If you hope including all warlords in VIC, we need to make all provinces of China. I think that the numbers of Chinese provinces of 1928 (28!) are better, because some of them were planned to establish by Qing dynasty before revolution.
Megathread: Ahistorical Nations
- Thread starter RedRalphWiggum
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
I find that all forget the pacific states: Abemama, Rarotonga, Tahiti, Tonga, Samoa, and Fiji.
You mean like in Victoria: an Empire under the Sun?
In Vicky and Ricky you didn't have that. As Unified Germany for example, if (hypothetically) you choose to kick out the Bavarians, they'd get automatically the core territory of today’s Bavaria, plus the Pfalz provinces on the French border (not connected to them).
Get my point? I'd like to see it like this: I want to create a country X, and assign them provinces X,Y, and Z, but not A,B, and C which they may historically have had.
Interesting discussion! I'd have jumped in sooner, but Comcast seems to be blocking e-mails from this server. Here are my thoughts (and please forgive me if I leave some worthy nation out or bring up one that is in the game by mistake).
North America: I also endorse the suggestions of Québec, the California Republic and Deseret. Texas is already in. There's at least one other "ahistorical" entity that wasn't: the Provisional Government of Oregon, which ran most of the Pacific Northwest from 1853 to 1858. In Our Time-Line, it was more of a vassal of the U.S. than a full-fledged nation, but in that period, at least some residents wanted either independence or to join Canada instead. What if the U.S and Britain, instead of dividing the Pacific Northwest peacefully, had fought over it as Polk threatened to? What if the U.S. had had a worse reputation or worse relations in the 1850's?
There were a lot of historical Native nations in the West which either fought, or might have, or at least which the U.S. might have been forced to release. Since many by then had been forcibly relocated, they might have cores on their traditional homelands, and perhaps even unification missions, such as a successful Navajo rebellion retaking the Southwest to become the nation of Dinétah. Or, a player might choose not to be as aggressively expansionist as the U.S. was; what might happen then?
You asked, however, for ahistorical nations. Well, then: what if Sequoyah had become independent, probably during the Civil War? What if it had incorporated the rest of Oklahoma? Or, what kind of nation would a successful slave revolt in the South have established? Many thought at the time that one was likely. They were probably wrong, but there were successful slave revolts in Haiti and elsewhere, and some people went to great lengths to either prevent or start one in the South, so there's an argument for making it possible. The reason to handle this as something different from an ordinary revolution is: before 1861, the Federal government would have been hostile to such a rebellion, but once the Civil War began, or upon Emancipation at the very latest, the former slaves would likely join the Union. It's also interesting to speculate about what revolutionaries in the Mexican Cession might have done, since in the game such a revolt could happen. Rejoin Mexico? Declare a new California Republic? What if Mexico no longer exists, or the California Republic still does?
South and Central America: I second the nominations of Gran Colombia, New Granada and a Republic of Central America (which could represent any of several attempted unions during this period), although all of these existed. The game might also include the Peru-Bolivian Confederation, or just represent it as an annexation of Bolivia by Peru.
Europe: Flanders, Wallonia, Corsica, Galicia, Catalonia and the Basque country come to mind as potential nation-states in Western Europe that didn't happen to exist during this period. A particularly severe series of defeats for France or Britain might allow a partition at bayonet-point of, say, Burgundy or Scotland as puppet states. There are many Central and Eastern European nations that formed later, but might have been carved out of Austria, Russia or the Ottoman Empire earlier, for example Slovakia.
Asia: I second the idea of a potential earlier appearance of Israel. (Theodor Herzl's novel Altneuland, while not very realistic, set its Zionist utopia in 1923 and had a great deal of influence in the early 20th century.) At the least, the Balfour Declaration was the kind of momentous decision that ought to be in the game, and it's easy to see how a different timeline might have seen something like it happen earlier, later or not at all. There was an important Pan-Arabist movement at the time; this might be represented by creating Syria with cores on its neighbors, or even the option to release a Greater Syria. Muhammad Ali's Egypt might be another path toward an Arab unification, although that also probably does not require a new tag. An independent Palestine (perhaps along the lines of the 1919 Faisal–Weizmann Agreement, or else created by a rebellion under the right conditions) makes sense as a potential nation-state.
