• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Incognitia - Farouk went to Woolwich that much is fact, I would not claim it to be amazing research on my part, but I'm glad someone is paying attention to the details. :)

On the second point I would say engineering was a somewhat higher regarded profession in the early 20th century than it is now. It was seen as synonymous with modernisation and thus a route to being an equal with Western Powers; if one wished to be seen as a modern country railways, electrification and water/sewerage systems were powerful symbols.

I recall a colleague who worked in Egypt and Paraguay saying he enjoyed a far higher status working in those countries than in Europe. The reason being those communities were grateful for power and water arriving whereas Britain had relegated such essentials to 'expected' services; it wasn't their presence that was respected and welcomed, only their absence that was cursed.

Short answer; Farouk had to go to some military service (because that was a gentleman and a royal proffesion) and for a developing and ambitious country engineering was a good 1930s choice.

trekaddict - Indeed, nothing more gentleman like than being understated on the bridge of a battleship while shelling the enemy. :D

Faeelin - I would say two things; 1. You're deliberately overlooking the problems and 2. We're still less than six months in, unlike the years of utter perfection from the Mary Sue you call a president :p ( :D )

Carlstadt Boy - Good point sir, plus of course the fracturing of the Entente Cordiale has to be at least a concern, if not an outright problem. Add to that alienating much of Europe through involvement with the rebels in Spain (once they find out), not to mention the brewing trouble in the Near East (Arab Revolt) and India (due to the failure of the Govt. of India Act). Perhaps I'm biased, but that seems more than enough trouble either happening or on the horizon. :eek:

EDIT:

Jalex - You sneaked in just before me. The loss of a steadfast French ally will be keenly felt, not just on the continent but also in the Far East. As to America, the US update will reveal the true position but I can safely say affairs in Spain (or indeed Europe as a whole) are not top of the list on the electoral agenda of any candidate or the voters. ;)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Sir William Stanier needs to be included at once! Huzzah for engineering.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The Entente Cordiale breaking down. Excellent. The French always did frear that Britain was after their colonies. Do your best to makethat fear a reality.

An Arab revolt. The solution is unrestricted armed jewish setlers.

The India Act failed. A blessing in disguise. now to strengthen the Anglo-Inidans, their position and numbers, that is Englishmen and women born in India. Sponsor a missionary activity to oncrease the number of Christians in the Raj, thus weakening a Hindu opposition. Chrisitianity is after all a part of Westernization that the natives ought to wish to aspire to and be encouraged to partake of.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Chief Ragusa said:
The Entente Cordiale breaking down. Excellent. The French always did frear that Britain was after their colonies. Do your best to makethat fear a reality.

An Arab revolt. The solution is unrestricted armed jewish setlers.

The India Act failed. A blessing in disguise. now to strengthen the Anglo-Inidans, their position and numbers, that is Englishmen and women born in India. Sponsor a missionary activity to oncrease the number of Christians in the Raj, thus weakening a Hindu opposition. Chrisitianity is after all a part of Westernization that the natives ought to wish to aspire to and be encouraged to partake of.

:eek: You scare me!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Chief Ragusa said:
The India Act failed. A blessing in disguise. now to strengthen the Anglo-Inidans, their position and numbers, that is Englishmen and women born in India. Sponsor a missionary activity to oncrease the number of Christians in the Raj, thus weakening a Hindu opposition. Chrisitianity is after all a part of Westernization that the natives ought to wish to aspire to and be encouraged to partake of.

That would be somewhat ahistorical. Christian and Muslim conversions of Hindus were generally of limited success. Bearing in mind that India went through 200 years of British rule and 500 years of the Mugals, that's pretty astonishing. After all, it took less time than that to convert the entire pagan Roman empire to Christianity.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
What is an AAR except ahistorical?

There certainly wasn't the same kind of missionary activity in the Raj that went on in Africa. Mainly 'cos the organizations did not have the resources it would have taken.

C&D, I scare you? Good!
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Chief Ragusa said:
What is an AAR except ahistorical?

There certainly wasn't the same kind of missionary activity in the Raj that went on in Africa. Mainly 'cos the organizations did not have the resources it would have taken.

C&D, I scare you? Good!
It seems like missionary expansion could cause more problems in the short term than it would solve in the long term. Aggravating the Hindus and Muslims won't make India more peaceful, even in there are a few less of them.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Why would Muslims and Hindus be aggravated if advancement and promotion in the Indian civil service is dependant on being a Christian? Or if businessmen can get access to loans at preferential rates by being Christian? Nor would it happen in the half of India ruled by the rajahs.

It's not like the regiments would line people up and demand conversion or die.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Chief Ragusa said:
Why would Muslims and Hindus be aggravated if advancement and promotion in the Indian civil service is dependant on being a Christian? Or if businessmen can get access to loans at preferential rates by being Christian?

Are those rhetorical questions?

