Overlooked clichés

[I Blame Communism]

Germany and Italy always unite - or if they don't, they partially unite into two rival states. From a point this is fine, but it also happens in TLs where the POD is centuries before the rise of nationalism. That said, a lot of people would argue that nationalism was an inevitability, but I don't buy that argument. Similarly, states always form around ethnic boundaries - despite things like the Duchy of Burgundy, France's expansion into Italy, the English incursions into France, Denmark and Germany fighting over Schleswig-Holstein, Denmark owning the Scane, etc, eventually it seems that countries owning other ethnic lands in Europe will eventually lose them. The exception here is the multi-ethnic but extremely prominent RL examples, Spain, the UK and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Not to comment on the main issue, these are mostly rather poor or mixed examples. Scania was "ethnically" Danish (their dialect is closer to Danish even today, IIRC, and they kept up a protracted resistance to Sweden for some decades); the Schleswig-Holstein thing was because of ethnic borders.

And while Spain and the UK have strong parallels (a strong overarching identity, one component outsizing the others but the identity still being collective, essentially united by language, and other reasons that we barely qulify as "multi-ethnic"), Austria-Hungary is really different.

 

[pompejus]

Anyways, since I always speak up about disunited Germany, thats not much of an overlooked clichee anymore (though it still exists as an annoying clichee that is used, of course).

Germany and Italy always unite - or if they don't, they partially unite into two rival states. From a point this is fine, but it also happens in TLs where the POD is centuries before the rise of nationalism. That said, a lot of people would argue that nationalism was an inevitability, but I don't buy that argument.

Am I the only one who thinks it is funny that both a united as a disunited Germany is an AH cliche?

 

[Susano]

Germany and Italy always unite - or if they don't, they partially unite into two rival states.

Are you friggen kidding me? If the PoD is before 1860, tnbe somehow Germany and Italy NEVER unite. If a farmer in Texas in 1820 sneazes two times instead of one time, the result will inevitable be a disunited Germany, a disunited Italy and a Greek Aeagan Coast! Which of course totally does ignore the nationalism that at that time was already present. And nationalism itself is inevitable, and that also means the nation-state is inevitable (@Tyr). Nationalism is an inevitable by-product of the rise of democracy, which in turn is an inevitable result of better educated and more prosperous societies.

 

[Nietzsche]

You forgot the Independent Aragon!...the great and proud Aragonese nation must rise and defeat the evils of Spanish oppression!

I truly think Aragon looks just pretty on a map. Especially if it keeps Southern Italy.

 

[Ofaloaf]

You forgot the Independent Aragon!...the great and proud Aragonese nation must rise and defeat the evils of Spanish oppression!

Or at least Catalonia, if not the whole of Aragon.

The main thing with that is simply that there has been a Catalan autonomy/independence movement (more or less) for centuries makes it very tempting to simply let it go off on it's own path at some point.

Which brings up another point-- if a new country is formed at any point in the TL (Catalonia, Brittany, etc.), chances are high that it will stay independent for the rest of the TL and never be (re-)absorbed into a neighboring country.

 

[Falastur]

Perhaps I should respecify. I don't recall any TLs where the Holy Roman Empire exists to the modern day. It's always the German Confederations, or Prussia/Bavaria/France etc split up the rest. The Hohenzollern states are occasional exemptions, but I'd hazard through blood links to Prussia only, so it's circumstantrial. States such as Hesse, Munster, Bayreuth don't have a gnat's chance - if they ever survive to the year 1900, it'll be as a province of Prussia, the Austrian Empire or a foreign state (usually France). It used to be that Germany always survived, it seems that people spotted this and agreed to resolve it so that Germany always exists as three or four states. If you check my first post I did mention that Germany divided into two or three as part of this. My issue isn't so much with the fact that Germany is never less than one state, but rather that it never exists as a total blanket of tiny states.

