Let's Create a Community Alternate Scenario

[EMT0]

Are we going with the idea here that the Turkish states never truly assimilated the Anatolian population and are instead a generally very scattered overlord class, but give them Rhomaioi as an accepted culture? I'm not sure how the Rhomaioi would be the majority in the Anatolian parts of the ERE otherwise. Maybe even possibly have the Constantinople-based Turkish kingdom be a Hellenified Turkish kingdom and the other one simply be a Turkish kingdom? With the POD we're thinking about, I don't think there were very many Christian Turks left; the majority, if not all, were already Muslims at this point, so if we went with the Hellenified, Turkish, Constantinople-based kingdom, it would be Islamic. Also, what would the primary culture of the Knights be? It could be it's own derived culture at this point, derived from French, Italian, and Greek culture, independent of all of them?

[Dyranum]

Yeah, I think it is best to have less Turkish assimilation of Anatolia. It isn't too unlikely either, due to the much later fall of Constantinople. I think we should do it like that, yeah. Sounds good.

Now, about the Templars: I think it is best to give them their own culture, to keep them out of all that Culture Union trouble. What should it be called though? Templar? Templari?

EDIT: That came out sounding sarcastic, didn't it?

EDIT2: So, who are the Knights anyway? I don't think we've established that. Knights Templar?

EDIT3: Also, did we ever agree on which of the Chinese countries would be that Peasant republic that we talked about?

EDIT4: Here's a crazy idea: how about giving Haiti to the Templars? Would provide a good base to assault Moorish South America from and establishing Templar Maya and what not.

[HabemusZlatan]

Greeks were a strong minority (roughly 18% of total non-assimilated population) IRL in the aegean coast, Cyprus and Black Sea coast until World War 1, so a more tolerant, less powerful, hellenized and pretty weak Turkish kindgom would probably remain a scattered, elite minority in the western part of anatolia and black sea coast. I see them being the majority from Konya and further east, with Armenians being a strong minority further east. Also, Rhomaioi is too medieval as a name to be used for the culture, I'd use Romios to define the Byzantine Greek population of both Greece and Anatolia and probably cut off the whole Hellene culture thingy.

[Dyranum]

Wut?

....We've got Templars, Al-Andalus, Austria, Saxony, Denmark-Norway, Brittany, G.D. Lithuania, Jagiellonian Realm, and you're telling me that "Rhomaioi" is "too medieval"? It is a perfectly legitimate term. Saying "Rhomaioi" is "Medieval" (whatever that means) is like saying that "Britannia" is too "Antique".
Besides, the term "Romios" only came into being under Ottoman rule. The vastly different conditions in this TL is unlikely to give rise to a new term. Also, "Rhomaioi" is much more logical, seeing as how the ERE is "Basileia ton Rhomaion".

[EMT0]

Yeah, I think it is best to have less Turkish assimilation of Anatolia. It isn't too unlikely either, due to the much later fall of Constantinople. I think we should do it like that, yeah. Sounds good.

Now, about the Templars: I think it is best to give them their own culture, to keep them out of all that Culture Union trouble. What should it be called though? Templar? Templari?

EDIT: That came out sounding sarcastic, didn't it?

EDIT2: So, who are the Knights anyway? I don't think we've established that. Knights Templar?

EDIT3: Also, did we ever agree on which of the Chinese countries would be that Peasant republic that we talked about?

EDIT4: Here's a crazy idea: how about giving Haiti to the Templars? Would provide a good base to assault Moorish South America from and establishing Templar Maya and what not.