If the Mughal unification of India continues to represent the historical origins of that empire, there should be another tag for a native unification of India or Hindustan.
China spent much of this period in civil war, and the Uighurs, Manchurians and Tibetans all saw at least brief independence.
Kurdistan and Turkestan also seem like plausible, ahistorical nation-states.
Africa: I second the suggestion of a possible Afrikaner nation. Maybe a unified Bantu nation, under the right leadership, might possibly have been large and cohesive enough to make a real go of it, especially if it had faced separate colonization attempts from minor European powers rather than a carve-up by the great powers.
The Pacific: What if the U.S. had made Spain release its remaining colonies after the Spanish-American War, rather than taking them over, or had lost to the Filipino insurgency? What if it hadn't annexed Hawaii? Could there have been a Polynesian, or even Austronesian, unification? What if the Dutch East Indies had become Indonesia sooner, or had broken up, e.g. creating an independent Java? What if New Guinea had become an independent Papua?
Some of those ideas are more plausible than others, of course. Discuss?
North America: I also endorse the suggestions of Québec, the California Republic and Deseret. Texas is already in. There's at least one other "ahistorical" entity that wasn't: the Provisional Government of Oregon, which ran most of the Pacific Northwest from 1853 to 1858. In Our Time-Line, it was more of a vassal of the U.S. than a full-fledged nation, but in that period, at least some residents wanted either independence or to join Canada instead. What if the U.S and Britain, instead of dividing the Pacific Northwest peacefully, had fought over it as Polk threatened to? What if the U.S. had had a worse reputation or worse relations in the 1850's?
There were a lot of historical Native nations in the West which either fought, or might have, or at least which the U.S. might have been forced to release. Since many by then had been forcibly relocated, they might have cores on their traditional homelands, and perhaps even unification missions, such as a successful Navajo rebellion retaking the Southwest to become the nation of Dinétah. Or, a player might choose not to be as aggressively expansionist as the U.S. was; what might happen then?
You asked, however, for ahistorical nations. Well, then: what if Sequoyah had become independent, probably during the Civil War? What if it had incorporated the rest of Oklahoma? Or, what kind of nation would a successful slave revolt in the South have established? Many thought at the time that one was likely. They were probably wrong, but there were successful slave revolts in Haiti and elsewhere, and some people went to great lengths to either prevent or start one in the South, so there's an argument for making it possible. The reason to handle this as something different from an ordinary revolution is: before 1861, the Federal government would have been hostile to such a rebellion, but once the Civil War began, or upon Emancipation at the very latest, the former slaves would likely join the Union. It's also interesting to speculate about what revolutionaries in the Mexican Cession might have done, since in the game such a revolt could happen. Rejoin Mexico? Declare a new California Republic? What if Mexico no longer exists, or the California Republic still does?
South and Central America: I second the nominations of Gran Colombia, New Granada and a Republic of Central America (which could represent any of several attempted unions during this period), although all of these existed. The game might also include the Peru-Bolivian Confederation, or just represent it as an annexation of Bolivia by Peru.
Europe: Flanders, Wallonia, Corsica, Galicia, Catalonia and the Basque country come to mind as potential nation-states in Western Europe that didn't happen to exist during this period. A particularly severe series of defeats for France or Britain might allow a partition at bayonet-point of, say, Burgundy or Scotland as puppet states. There are many Central and Eastern European nations that formed later, but might have been carved out of Austria, Russia or the Ottoman Empire earlier, for example Slovakia.
