Map Thread XXI

Status
Not open for further replies.
A scenario, that has been stuck in my head for a long time. A scenario, where Doggerland never been flooded and the Frisians settled there in the late antiquity/ early middle ages.
Nearly all the Frisians moved to what we, in OTL, know as "Doggerland". They intermixed with the local population and overlapped the Frisian language(s) over the local one(s). Later some Angles and Jutes came to the island and left a noticeable but not too heavy mark in the developement of the Frisian nation-genesis. The vikings conquered the land but could be "shaken off" soon, though the Norsemen left a not-to-be-scoffed-at influence in terms of both linguistics and culture.
In 1603, the unification of the Frisian lands could be realized and the Kingdom of Frisland was born.
Later Frisland fought against the English, the Danes and the French.
During the Napoleonic era, Frisland was on the side of the British and member of the coalitions.
From the 17th to the 19th century, Frisland could establish four larger colonies: Atera (what's New Zealand in OTL), Madagascar, Orangania (what's Gabun, mainland-Equatorialguinea and Brazzeville-Congo in OTL) and Patagonia. All these gained independence from 1940 to 1963.
In the first world war, Frisland fought on the side of the Central Powers. After losing, Frisland lost its monarchy and has been transformed into a parliamentary republic. During WWII, the country stayed neutral and could manage to keep both the Germans and British outside of Frisland. At least mostly - the country received a few bombings from both sides, but especially sea battles near the Frislandic coast.
The end of WWII led Frisland into a strongly left-winged direction and in 1951, the country felt into a socialistic dictatorship - with secret help from the Soviet Union.
During the late 50s and the 60s, the People's Republic of Frisland built an arsenal of nuclear weapons.
In 1976, the country could shake off the dictatorship due to the so called "Codfish revolution". But contrary to expections, the newly democratized country did not want to join NATO, the country decided to stay neutral.
In 1979, oil and gas has been found near Holenschlot, Ürlbeschlot and Daraugüm.
In 1995, Frisland joined the EU and in 2007 the Euro-zone.


QpftBYx.png
 
No it wasn't. Even as late as the 1930s, British Reports lamented that majority of their populace called themselves and tied themselves to the Ottoman Empire in Iraq, Palestine and Jordan. The French commented the same in the 1938 Orient Report in Syria and Lebanon. Turkey, no words required - The Turkish identity evolved directly from the Ottoman one. Of the 103 Battles the Ottomans fought in ww1, they claimed victory in 44 of them, with a victory rate of 40.1% despite being outnumbered 5:1 across all the fronts in terms of manpower and being outproduced 28:1 in terms of industry. On a one on one fight, the Ottomans would crush any power in the Sinai, there is no contest.
Well first of all it FOR SURE will not be 1:1 and secondly don't you think that Israeli army's record is a bit more impressive than the Ottomans not sucking balls almost half the time?
 
Well first of all it FOR SURE will not be 1:1 and secondly don't you think that Israeli army's record is a bit more impressive than the Ottomans not sucking balls almost half the time?
Just adding otl population of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Hejaz, the historical borders of the Ottoman Empire in 1914 gives a population of ~200 Million. Democratic countries generally employ 0.7% of their workforce into the military at median which gives an average of ~1.2 Million military personnel in the hypothetical OE at median. The Ottomans would be able to use what is 20% of the entire population of the Sinai Israel against them. Even if the Sinai Israelis mobilized 42% of their population - the highest mobilized in history - that only gives them 2.54 Million, a 2:1 advantage. The Ottomans mobilizing 1.5% of their workforce - arabs generally mobilized 3.1% during the Israeli-Arab wars, the Ottomans would outnumber even a 40% mobilized Israeli force by 1.7:1. So yes, in every scenario, the Ottomans would outnumber the Sinai Israelis by a massive margin. The Israeli Army, while impressive, has nothing on the Ottomans in the early twentieth century. In constant total war from 1911 - 1919 soaking up 1.2 Million deaths, and over 3.8 million injuries, yet being declared the best defensive army in the WW1 by the Franco-British. And in all Arab-Israeli Wars, the Israelis were not outproduced, they were outproducing their enemies, and the manpower disparity in 1948 was in favor of the Israelis, in 1967 it was a disparity of 2.3:1 and in 1973 it was a disparity of 2.5: 1. Frankly, the military situation in ww1, especially in regards to the Ottomans, Russians and Austro-Hungarians are much much more nuanced than simply saying 'sucking balls' which is frankly, a naive statement, all things considered - even from a layman's point of view.
 