Anyway, ignoring the snide sarcasm(), let's hear some more feedback on the idea of a lessened assimilation of Anatolians to some people who probably know better than you or I before we go ahead with it. That or get enough overwhelming support to go via mob vote. I like the latter option better personally. As to the Templars, I agree with them having their own independent culture, but we never agreed as to either their origins or anything else of that matter. I support giving them Haiti though. We could even say that they established a new allied Order in the Mayan region, and decided to let it charter its own holy mission, and have it be a puppet of the Knights or maybe even a substate, as these Knights don't seem to be the kind to be booted out. This is why I'm so in support of boosting up the Knights(except for at the expense of the Inca though);

Part of me wants to make the Knights the fun option in this mod; the unexpected, hard, but fun underdog that an AI would be meh at, but that a good player could potentially pull something crazy with. We can give the Knights a very elaborate series of decisions, events, etc. so as to give them the possibility of becoming awesome. CBs, events, decisions, etc., with modifiers giving high assimilation and high militancy if not an accepted/primary culture, so as to make them very workable and flexable. The Knights....well, we can say that the Knights of St. John, the Templars, and some very powerful financial backers, amongst them the King of Poland-into-Space, England, and Austria, established them on Malta in the year XXXX, and that from there it's all just a long series of rather unlikely events.

As to China, I'm not sure; I only ever really looked at Maritime China in all honesty. As to the naming of culture groups; we can probably add Hellenes into Rhomaioi, but I'm not sure about calling them Romios; seems like it's unlikely to arise if it came out of Ottoman rule; we have Hellenized Turks here, so it'd probably remain Rhomaioi; maybe a slight spelling change, but the Turks sound like Hellenophiles, so I'm again not very certain about spelling changes.

EDIT: I do agree with the distribution of nationalities for Anatolia however. Any ideas whether it'd be more populated or less populated ITTL?

[Gloa]

Yeah, I think it is best to have less Turkish assimilation of Anatolia. It isn't too unlikely either, due to the much later fall of Constantinople. I think we should do it like that, yeah. Sounds good.

Now, about the Templars: I think it is best to give them their own culture, to keep them out of all that Culture Union trouble. What should it be called though? Templar? Templari?

EDIT: That came out sounding sarcastic, didn't it?

EDIT2: So, who are the Knights anyway? I don't think we've established that. Knights Templar?

Well, the Knights Hospitaller (Knights of St. John, Knights of Rhodes*, etc.**) are in existence in the Mediterranean. I think I suggested early on for there to be a Knights of New Jerusalem centered in the New World somewhere (basically on the concept that "hey, these Knights of St. John are doing pretty well at keeping us from all falling to the Muslim menace - so now how about we set up another knightly order to keep them from dominating us in the Caribbean as well?") and then someone suggested the Knights Templar going to Yucatan and then the two ideas sort of merged together somewhere along the way?

*I seem to recall that they haven't lost Rhodes in this timeline, and thus aren't the Knights of Malta - if they do control the island, it is simply coincidence.
**Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem and of Rhodes, Knights of Rhodes, and...

EDIT3: Also, did we ever agree on which of the Chinese countries would be that Peasant republic that we talked about?

Probably something in northern or central China (basically because it's a lot harder to justify an independent state like Yunnan or Sichuan there*). The borders on the map are pretty arbitrary at the moment (aside from Yunnan and Sichuan, perhaps). Splitting China across the Yangtze might be a good idea. They could control all the currently brown and yellow parts [going off this map - first map I found looking back across the suggestions] roughly south of Shanghai. The blue, pink, and the rest of the yellow parts would have to be split into various independent kingdoms, the peasant state, and maybe some warlords. I'd think a lot of the border areas would be de-facto under the control of the local governors, military generals, peasant or bandit rebels, etc. - we could use vassals and substates for that, with the states very unlikely to follow many of the whims of the mother country aside from some token homage and support. European travelers and governments would largely recognize the independent warlords and leaders (at least the more stable ones) and deal with them directly apart from the area they saw as "China" proper. The peasant's republic would simply be the largest and least docile of these states (although some of the other states could also be governments from revolts which never got suppressed, but more willing to manage their own lands and let the dynasty claim imperial control over them).

In this setup, we could also give (light purple) Yunnan and (grey) Sichuan some more territory along the borders - as well as the Koreans and Mongols.