Asia: I second the idea of a potential earlier appearance of Israel. (Theodor Herzl's novel Altneuland, while not very realistic, set its Zionist utopia in 1923 and had a great deal of influence in the early 20th century.) At the least, the Balfour Declaration was the kind of momentous decision that ought to be in the game, and it's easy to see how a different timeline might have seen something like it happen earlier, later or not at all. There was an important Pan-Arabist movement at the time; this might be represented by creating Syria with cores on its neighbors, or even the option to release a Greater Syria. Muhammad Ali's Egypt might be another path toward an Arab unification, although that also probably does not require a new tag. An independent Palestine (perhaps along the lines of the 1919 Faisal–Weizmann Agreement, or else created by a rebellion under the right conditions) makes sense as a potential nation-state.
If the Mughal unification of India continues to represent the historical origins of that empire, there should be another tag for a native unification of India or Hindustan.
China spent much of this period in civil war, and the Uighurs, Manchurians and Tibetans all saw at least brief independence.
Kurdistan and Turkestan also seem like plausible, ahistorical nation-states.
Africa: I second the suggestion of a possible Afrikaner nation. Maybe a unified Bantu nation, under the right leadership, might possibly have been large and cohesive enough to make a real go of it, especially if it had faced separate colonization attempts from minor European powers rather than a carve-up by the great powers.
The Pacific: What if the U.S. had made Spain release its remaining colonies after the Spanish-American War, rather than taking them over, or had lost to the Filipino insurgency? What if it hadn't annexed Hawaii? Could there have been a Polynesian, or even Austronesian, unification? What if the Dutch East Indies had become Indonesia sooner, or had broken up, e.g. creating an independent Java? What if New Guinea had become an independent Papua?
Some of those ideas are more plausible than others, of course. Discuss?
Ah, tell in the meaning of being able to choose, not tell in the meaning of being able to *see*. Then I understand.
Chinese Warlord list:
large areas across provinces:
North China/Zhili (often named Zhili)
North East China/Fengtian (often named Feng , deffence with Manchukuo)
Central China (Wu Pei-fu)
North West China (VR & HOI have)
South West China
South East China (Sun Chuan-fang)
East China
South China
West China
PROVINCES:
Hebei (former Zhili, get this new name for the only one provincial warlord)
Henan
Shandong
Shanxi (VR & HOI have)
Liaoning (former Fengtian, get this new name for the only one provincial warlord)
Jilin
Heilongjiang
Rehe
Chahar
Suiyuan
Shaanxi
Gansu
Ningxia
Qinghai
Hexi (Ma Zhong-ying himself own province)
Xinjiang (VR & HOI have)
Jiangsu
Anhui
Jiangxi
Zhejiang
Jianghuai/Huaihai (a short province in north Jiangsu)
Fujian
Hubei
Hunan
Sichuan
Chuanbian/Xikang
Yunnan (VR & HOI have)
Guizhou
Guangdong
Guangxi (VR & HOI have)
Municipality:
Beiping
Tianjin
Shanghai
Qingdao (After 918 this city is North East Chinese Navy's territory)
Weihaiwei
Xian
Wuhan/Hankou
Chongqing (also could be East Sichuan warlord)
Xiamen (Fujian-led Chinese Navy's territory, different with Fujian army)
Guangzhou
Other prefectures as provinces:
Dongsheng/Harbin
Xing'an (North East Chinese artillery's territory)
Hainan (Guangdong Navy's territory)
Altai
Tarbaghatai
Ili
South Sichuan
North Sichuan
Separatists:
East Turkestan (different with Xinjiang)
Inner Mongolia/Mengkiang (VR & HOI have)
Manchukuo (different with North East China VR & HOI have)
large areas across provinces:
North China/Zhili (often named Zhili)
North East China/Fengtian (often named Feng , deffence with Manchukuo)
Central China (Wu Pei-fu)
North West China (VR & HOI have)
South West China
South East China (Sun Chuan-fang)
East China
South China
West China
PROVINCES:
Hebei (former Zhili, get this new name for the only one provincial warlord)
Henan
Shandong
Shanxi (VR & HOI have)
Liaoning (former Fengtian, get this new name for the only one provincial warlord)
Jilin
Heilongjiang
Rehe
Chahar
Suiyuan
Shaanxi
Gansu
Ningxia
