France in my mind, but the overall result has been almost like Britain and France trading their historical roles, with France being a stable constitutional monarchy and Britain more prone to political upheavals.
That is the implication, indeed.
What you have to remember is that the idea of a national police is a very alien one to the British imagination (there is no national police force in modern Britain aside from specific 'special police forces' like the Transport Police, there are multiple regional territorial police forces with no central authority besides the government itself). It is here associated with Blandford's 'state security' type bullyboys and thus this elimination and banning of a national police force represents a return to what came before. The problem is that the unofficial police forces Britain had before were organised by local government, and local government has been swept away, so...The crime syndicates that are going to pop up probably won't go away, even when proper law and order is restored. Will a national stereotype of the country ITTL revolve around organized crime, or at least specific areas? I still can't wrap my head around deciding doing away with the police was a good thing, but I suppose that reactionary policies never really had to be logical either.
Interesting idea on the later stereotype of Britain being informed by this--obviously in OTL London gangster figures like the Krays are well known but they don't define a significant part of the stereotype of Britain in the way the Mafia does of southern Italy, etc.
I doubt Sanchez will live to see the UPSA become the Combine but I fully expect the transition from the UPSA to Combine to be violent, possibly involving a civil war. I do agree however that the Great North American War will be a key step on the road to the UPSA going Societist.
I think somebody has already mentioned this but the UPSA has been doing way too well for way too long in my opinion, for it to come out of the GNW without at least some damage. One point I would make is that while the UPSA is the dominant power in South America, up until now it has not fought a major power and won. The Second Platinean War only went their way because of the aid of the British; the Third Platinean War only didn't go worse for them because the British were invaded by France and the Brazilian War was against an overstretched and badly run Portugal. If the UPSA gets involved in the Great North American War, it is going to have to fight at least one of the great powers (whether it be New Spain, France, Britain or the ENA) and I have a funny feeling it won't end well for the UPSA.
teg
wolf_brother
Banned
I thought the UPSA was the USA analogue ITTL, meaning it should have a very long stretch of unbelievable luck until it achieves great power status almost by accident.
True, but it also seems to be the Russia analogue but then again Russia had an uncommonly good run of luck until it started to run into trouble after the 1850s. On reflection I actually think that the UPSA still has a few more good years left before things start to crumble.
teg
That doesn't mean Thande has any obligation to make the analogy as close as possible. Quite the opposite, as doing so would smack of Turtledove.
Another observation: Austria and Russia were curiously absent from this update. Obviously the subject matter is the Democratic Experiment, which neither of those states fall under, but still, as far as comparison to more traditional governments go, those are obvious ones.
On one hand, from the writer's point of view, it would be easier to cover one or both of those states in a different update. On the other, I have to assume that Thande chooses all his references/lack thereof consciously and with a convoluted goal in mind.
From the fictional history book writer's point of view, the Central and Western European governments are all relatively easy to shoehorn into one historical concept like the Democratic Experiment, but Austria and Russia (and perhaps Italy?) may provide exceptions to the rule uncomfortable enough to exclude. Maybe they all remain federalist monarchies, but there's the possibility that Italy and Russia slowly democratize at the same time that Western Europe is turning to a new form of "Federalism". This jibes with Russia's trend of moving away from European politics, both insularly and in its involvement in the Far East.
Thande
Donor
That doesn't mean Thande has any obligation to make the analogy as close as possible. Quite the opposite, as doing so would smack of Turtledove.
Another observation: Austria and Russia were curiously absent from this update. Obviously the subject matter is the Democratic Experiment, which neither of those states fall under, but still, as far as comparison to more traditional governments go, those are obvious ones.
On one hand, from the writer's point of view, it would be easier to cover one or both of those states in a different update. On the other, I have to assume that Thande chooses all his references/lack thereof consciously and with a convoluted goal in mind.
From the fictional history book writer's point of view, the Central and Western European governments are all relatively easy to shoehorn into one historical concept like the Democratic Experiment, but Austria and Russia (and perhaps Italy?) may provide exceptions to the rule uncomfortable enough to exclude. Maybe they all remain federalist monarchies, but there's the possibility that Italy and Russia slowly democratize at the same time that Western Europe is turning to a new form of "Federalism". This jibes with Russia's trend of moving away from European politics, both insularly and in its involvement in the Far East.