*I could see a Manchu state up there, but it would be quite odd for them to have swept through China but lost Manchuria to the Koreans.

[Dyranum]

Definitely agree with making the Templars fun and challenging. Crusading here we come!

Now, I would consider me having a fair bit of knowledge on the ERE (though not nearly as much as I'd want to), so what would prevent the Anatolians from mass-assimilating to Turks pretty much boils down to: less oppressive taxes. However, letting the Empire's Hellenic culture really entrench itself there is also a viable possibility, as assimilation is a slow process and the later the ERE falls, the less time it has to happen, and maybe it won't even happen at all with a much later fall of the Empire? A Byz victory at Manzikert is very useful for this possibility (which is very plausible. It only requires the emperor to appoint that other general he was considering instead of a Doukas. He did take some time mulling over which general to pick. Really, the Seljuk victory at Manzikert was pure luck for them and bad luck for the Byz. It's a 50/50 thing, really.) .

EDIT: @Gloa, You know, it is southern China which had a tendency to revolt. Besides, down there is where all the other sub-groups of chinese are. I would say a peasant state is more plausible in the South and Middle than in the North.

[EMT0]

Let's all be frank here; do we REALLY need a reason as to why we have the potential for a much greater Byzanto-wank thank Vanilla V2 allows to occur? Although the reasons seem perfectly valid; a more prestigious Byzantium, the harder and longer it'll be for the populace to be assimilated. Although I think the idea of a Hellenized Turkish kingdom would probably be enough to stop Hellenization. I think that the actual big divide between the Bosporus Straights would really be that one side is Greek and Christian, while the other is Greek and Muslim, and all of them, except for the openly Turkish state, claim to be successors to Byzantium. The Constainople-based Turks are really Greeks, just that a noticeable minority, maybe even a plurality or majority, are Muslim Greeks, and Muslim Greeks dominate the state. Then again, other than language, that's supposedly all that separates modern-day Greeks and Turks, so eh. Although, if we went with a victory at Manzikert, the idea of a Christian, Hellenized Turkish claimant to the Roman throne suddenly becomes valid.

EDIT: As to China, I'll have to respectively take a step back on that one; China is REALLY not my strong point in history. My strong points in terms of history(amongst other history lovers, mind you) would probably be the Inca Empire and South America in general up until independence, which I know in detail. Other than that, my knowledge is very general, but broad. Which is why I'll be keeping my suggestions on China to a minimum; I don't really know enough to offer good ideas, advice, or support, other than 'This looks fun/balanced'.

[Gloa]

Definitely agree with making the Templars fun and challenging. Crusading here we come!

And the tiny Knights Hospitaller in the Med. Sea. Surrounded by much more powerful nations in a volatile setting filled with people who don't like you and holding territories probably claimed by half a dozen other states? - survive, men, and protect Christendom while you're doing it.

EDIT: @Gloa, You know, it is southern China which had a tendency to revolt. Besides, down there is where all the other sub-groups of chinese are. I would say a peasant state is more plausible in the South and Middle than in the North.

Southern China's further away from Beijing and the Manchurians. With the Manchurians/Mongols forcing the Ming-analogue state into the South, I think they'd have a better hold of the region (and a lot of the territory they do hold there is coastal).

Perhaps they should be centered around the Yangtze (and Nanjing), though - stretching from Fujian to Jiangsu with control of some of the islands as well. The north would be divided into a couple warlords (left to their own devices because at least they keep the Mongol and the Korean at bay), and then the south (Guandong/Guangxi and some of the brown region) would be corrupt powerful local rulers (who basically own the region - warlords, but originally governors rather than generals) and pirates. The center (brown and pink) would be one big peasant proto-socialist state, with maybe a few less idealistic bandit kings ruling in places as well.