1. Might be surprised.

2. Plenty of reasons. Starting with Suez.
1) No

2) They already control it, and if they didn't they wouldn't go for creating this weird state in the first place
Just adding otl population of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Hejaz, the historical borders of the Ottoman Empire in 1914 gives a population of ~200 Million. Democratic countries generally employ 0.7% of their workforce into the military at median which gives an average of ~1.2 Million military personnel in the hypothetical OE at median. The Ottomans would be able to use what is 20% of the entire population of the Sinai Israel against them. Even if the Sinai Israelis mobilized 42% of their population - the highest mobilized in history - that only gives them 2.54 Million, a 2:1 advantage. The Ottomans mobilizing 1.5% of their workforce - arabs generally mobilized 3.1% during the Israeli-Arab wars, the Ottomans would outnumber even a 40% mobilized Israeli force by 1.7:1. So yes, in every scenario, the Ottomans would outnumber the Sinai Israelis by a massive margin. The Israeli Army, while impressive, has nothing on the Ottomans in the early twentieth century. In constant total war from 1911 - 1919 soaking up 1.2 Million deaths, and over 3.8 million injuries, yet being declared the best defensive army in the WW1 by the Franco-British. And in all Arab-Israeli Wars, the Israelis were not outproduced, they were outproducing their enemies, and the manpower disparity in 1948 was in favor of the Israelis, in 1967 it was a disparity of 2.3:1 and in 1973 it was a disparity of 2.5: 1. Frankly, the military situation in ww1, especially in regards to the Ottomans, Russians and Austro-Hungarians are much much more nuanced than simply saying 'sucking balls' which is frankly, a naive statement, all things considered - even from a layman's point of view.
Nice calculations, one small issue: it's the Ottoman Empire, so they'll fail at mobilizing first, fail at organizing their operations second, start genociding some part of their population instead of fighting off envading force third, get bogged down putting down some rebellion fourth, and by that time they'll be either getting buttfucked by Russia or just being told by some other European Power to cut their losses, fall back and regroup, after all it's not that much of a loss, it's not like Constantinople is threatened, and the Suez is already lost for them
 
@Techno Angel

Could you please take this to another thread if you are so adamant about it? I don't think you have given reasons nor arguments for any of your points beyond practically taking typical memes of history and redacting them so they aren't in the format of memes... But I might be wrong. The thing is that continuing derailing the Map Thread isn't worth it because of this discussion, or almost any off-topic discussion.
 
it's the Ottoman Empire, so they'll fail at mobilizing first
Yeah, i can already tell you're not informed on the subject. WW1, historians - Eugene Rogan, Hans-Lukas Kieser, Melanie S. Tanielian, Max Hastings, Edward J. Erickson, Elif Mahir Metinsoy, David Fromkin, Sean McMeekin, etc - all consider the Ottomans to have had one of the best mobilizations in Europe at the time of ww1, mobilizing 2.9 - 3.2 Million men in under 7 months despite having a population of ~33 million only abouts.
 
The Confederation of the Himalayas, by Sārthākā
qJAec8l.png

An Infographic on the Himlayan Confederation, a nation that was seriously in the cards until 1928, when Tibet backed out of the proposals due to the legal ambiguity of their country - being de-facto independent but de-jure considered still a part of China. Thoughts and Comments?
 
@Techno Angel

Could you please take this to another thread if you are so adamant about it? I don't think you have given reasons nor arguments for any of your points beyond practically taking typical memes of history and redacting them so they aren't in the format of memes... But I might be wrong. The thing is that continuing derailing the Map Thread isn't worth it because of this discussion, or almost any off-topic discussion.
You might be right, Map thread is not a place for lengthy discussions, but when I'm getting notifications that someone replied to my post I just answer to it
 
Yeah, i can already tell you're not informed on the subject. WW1, historians - Eugene Rogan, Hans-Lukas Kieser, Melanie S. Tanielian, Max Hastings, Edward J. Erickson, Elif Mahir Metinsoy, David Fromkin, Sean McMeekin, etc - all consider the Ottomans to have had one of the best mobilizations in Europe at the time of ww1, mobilizing 2.9 - 3.2 Million men in under 7 months despite having a population of ~33 million only abouts.
Maybe I'm just more concerned with the outcome?
 