 

[Kammada]

Medieval steampunk-style Industrial Revolution. Some village blacksmith/alchemist/speculative thinker with an uncommon knack for mechanic devices ... contrives a steam engine, and during his lifetime there are railways all 'round the world, smoking factory chimneys, steam-powered galleys and catapults etc, etc. People don't really realise that a practical steam engine is all but impossible to build, especially in large quantities, without precision tools lying around for quite some time and without Newtonian physics.

Central Asian nations whose borders run along the lines set by the Soviets in 1920s, no matter how far the POD is.

Bohemia's shining absence from political maps of AH Medieval and Renaissance Europe.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Are you friggen kidding me? If the PoD is before 1860, tnbe somehow Germany and Italy NEVER unite. If a farmer in Texas in 1820 sneazes two times instead of one time, the result will inevitable be a disunited Germany, a disunited Italy and a Greek Aeagan Coast! Which of course totally does ignore the nationalism that at that time was already present. And nationalism itself is inevitable, and that also means the nation-state is inevitable (@Tyr). Nationalism is an inevitable by-product of the rise of democracy, which in turn is an inevitable result of better educated and more prosperous societies.

But ethnic nationalism isn't inevitable. Otherwise, why didn't the Germans of Austria-Hungary throw off their Hapsburg oppressors and rush to join the German Empire? I would agree though that Balkanized Germany is more common than united. It seems to me that you need a pre-Napoleonic or at least Napoleonic POD for a realistic non-united Germany. Once you have a totally predominant Prussia...

 

[jycee]

As the others said, you are mostly wrong. Numbers do matter. Even if the Spaniards themselves were outnumbered 100:1, they were still leading an army of 200,000+ native auxiliaries. The native allies won the war for them, before also being wiped out.

On another Mexico-related note, northern Mexico is always annexed by the USA, or if the CSA wins, they somehow buy it off or conquer it. Even more bizarrely, if Texas is independent then northern Mexico is annexed by them, usually through warfare, even though they were lucky enough to win against Santa Anna in the first place. It's especially bad if you go to that ATL Map thread, if Mexico isn't fully annexed you can bet half of it is owned by the USA/CSA/Texas. Most irritating cliche, and yet is always accepted because few people other than me actually care.

Agree on most irritating Cliche

Bohemia's shining absence from political maps of AH Medieval and Renaissance Europe.

This one is also quite irritating.

Particularly when in both cases semi-wanking is not impossible.

 

[Susano]

But ethnic nationalism isn't inevitable. Otherwise, why didn't the Germans of Austria-Hungary throw off their Hapsburg oppressors and rush to join the German Empire? I would agree though that Balkanized Germany is more common than united. It seems to me that you need a pre-Napoleonic or at least Napoleonic POD for a realistic non-united Germany. Once you have a totally predominant Prussia...

The problem with using pre-Napoleonic PoDs is that the HRE statelets are totally unfit to survive... in any case, to answer your question, the Germans of Austria-Hungary very much identified as Germans, but why would that mean they would want to overthrow the system? It was after all Vienna-centered and historically very German! Nationalism doesnt automatically mean one loses all sense of proportion and and all desire for stability. And Austria-Hungary especially existed as more or less a compromise - few of its nationalities wanted it, but before the end of WW1 all thought it wouldnt be worth the chaos to try to overthrow it.

 

[Dilvish]

IBC,

But isn't English/British/those guys naval power ordained by God? Even the atheists believe that, I think.

But the principal reason we became an English dependendancy was England's ability to control our trade, and there's nothing inevitable about English naval power. If France remains a naval powe equal to or greater than England, and a sponsor of Scotland, England can't bankrupt Scotland with an embargo; and then the only recourse is to military force. Lots of countries have survived living next to countries that will invariably win a land war.

And the reason that it took decades from the de-facti English veto on Scottish foreign policy to the Union was that the English didn't want us (for trade reasons augmented by the "everything Cromwell did was bad" doctrine, since he annexed us). They changed their minds for various reasons, mostly to do with the Protestant succesion.

I think Scotland as its own country is a possibility, though it being fully self-sufficeient is unlikley: I include one which is an English (or French!) dependency as "independent". It would have plenty of fascinating butterflies in Scotland and all over the British Empire, and these never seem to be explored.