China would try to rein in the more openly independent nations now and then, but everyone else would have an interest in keeping them divided (Western powers want to keep their spheres of influence and their deals with local leaders, no local leader wants a stronger China interfering with their business next, the surrounding countries want to keep the tiny states alive and dependent on them for survival). Maybe the peasant state, once it managed to take control of its own claimed region (from the bandit states - it has just as much trouble holding its territory together as the main Chinese dynasty) and gain some radical ideas, would also seek to unite China if they could.

[HabemusZlatan]

Wut?

....We've got Templars, Al-Andalus, Austria, Saxony, Denmark-Norway, Brittany, G.D. Lithuania, Jagiellonian Realm, and you're telling me that "Rhomaioi" is "too medieval"? It is a perfectly legitimate term. Saying "Rhomaioi" is "Medieval" (whatever that means) is like saying that "Britannia" is too "Antique".
Besides, the term "Romios" only came into being under Ottoman rule. The vastly different conditions in this TL is unlikely to give rise to a new term. Also, "Rhomaioi" is much more logical, seeing as how the ERE is "Basileia ton Rhomaion".

Rhomioi is medieval greek, that's what I meant. I hope you realize my point and that this little "fight" ends here. Also, name I suggested should have been spelled Romaios (modern greek, singular for Roman. Without the h.), but I mispelled it for whatever reason.

P.S. Sorry if I sound harsh, it's not my intention.

[Dyranum]

Rhomioi is medieval greek, that's what I meant. I hope you realize my point and that this little "fight" ends here. Also, name I suggested should have been spelled Romaios (modern greek, singular for Roman. Without the h.), but I mispelled it for whatever reason.

P.S. Sorry if I sound harsh, it's not my intention.

You know, modern Greek (as in the official state language, not the dialects) is a barbaric butchery of the Greek language, though I do not know to what extent. Greek nationalists wanted the language to be "pure" (whatever that means) and removed a lot of words which they saw as "un-greek". As you might notice, I have an intense dislike of such things. Also, I should note: the "h" in Rhomaioi and Rhomania is probably there to dispell confusion with Romania as it isn't actually spelled "Rh" in Greek AFAIK.
Romaios sounds better than the term "Romios" (which only arise during Ottoman rule). However, when naming culture one does not go by singular nor plural, but possessive. For example: the culture of Iceland is "Icelandic" and not "Icelander".

EDIT: Hmm, came out sounding real aggressive there. Let's just leave this discussion, eh?

[Mr. Yellow]

There are some new names for provinces in Alaska&Cascadia:
Vancouver - Pavloslav
San-Francisko - Fort Ross, or just "Ross"
Vancouver Island - Baranov Island (as "Остров Баранова")
Seattle - Setlov
Portlend - New Yaroslavl aka Novoyaroslavl (as "Новоярославль")
Sitka - New Archangel aka Novoarkhangelsk
Dutch Harbor - Unalaska
Bethel - Kuskvimov
Eureka - Yuriev
Prince Rupert - Romanovsk
Glenora - Golovin
Atlin - Atlin (this name is Native American, it sounds good in Russian)
Whitehorse - Belogorodok
Cordova - Korobovka
Fairbanks - Krusenstern
Unalakleet - Ulanov
Also, that should be good idea to do a state of Slavorussia in Russian colonies, that can declare its indepedence.

[Dyranum]

So, what about this map: Map

I've modified China as per the suggestions presented. Also, I have modified Europe so that the Satellites are more easily seen. Also added two satellites to Denmark as buffer states (You need to zoom in to see them).

EDIT: Another thing, we need to add impassable borders in places. For example, there were really only two ways into Norway from Sweden. Through Jamtland-Tröndelag and through Bohus.

[BootOnFace]

I'm sorry, but I have to call shenanigans on Russian America. I can see as far south as British Columbia, but not past that. I know that Russia established forts as far south as San Francisco, but the institution of serfdom prohibited Russian settlement of new lands, even nearby Siberia. Serfs were no more than property of the state or boyars and if one left to go east, he'd be caught and sent back to his lord's land. It was a major inhibiting factor in Russian development and if you want to have Russian America, then you need to abolish serfdom in the first half of the 18th century at latest. Abolishing serfdom would have many other effects, however, and by 1836, Russia would be completely different than the Russia we know.