Historically, much of the anti-British sentiment in India was stirred by double standards and discrimination that encouraged advancement of British interests at the expense of the Indian population.

An AAR may be by definition ahistorical, but the fun in a "serious" ahistorical exploration is the maintenance of a certain realism. The concept that India could be maintained in the British empire via mass Christian conversion flies in the face of Hinduism's remarkable resilience against attempts to be subordinated to more centralised religions, and causes my suspension of disbelief to snap, which is not enjoyable for me.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
No, the questions are not rhetorical.

Naturally, the British Raj is going to follow British interests. That's self evident. Mass conversions would not be helpful. A sustained missionary activity would be part of the program to build a coincidence of interest.

This timeline's Viceroy and the Princes have just turned Egypt inside out and tied them in knots. That's a good coalition. It can't tell the Viceroy about grassroots problems: indeed most Europeans had a disdain about natives that positively ruled them out of any such investigation. Institutions involving them aren't going to connect with ordinary Indians/Burmese/frontier tribesmen. Missionaries who care about saving souls and improving lives will.

if that sort of ahistorical suggestion is not enjoyable to you, I would submit that the whole of idea of a continuing British Raj is your problem, aprogressivist. Not that I have any idea how El Pip will tell his story.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Chief Ragusa said:
if that sort of ahistorical suggestion is not enjoyable to you, I would submit that the whole of idea of a continuing British Raj is your problem, aprogressivist.

No, not at all. My problem would be the supposition that religious conversion would be a suitable tool for a continuing British Raj; it is hardly as if the missionaries didn't try to convert India. They did; they were just considerably less successful there than they were in Africa, for example. According to Wikipedia (hardly a foolproof source and also 70 years later than the period the AAR is set in, but bear with me, this isn't an academic treatise), despite who knows how many centuries of Portugese missionaries and two centuries of British ones, the Christian population in India remains at a humble 2.3% -- of which the majority are Catholic anyway.

Therefore the notion that a renewed program of missionary activity could somehow provide a populist sway of some sort to prolong British rule would seem to fly in the face of the fact that such attempts were hardly that successful in the past. Especially given as how such a move could well backfire and appear as another instance of British religious bigotry, which fanned the flames of revolt in 1857.

Indeed, Hindi populism was Ghandi's main political tool...
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Oh I don't know, the Catholic missionaries in Portuguese Goa were government sponsored and were very successful. The idea is perfectly sound. So the move might backfire when confronted by Hindi religious bigotry, but I think the Viceroy is equal to any such manifestation.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Chief Ragusa said:
Why would Muslims and Hindus be aggravated if advancement and promotion in the Indian civil service is dependant on being a Christian? Or if businessmen can get access to loans at preferential rates by being Christian? Nor would it happen in the half of India ruled by the rajahs.
I imagine it would be incredibly aggravating, and it would throw the Hindu and Muslim upper and middle classes staunchly behind the radicals if they weren't already.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Sir Humphrey - Not Sir Nigel Gresley? Or even Maunsell from Southern Railways? That said it is a tough choice. ;)

C&D - He's not that scary is he? Wide of the mark perhaps (in this AAR anyway) but not frightening surely

aprogressivist, Chief Ragusa and, to a lesser extent, GeneralHannibal - India is (part) of the next update so most of it will wait till then. However suffice to say mass Christian conversion isn't on anyone's agenda, no-one in power anyway.

On a couple of the other points I can say no-one is proposing to end the process of putting British interests before that of Indian ones, if only because if you start doing that then there's no point in having an Empire. Conversely the policy of Indianisation is too heavily embedded to change, hence any formal religious discrimination is off the table; once such precedents are established they are practically impossible to remove.



One small question to aprogressivist - what does 'Ignore' do? Never used it so I've no idea, as you have I thought I'd ask. :)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Or even Maunsell from Southern Railways?
I've had it up to the neck with GWR/Southern fanboys!
 
El Pip said:
C&D - He's not that scary is he? Wide of the mark perhaps (in this AAR anyway) but not frightening surely

Well, yeah, like a true Dutch leftist nationalist I'm not really apalled at the thought of empire building and converting locals to your own way of life (though, the Dutch didn't do that much in any case). It's just that we imperialists don't speak about that. Publically. Rule number about Fight Club: Don't talk about Fight Club.
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Enough of this idle chatter Pippy, post a damn update or I'll come over there and convert you to the religion of punctuality... forcibly! :mad:


;)
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Sir Humphrey - It's the whole electrification thing, some people are always impressed by sparky trains. My choice was and remains Sir Nigel at LNER.

C&D - Wise words indeed.
ja.gif


Duritz - The next update is a whole two paragraphs done. Two large paragraphs even!


On which note the style is continuing it's gentle metamorphosis so I've got a quick question; Is it better or worse now it's more conversational history book and more references to 'we' and 'moving on' rather than dryer fact? Has anyone in fact actually noticed?
 
  • 1
Reactions: