Real nation that otherwise would be ASB?

What I am coming to believe is that the entire world is ASB. It seems that when you think about it hardly any countries make any sense.
The UK. An amalgamation of three separate nations with a history of violent warfare between them suddenly unite and conquer the largest empire the world has ever seen.

England conquered Wales in the 13th century; it united with Scotland in the 18th century. I'm not sure "sudden" is the way to describe that process ...;)
 
Another bit to add to Prussia
It was set on the path to becoming the foremost land power in the world by the British who were try to shaft it with the responsibility of being Germany's personal watch dog.
 
Last edited:
Khmer Rouge. It would break suspension of disbelief for such a cruel, stupid, and bloodthirsty regime to exist if it were fictional. They're basically a dark parody of the worst stereotypes of communist regimes.
 
I wonder how Bolivia still exist to this day, 50% of their original territory was conquered by their neighbors, its landlocked and have serious economic and and racial problems between the whites from the west and the natives from the east, even the natives have problems between them, however they're still here and civil war is every day less pausible
 
Has anybody mentioned the Ottomans? Think about it: nomads from Central Asia make their way to Anatolia, remaining for the most part a series of competing tribes without being destroyed. They then proceed to not only conquer Anatolia, they cross into Europe without taking Constantinople. All of this is done while surviving the entrenched local powers and Timur, who kicked their asses. After beating every major power in the region and conquering a city renowned as an impregnable fortress, they drive deep into Europe through the terrible infrastructure and besiege Vienna and drive off a coalition that formed to stop them, retaining massive gains. And as they decay, they still retained massive territories despite being outclassed. On top of that, in their penultimate war they not only stand up to the world's greatest power, they bloody its nose and deny it victory on the battlefield, forcing it to rely on internal revolt. They then defeat an attempt to carve up Anatolia by the victorious powers before finally becoming a republic. And remember, this was done by nomads from Central Asia.
Well, to be fair, nomads from central Asia have a long history of conquest and empires. The people of Hungary and Finland are from central Asia. Huns, seljuk Turks, Persians/Iranians, even the Hindus of India, and the many nomad tribes that attacked China over the years.
 
Well, to be fair, nomads from central Asia have a long history of conquest and empires. The people of Hungary and Finland are from central Asia. Huns, seljuk Turks, Persians/Iranians, even the Hindus of India, and the many nomad tribes that attacked China over the years.

Be careful about assuming a connection between language and genetics. Genetic studies have shown relatively few differences between Austrians and Hungarians, despite their very different languages. As for Finns, they seem to be quite unique genetically, though their closest relatives seem to be Estonians and Swedes.
 
Be careful about assuming a connection between language and genetics. Genetic studies have shown relatively few differences between Austrians and Hungarians, despite their very different languages. As for Finns, they seem to be quite unique genetically, though their closest relatives seem to be Estonians and Swedes.

Didn't similar studies prove that the English are genetically very similar to the Welsh, and that Turks have more in common with Greeks than with people from central Asia? As in, a group of conquerors small enough to have almost no effect on the genetic makeup of a population successfully imposed its culture and language on the conquered in more than one place and more than one time.

Also, there is no genetic difference at all between Bosniaks, Croatians, Montenegrins and Serbs, but don't tell them or they'll try to genocide and war crime each other yet again.
 
Well, to be fair, nomads from central Asia have a long history of conquest and empires. The people of Hungary and Finland are from central Asia. Huns, seljuk Turks, Persians/Iranians, even the Hindus of India, and the many nomad tribes that attacked China over the years.

But did any of them create empires lasting for over 500 years?
 
Didn't similar studies prove that the English are genetically very similar to the Welsh, and that Turks have more in common with Greeks than with people from central Asia? As in, a group of conquerors small enough to have almost no effect on the genetic makeup of a population successfully imposed its culture and language on the conquered in more than one place and more than one time.

Also, there is no genetic difference at all between Bosniaks, Croatians, Montenegrins and Serbs, but don't tell them or they'll try to genocide and war crime each other yet again.
I completely agree about Serbo-Croats and "ethnic Muslims" in Bosnia all being the same. However, genetic studies do show a difference between Celts and English (exception being individuals from high Celtic areas like Cornwall, who identify as English but are more Celtic.

To the person about Austrians and Hungarians that's not true. Hungarians and Finns (and of course Finns are closely related to Estonians! Estonians ARE also from central asia); genetic studies prove the populations are related to each other and Asian groups with higher levels of Denisovian genes and lesser with the neandertal, unlike the europeans.
 
Belgium
Some guys watch an opera, decide to revolt. The Dutch try at first to restore order, but just give up. Belgium soon becomes an industrial powerhouse, and its King gets a giagantic colony as private domain. The most important port first has to go through another country before it can access the North sea (Antwerp) During the world wars, Germany bites off more than it can chew, with the Yser in the first, and the chasseurs ardennais in the second. After the second world war, it becomes the political center of Europe (Brussel), while Belgium itself goes more than a year with no government. Also, there was a party that achieved everything in their programme, so they just dissolved. The upper half wants to secede back to the Netherlands, while the south still thinks they are the most important. We have six ministers of environment for a country of 30 000 square kilometres, because of a bureaucracy so complex it would make Kafka weep.
(pls send help)
 
Belgium
(pls send help)
What kind of help?
On a similar note the whole European colonial empire thing was kinda ASB. Small nations from a continent that had traditionally been a backwater suddenly exploding onto the world scene. And despite relitively small populations they manage to dominate large parts of the world, such as India or Brazil, for centuries.
 
To the person about Austrians and Hungarians that's not true. Hungarians and Finns (and of course Finns are closely related to Estonians! Estonians ARE also from central asia); genetic studies prove the populations are related to each other and Asian groups with higher levels of Denisovian genes and lesser with the neandertal, unlike the europeans.

I'm not sure where you are getting this idea from. Here's a genetic map of Europe, based on Y-DNA:

genterkep.jpg


Again, we see that genetics has more to do with geography than language spoken. Austrians and Hungarians are genetically very close but speak completely different languages. Ditto for Estonians and Latvians, and Greeks and Turks. Language is more about culture than ancestry, and culture is flexible.

Incidentally, the Uralic languages are not spoken so much in the Central Asian steppe but in northern portions of the Eurasian landmass.

300px-Linguistic_map_of_the_Uralic_languages_(en).png
 
Last edited:
Top