A de-serficated Russia would have much higher literacy and a very large(compared to OTL) Siberian and American population. It would also boost Russian culture and technology immeasurably. The liberal revolution would be present there, as would the industrial revolution. It would have a much better and probably even the same size of army as it did OTL, (serfs weren't allowed in the army until after the Crimean War.) Russia in this mod would be a very up-and-coming country, almost like America in vanilla.

In the south of Russia, there would be a vast population of Russians who would be under the Tartar yoke still. While the Polish attempted conversion and assimilation of the local Russians, leading to the development of a Ukrainian nationality, the Mongolians didn't attempt assimilation, and with only the northern Russian culture to look to for inspiration, there would be a quite large majority of Russians in the tartar state to the south, with Russian cores on every province. Acquisition of these cores would definitely shoot Russia to near to the top of the GPs, and provide further fuel for expansion against the disorganized tribes along the southern border. And of course, divided China would be ripe for the picking, unless a united and civilized Japan had something to say about it.



TL;DR, Russia either can't have colonies in America, or is set up for vast gains to its south.

[Dyranum]

Why would Russia gain higher literacy if they just abolished serfdom? If there is no effort to educate people then there wouldn't be that high of a literacy rating. Also, this Russia has considerably less land than OTL, so it has less to draw from.

The cause of the Russian eastward expansion is partly due to the Mongol khanates blocking their expansion southwards. Also, why would the state not be able to just decide to resettle people?

[Mr. Yellow]

Maybe, in this scenario Peter the Great couldn't defeat Swedish, so Russia still didn't had an access to the sea (except the White Sea, but it is mostly covered by ice a lot of time). So, Peter did more reforms (like an abolition of serfdom or even a conversion to Catholicism!) and began an expansion to the East. But, the aristocrats played a big role yet, but consciousness of the people was much higher. So, there could happen a Liberal Revolution (like in OTL France).
Maybe, this giant Poland and existing Lithuania is a result of the end of this revolution?

[Dyranum]

It's not Poland though. It is the Jagiellonian Realm, and is brought about by the Jagiellonians, and which used to be bigger. Lithuania was a part of it, along with other places like Croatia. However, the Jagiellonians have been in decline and have lost a lot of land. The existing piece of Lithuania was ripped off of them by either the Swedes or Crimeans in a war (or both), since neither had any intention of ruling that land and since it serves as a useful buffer state.

Now, as for how it came into being: I would guess no Ottoman invasion has something to do with it. With the Jagiellonian ruler of Hungary not dying while fighting the Turks, the Habsburgs don't inherit Hungary and Bohemia.

[Gloa]

I'm sorry, but I have to call shenanigans on Russian America. I can see as far south as British Columbia, but not past that. I know that Russia established forts as far south as San Francisco, but the institution of serfdom prohibited Russian settlement of new lands, even nearby Siberia. Serfs were no more than property of the state or boyars and if one left to go east, he'd be caught and sent back to his lord's land. It was a major inhibiting factor in Russian development and if you want to have Russian America, then you need to abolish serfdom in the first half of the 18th century at latest. Abolishing serfdom would have many other effects, however, and by 1836, Russia would be completely different than the Russia we know.

A de-serficated Russia would have much higher literacy and a very large(compared to OTL) Siberian and American population. It would also boost Russian culture and technology immeasurably. The liberal revolution would be present there, as would the industrial revolution. It would have a much better and probably even the same size of army as it did OTL, (serfs weren't allowed in the army until after the Crimean War.) Russia in this mod would be a very up-and-coming country, almost like America in vanilla.

In the south of Russia, there would be a vast population of Russians who would be under the Tartar yoke still. While the Polish attempted conversion and assimilation of the local Russians, leading to the development of a Ukrainian nationality, the Mongolians didn't attempt assimilation, and with only the northern Russian culture to look to for inspiration, there would be a quite large majority of Russians in the tartar state to the south, with Russian cores on every province. Acquisition of these cores would definitely shoot Russia to near to the top of the GPs, and provide further fuel for expansion against the disorganized tribes along the southern border. And of course, divided China would be ripe for the picking, unless a united and civilized Japan had something to say about it.



TL;DR, Russia either can't have colonies in America, or is set up for vast gains to its south.

I don't think that's entirely necessary. Serfdom need not be entirely destroyed with the long emphasis on settlement of the east and the lack of other major powers keeping them from settling those areas with at least fur trading stations. Even if it is weakened or destroyed, they're still just a big but undeveloped and not westernized empire - up and coming, perhaps, but not any more of a behemoth than they were OTL. Thirdly, the states on their borders are no pushovers and have also adapted to their settings over the many years and are good counterweights to Russia.

-

There's not really anyone to contest the Russians in America, so they have time to set up their fur trading stations as much as they want (not all their territories represent heavily populated settlements yet). That hardly requires a lot of people.

They're also much more eastward focused with the quest for trade goods from the Orient - and now from the Americas as well - with reasons for the state and local lords to settle the eastern routes and promote more flexibility for settlement. They can still keep a fairly enslaved populace (maybe not the same poor serfs as they had OTL, but still a serfdom of some kind) with policies to encourage settlement (which may lead to a more liberal, empowered serfdom in Siberia, Kamchatka, and America, if it's a sort of "hey, you can get more freedom if you go through the trouble of settling here" like some of the policies which eased up serfdom in Europe, but not necessarily as drastically). They are not westernized, so their attachment to the liberal revolution in Europe and the industrial revolution are probably not that strong yet. They are hemmed in to the west and stretched along a large area of land that is mostly theirs because nobody else is powerful enough to contest it that far from their own capitals. Slow adaption of many of the western precursors to the industrial revolution (agricultural revolutions especially) mean that their total population is probably not that much greater than OTL, although Siberia and America would have more due to their eastward settlements.

The Crimean Khanate has been a fairly strong Muslim state and has adapted well to the fall of the Golden Horde, so Russia is probably unlikely to have a good claim on all their lands. The other post-Mongol Empire khanates may not be the most organized group, but they're not total pushovers if only due to their size and alliances (and it's far from Moscow - another big push like the ones which crushed the overextended Manchu might be possible, but it would take effort from Russia). They were, after all, formerly the world conquerors. China is, well, China. Even divided up like this, those states are likely to have a lot of manpower and all the other factors which made people not like to invade China (plus, Russia would be invading through Siberia into the heavily populated Chinese territories - sure, the Mongols did it a long time ago when warfare was different, but it's not an easy thing to do).

[EMT0]

There are some new names for provinces in Alaska&Cascadia:
Vancouver - Pavloslav
San-Francisko - Fort Ross, or just "Ross"
Vancouver Island - Baranov Island (as "Остров Баранова")
Seattle - Setlov
Portlend - New Yaroslavl aka Novoyaroslavl (as "Новоярославль")
Sitka - New Archangel aka Novoarkhangelsk
Dutch Harbor - Unalaska
Bethel - Kuskvimov
Eureka - Yuriev
Prince Rupert - Romanovsk
Glenora - Golovin
Atlin - Atlin (this name is Native American, it sounds good in Russian)
Whitehorse - Belogorodok
Cordova - Korobovka
Fairbanks - Krusenstern
Unalakleet - Ulanov
Also, that should be good idea to do a state of Slavorussia in Russian colonies, that can declare its indepedence.

Thank you so much! I shudder to think of what we may have come up with if we did not have your council on this.