Totally agree with your other points.

 

[Venusian Si]

Also, Portugal taking Galicia, because it looks good on a map

personally I think portuguese galicia is ugly, but that's just me.

Well, Portuguese Galicia does make some cultural sense. IIRC, the Galician language's closest relative is Portuguese, and some people even think they're two dialects of the same language.

The main problem with Portuguese Galicia is the choice of POD. Most PODs (Usually post 1700) used can't give a plausible explanation for how the Portuguese gain ownership of Galicia.

Personally, I find it weird that OTL Galicia ended up with Castille instead of Portugal. Still, the most plausible POD for a Portuguese Galicia should come from the Middle Ages, especially when Galician and Portuguese were still a single language called Galician-Portuguese.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The problem with using pre-Napoleonic PoDs is that the HRE statelets are totally unfit to survive... in any case, to answer your question, the Germans of Austria-Hungary very much identified as Germans, but why would that mean they would want to overthrow the system? It was after all Vienna-centered and historically very German! Nationalism doesnt automatically mean one loses all sense of proportion and and all desire for stability. And Austria-Hungary especially existed as more or less a compromise - few of its nationalities wanted it, but before the end of WW1 all thought it wouldnt be worth the chaos to try to overthrow it.

Yes, but nobody rushed to join Germany after the Hapsburg state disappeared, either, nor do they seem inclined to now. Likewise, nobody on either side wants a union of Romania & Moldova or Albania & Kosovo. There are other things than ethnicity or even language that are sufficient to hold a state together - even superior, and these can include a general feeling of cultural affinity, as in the case of India. Or shared history, like Switzerland.

HRE statelets are too small to survive, but the larger ones could have, to form the core of states, i.e. Bavaria. But you would need a German state able to counterbalance Prussia in order to prevent German unification, and it's hard to see to many possibilities for that unless you head to the 18th c.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Yes, but nobody rushed to join Germany after the Hapsburg state disappeared, either, nor do they seem inclined to now.

???

You name some valid examples, but the Austrians absolutely wanted to join Germany between after the end of the Hapsburg state. Their legislative body declared the country a German federal state, and though barred by the allies this desire was expressed again and again in unofficial plebiscites and nearly all of the republic's political discourse, and came within a hair's breadth of happening in 1931.

In 1933-34, Germany becomes an abominable regime and Austria a dictatorship held up to a large extent by the then anti-Anschluss Italians... but Hitler, in 1938, still finds enough Austrians for his cheering, Jew-baiting crowds in Vienna, which was decidedly the least Nazi place in decidedly Nazi Austria.

 

[Susano]

Yes, but nobody rushed to join Germany after the Hapsburg state disappeared, either, nor do they seem inclined to now.

...

...Are you kidding me? I mean, youre generally a way too historically knowledgeable person to say something like that. You know what state came into existance in the Austrian corelands after the Habsburg Monarchys fall? Deutschösterreich, literally meaning German Austria. And the first article of the constitution was "Deutschösterreich is part of Germany" or something to that effect.

It were the allies who forbid all of that - Austria joining Germany, even the name German Austria, and really ANY form of union between the two states, including a custom union.

Likewise, nobody on either side wants a union of Romania & Moldova or Albania & Kosovo.

That has more to do with political feasibility. And I think in the former case there are many proponents. OTOH, I can quite understand why Albania wouldnt want the Kosovar mess. In any case, though, I said that nationalism is inevitable in the rise of democracy - in Europe it more or less settled down again.

There are other things than ethnicity or even language that are sufficient to hold a state together - even superior, and these can include a general feeling of cultural affinity, as in the case of India. Or shared history, like Switzerland.

Uh, yeah? I have always said that ethnicity and nationality are two different things, and citizenship yet a third?

HRE statelets are too small to survive, but the larger ones could have, to form the core of states, i.e. Bavaria. But you would need a German state able to counterbalance Prussia in order to prevent German unification, and it's hard to see to many possibilities for that unless you head to the 18th c.