TBH I think I did well to get in as many countries as I did
But you're also correct in that places like Italy and the Hapsburg dominions have their own separate 'stories' in this period that do not easily fit into the wider Democratic Experiment 'trend' (a point the author is trying to make in the last segment is that these 'trends' are often exaggerated or invented by historians after the fact, and thus the emphasis is on the countries usually cited as part of the trend and not those awkwardly ignored).
Thande
Donor
Also, here's something I want people's opinions on as I'm probably doing an ENA update soon. You recall (with Nugax's help) I made this map of the last ENA election. Well since then I have been working on a lot of OTL British election maps back when we had two-member seats, and I've discovered the convention of just dividing them up with a diagonal line. So I've reworked the map with that rather than a 'little mans' scheme.
Good points: More striking, easier to gauge party strength by region
Bad points: Diagonals can get kind of ugly, you don't appreciate the equality of seats as much (i.e. a large rural seat looks more important than a small urban one but they have the same representation).
Map follows in next post--tell me which system you think you prefer.
Good points: More striking, easier to gauge party strength by region
Bad points: Diagonals can get kind of ugly, you don't appreciate the equality of seats as much (i.e. a large rural seat looks more important than a small urban one but they have the same representation).
Map follows in next post--tell me which system you think you prefer.
Does that mean that Britain (or indeed England) is going to have to install a revolving door in Parliament for the 2nd half of the 19th century?
Also, you've got me curious as to what the "federalist backlash" is - a Regressive Revolution, equivalent to an anti-Revolutions of 1848? Something against the overtly centralising tendancies of Populist governments, perhaps? A bit of both?
And this whole "concordat" thing in Carolina. Is it something to do with that which rhymes with "blavery"?
Alex Richards
Donor
Well seeing as I liked the little man method so much that I began using it for some maps on Northern Ireland's old Parliament...
The biggest problem IMO is that while you can make a diagonal work when you've just got two seat constituencies, any more than that and it becomes horribly messy. I would dread to think of what the 6 MPs of Yorkshire would look like, nethermind how you'd indicate that the seat for Queen's University Belfast is electing the UUP in all four seats rather than being a single seat, and Down's 6/8 UUP, one Nationalist (NI) and one SF would be ghastly.
Anyway...
For the two seat constituencies on the map above, it could work, but a consistent angle on the diagonal would look better.
The biggest problem IMO is that while you can make a diagonal work when you've just got two seat constituencies, any more than that and it becomes horribly messy. I would dread to think of what the 6 MPs of Yorkshire would look like, nethermind how you'd indicate that the seat for Queen's University Belfast is electing the UUP in all four seats rather than being a single seat, and Down's 6/8 UUP, one Nationalist (NI) and one SF would be ghastly.
Anyway...
For the two seat constituencies on the map above, it could work, but a consistent angle on the diagonal would look better.
Well the point of these maps is, above all, to read at a glance who is elected where, yes? And as a sideline to just look good?
If that is indeed the purpose, then something closer to the above is obviously superior.
The little men are definitely neater looking and more organized but (at least as an American) a dull grey map seems awfully boring and inaccessible. It's not as if grey is supposed to be a national color.
I forget - are they elected by district or do larger units assign their second representative to whoever earns the second-most votes? If it were the former, I'd say split on district lines rather than diagonals, regardless of the inevitable size disparity. Though split sections need a more visible line to identify two seats that went to the same party - the lines you're using are so subtle that I missed them until I really worked over the map.
If that is indeed the purpose, then something closer to the above is obviously superior.
The little men are definitely neater looking and more organized but (at least as an American) a dull grey map seems awfully boring and inaccessible. It's not as if grey is supposed to be a national color.
I forget - are they elected by district or do larger units assign their second representative to whoever earns the second-most votes? If it were the former, I'd say split on district lines rather than diagonals, regardless of the inevitable size disparity. Though split sections need a more visible line to identify two seats that went to the same party - the lines you're using are so subtle that I missed them until I really worked over the map.
I like the concept, but the irregular diagonal lines look messy. Maybe a vertical line would be neater?
- Status