As to the Russian colonies, they're really just outposts that the Russians can own without any questioning of their legitimacy due to how much less concentrated the European effort in the Americas has been due to the great fear of the Muslim states overtaking Europe. Their only competition in the area is Occitania, who has very limited access to the Mediterranean, has to worry about propping up the Iberian states against Morocco/Al-Andalus/the Marinids, has limited cash and probably an even more limited navy, and previously had to deal with Uber-England. All of this serves to give validity to the idea of the Russians being the recognized owners of the coastal land up until San Francisco bay.

Anyway, I like that map a lot; we're really getting closer to the point where we can declare the map to be the definitive for the most part, requiring changes only if we see a real need to do so, either for balance, or what have you. I still say give the Bahamas province to Portugal, but it's nitpicking at this point. As to Northeastern Brazil; Is it me, or is it colored Portuguese? I thought we agreed that it'd belong to the Two Sicilies? Anyway, these are my only nitpicks with the map:

-The Tarfaya strip is really debatable as to whether we give it to Morocco or not. IOTL, Morocco controlled it on and off, but it was always filled with Bedouin tribesmen and Morocco never really had a strong grip on the place.

-Let's give those uncolonized islands in the middle of the East Indies to the Dutch. I'd much rather not have to see the Burgundians owning it every single game, going off the game's mechanics.

-Have we given the Knights any provinces in India? You know we need the hilarity!

-Have we considered making the Zanzibar sultanate independent with all of Oman's Africa territory minus Mogadishu, which could go to a European or Arab power? Leaving it as is is rather unoriginal.

-What's up with the Galapagos? I imagine it'd belong either to Morocco or the Inca; anyone else doesn't have much of a prayer of owning it, considering the Inca were well aware of its existence.

-Are we doing anything for Africa's interior other than a Songhai close to pulling a Meiji?

Anyway, let's settle the Balkan-Anatolian cultures so as to clear the air a bit.

We're going to have Albanians, Bulgarians, and provisionally, Greeks, in the southern Balkans. We can discuss the name when the time for doing so comes; remember guys, we're not exactly jotting down notes for localization atm(except for those Russian names for the West Coast, which without, we'd be screwed, sorta), focusing more on the map and the demographics. In Anatolia, we'll have Greeks, Armenians, and Turks(and Kurds?). Greek is code atm for the cultures that speak a Hellenic language, so this includes Greeks based in Epirus, the Thracian Greeks, the Greeks in Anatolia, and as to how we'll categorize the Hellenified Turks(which culture group), remains to be seen. I think it'll depend most on whether the Western Anatolian state is Muslim or not, and that'll depend on how we roll with what went down after a Byzantine victory at Manzikert. If the Hellenified Turkish state is Christian, then we should probably include them in the Greek culture group, and if Muslim, in the Turkish culture group. We'll stick Armenians and Georgians in the same culture group and have Azeri as part of the Turkish culture group; we can have it so that the Turkish state either turns east or west in its goals, with maybe an event chain for possibly adding the Azeris as an accepted culture to Georgo-Armenian kingdom?

[Dyranum]

I think the Turks will not be a majority in Anatolia what with how this history has gone. Or at least "real" Turks. The Constantinople Turks will probably be heavily hellenised. Heck, we might even be able to include them into the states capable of forming the ERE. They could very well be Christian too. Not too implausible, though depending on how the state arose of course. I guess it would be due to a Byzantine Civil War, coupled with Caliphate invasion. The Caliphate establish a state in Anatolia with Islam as its primary and only religion. The Christian Turks really don't like this, and revolt from the Islamic Turkish state. They beat back Caliphate and Muslim Turkish attacks, securing those borders and then going off to conquer Anatolia from a Byzantine splinter state. And that's where we are in 1836. Something like that maybe? Forming the ERE would go like normal culture unions (if we're including the Christian Turks that is). So, you'd have to get all three states in SoI and core lands owned by the Muslim Turks.

This of course sets us up with fun situations like a Turkish-led Christian ERE.

As for the Georgo-Armenian Empire, we could make it a Union, but we could also make it like Austria-Hungry.

EDIT: About Northern Brazil: we didn't discuss that at all, actually.