Maybe I'm just more concerned with the outcome?
and unless the Sinai Israelis have a major foreign backer - like Russia for example (and why would the infamously anti-semitic Imperial Russians aid Jews? - especially when they were dumping Jews at the Ottomans historically by sending their jewish population to the Ottomans in return for economic concessions to the Ottomans.) on a one on one fight, its pretty simple from every calculation - a one on one Sinai Israel vs the Ottomans would see the former lose badly.
 
A scenario, that has been stuck in my head for a long time. A scenario, where Doggerland never been flooded and the Frisians settled there in the late antiquity/ early middle ages.
I imagine that even if you assume ttl's version of england still got a Norman invasion, more ties between it/frisia/the germanic mainland probably means somewhat more "dutch" sounding *english.

Either that or Frislonn also got invaded by the normans and you have Frisian AGAIN being different than OTL frisian thanks to a similar amount of french influence as english OTL
 
and unless the Sinai Israelis have a major foreign backer.
Well they clearly would have, otherwise this state would have no chance of appearing on the map in the first place!
like Russia for example (and why would the infamously anti-semitic Imperial Russians aid Jews? - especially when they were dumping Jews at the Ottomans historically by sending their jewish population to the Ottomans in return for economic concessions to the Ottomans.) on a one on one fight, its pretty simple from every calculation - a one on one Sinai Israel vs the Ottomans would see the former lose badly.
Well first of all the British would've probably been that backer, secondly Russia is clearly interested in destroying the Ottoman empire for good more than in "getting concessions", thirdly why send off some of the Jews to the Ottomans if you can send off all of them to their new Jewish state?

Funny how you ignore all the examples of much smaller but better organized and motivated force - wich the Jews would certainty be - beating up the much larger force? Anyway I'm uninterested in continuing this conversation with you
 
Well they clearly would have, otherwise this state would have no chance of appearing on the map in the first place!
The Ottomans were sponsoring the Sinai Option in our timeline alongside the British. The Ottomans are the backer.

Well first of all the British would've probably been that backer, secondly Russia is clearly interested in destroying the Ottoman empire for good more than in "getting concessions", thirdly why send off some of the Jews to the Ottomans if you can send off all of them to their new Jewish state

Because that's what they did historically? Even as late as 1921 the Russians were sending Jews to ottoman turkey despite British Palestine being there. Also previous to 1912, the ottomans and Russians enjoyed very good relations with one another. An entente ottoman means the very continuation of that.

Funny how you ignore all the examples of much smaller but better organized and motivated force - wich the Jews would certainty be - beating up the much larger force? Anyway I'm uninterested in continuing this conversation with you

I have with sources backing, explained how the military situation of the ottomans and the Arabs are very very different to one another to which you replied with 'sucking balls' alongside very factually incorrect statements. Need more be said of the matter?

Thank you for your concession. The thread has been derailed enough.
 
Last edited:
The Ottomans were sponsoring the Sinai Option in our timeline alongside the British. The Ottomans are the backer.
Well later IOTL the Soviets pushed for the creation of Israel, but that later went not as planned, did it? I don't think it'll go against the Ottomans 1:1 but once WW1 starts it will be fighting against them for Jerusalem for sure

So there is a way to create a Jewish state in Sinai but there is no way it remains confined to just Sinai
 
Well later IOTL the Soviets pushed for the creation of Israel, but that later went not as planned, did it? I don't think it'll go against the Ottomans 1:1 but once WW1 starts it will be fighting against them for Jerusalem for sure

So there is a way to create a Jewish state in Sinai but there is no way it remains confined to just Sinai
Without ottoman support, the Jews would not be able to settle Sinai at all. The British were insistent that they would not give the go ahead without ottoman support, and the ottomans owned 63% of Sinai's private territory in 1914 through shares and stakes before it was seized by the British during historical ww1 in 1916. Without the ottomans, in-verse the Jews would have no homeland in the Sinai. And with the in-verse Ottomans in the Entente, the Brits and Russians are not going to invade their ally either.
 
Oh my fucking God, create a thread in the After 1900 forum and @ the participants on the original post or something. Like, please, any one of you, be the bigger person and create a new thread, and stop hogging this one. Many people have this thread on watch and want to be notified about MAPS.
 
Oh my fucking God, create a thread in the After 1900 forum and @ the participants on the original post or something. Like, please, any one of you, be the bigger person and create a new thread, and stop hogging this one. Many people have this thread on watch and want to be notified about MAPS.
My apologies. Sorry. Will not continue the derailment any further.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top