Eh, I dunno. That is true once Prussia got all the western territories at the Congress of Vienna. I mean sure, it had western territories already before, but those were a bunch of smaller exclaves. Without it its feasible (though of course Im loath to say that ) that Prussia is politcially excldued from German unification the same way Austria was IOTL...

 

[Dan1988]

Even then, it's not too certain for a Portuguese Galicia - get an archbishopric in Santiago de Compostela (or rather, Iria) before 1030 CE, which essentially over-shadows Braga (and thus curbstomps the county of Portugal before it gets too uppity), get a few dynastic changes in order, and concentrate most power in Santiago de Compostela, and you'd essentially have the basics of a Galicia-wank, not a Portugal-wank.

Well, Portuguese Galicia does make some cultural sense. IIRC, the Galician language's closest relative is Portuguese, and some people even think they're two dialects of the same language.

The main problem with Portuguese Galicia is the choice of POD. Most PODs (Usually post 1700) used can't give a plausible explanation for how the Portuguese gain ownership of Galicia.

Personally, I find it weird that OTL Galicia ended up with Castille instead of Portugal. Still, the most plausible POD for a Portuguese Galicia should come from the Middle Ages, especially when Galician and Portuguese were still a single language called Galician-Portuguese.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

...

...Are you kidding me? I mean, youre generally a way too historically knowledgeable person to say something like that. You know what state came into existance in the Austrian corelands after the Habsburg Monarchys fall? Deutschösterreich, literally meaning German Austria. And the first article of the constitution was "Deutschösterreich is part of Germany" or something to that effect.

It were the allies who forbid all of that - Austria joining Germany, even the name German Austria, and really ANY form of union between the two states, including a custom union.


That has more to do with political feasibility. And I think in the former case there are many proponents. OTOH, I can quite understand why Albania wouldnt want the Kosovar mess. In any case, though, I said that nationalism is inevitable in the rise of democracy - in Europe it more or less settled down again.


Uh, yeah? I have always said that ethnicity and nationality are two different things, and citizenship yet a third?


Eh, I dunno. That is true once Prussia got all the western territories at the Congress of Vienna. I mean sure, it had western territories already before, but those were a bunch of smaller exclaves. Without it its feasible (though of course Im loath to say that ) that Prussia is politcially excldued from German unification the same way Austria was IOTL...

If there had been a very strong will on the part of Austrians to join Germany, they would have. There were a lot of political combinations in the interwar period that not a lot of people were in favor of but happened anyway - like the Turks getting Istanbul back, or Germany reoccupying the Rhineland. I don't think the average Austrian really regarded it as a massive priority - as evidenced by the close votes.

I'm not even sure I agree that nationalism is inevitable in the rise of democracy. Britain and the USA seem to have avoided it...

 

[wilcoxchar]

No matter what, Sicily (and usually all of southern Italy) will become an economic backwater of whatever country they're part of. Be it Italy, Aragon, Spain, France, the Ottomans, or whoever, Sicily will be ignored or poor. Which, while it did happen in OTL, seems unlikely to me since the island's central position in the Mediterranean should make it an ideal place to control trade in the area.

 

[Ofaloaf]

No matter what, Sicily (and usually all of southern Italy) will become an economic backwater of whatever country they're part of. Be it Italy, Aragon, Spain, France, the Ottomans, or whoever, Sicily will be ignored or poor. Which, while it did happen in OTL, seems unlikely to me since the island's central position in the Mediterranean should make it an ideal place to control trade in the area.

Sicily is pretty ruddy in terms of agriculture and industry, though. If a united Italy controls it, industry is going to be concentrated in the Po Valley-- if Spain/Aragon/Iberia control it, industry and agriculture will be somewhere on the Iberian Peninsula. If the Ottomans control it-- nuts, they've got better farmland elsewhere, so Sicily would be a military outpost and not much else.

 

[Dan1988]

Which, while it did happen in OTL, seems unlikely to me since the island's central position in the Mediterranean should make it an ideal place to control trade in the area.

Well, virtually every Mediterranean people out there have made their mark on Sicily, so you have a point there.