Qinghai
Hexi (Ma Zhong-ying himself own province)
Xinjiang (VR & HOI have)
Jiangsu
Anhui
Jiangxi
Zhejiang
Jianghuai/Huaihai (a short province in north Jiangsu)
Fujian
Hubei
Hunan
Sichuan
Chuanbian/Xikang
Yunnan (VR & HOI have)
Guizhou
Guangdong
Guangxi (VR & HOI have)
Municipality:
Beiping
Tianjin
Shanghai
Qingdao (After 918 this city is North East Chinese Navy's territory)
Weihaiwei
Xian
Wuhan/Hankou
Chongqing (also could be East Sichuan warlord)
Xiamen (Fujian-led Chinese Navy's territory, different with Fujian army)
Guangzhou
Other prefectures as provinces:
Dongsheng/Harbin
Xing'an (North East Chinese artillery's territory)
Hainan (Guangdong Navy's territory)
Altai
Tarbaghatai
Ili
South Sichuan
North Sichuan
Separatists:
East Turkestan (different with Xinjiang)
Inner Mongolia/Mengkiang (VR & HOI have)
Manchukuo (different with North East China VR & HOI have)
I'm mainly interested in seeing Quebec and British Columbia. Hopefully, they will be introduced.
Quebec and B.C. are already in it, Metis too.
And as ive said before ALL the american states should be released, during the timer period atleast theoretically the united states was not a single nation but a federation which given the signifigant strife in the union had the right to succeed and become individual and independant states, this ended only with the civil war and abandonment of the constitutional right to succession. And having all those states in the game would make shattering america alot easier and more fun too.
For Africa the potential for new states shouldnt be native but rather the children of Europe, British Rhodesia, French Equitorial Africa etc. Possibly with parent-empire titles to come in a similar manner to governor tear-aways in VV.
Europe should have the potential to brake into nationalist revolter states NOT historical kingdoms, Wallonia a possibility but not Burgundy. But again mostly this was covered in Victoria, Wales however was tragically missing. The Russian states, possibly along the lines of the current republics within modern russia with the occasional free khanate for those parts of central asia recently acuired.
For China and i dont know much about it but compass preffixs ought to be discouraged, as china collapsed into the warlords as im given to understand as a civil war with each clambering for the mandate of heaven to rule all of china, no one would take the name North or West. Capital of origin provinces or states would probably be the best way.
After the extistance and rule of the Mugal its unlikely that a free indian state would take stan in its name, just as they wouldnt name themselves british. India would be the way to go or just keep the name of the indian state which won it with events granting full national cultures.
And as ive said before ALL the american states should be released, during the timer period atleast theoretically the united states was not a single nation but a federation which given the signifigant strife in the union had the right to succeed and become individual and independant states, this ended only with the civil war and abandonment of the constitutional right to succession. And having all those states in the game would make shattering america alot easier and more fun too.
For Africa the potential for new states shouldnt be native but rather the children of Europe, British Rhodesia, French Equitorial Africa etc. Possibly with parent-empire titles to come in a similar manner to governor tear-aways in VV.
Europe should have the potential to brake into nationalist revolter states NOT historical kingdoms, Wallonia a possibility but not Burgundy. But again mostly this was covered in Victoria, Wales however was tragically missing. The Russian states, possibly along the lines of the current republics within modern russia with the occasional free khanate for those parts of central asia recently acuired.
For China and i dont know much about it but compass preffixs ought to be discouraged, as china collapsed into the warlords as im given to understand as a civil war with each clambering for the mandate of heaven to rule all of china, no one would take the name North or West. Capital of origin provinces or states would probably be the best way.
After the extistance and rule of the Mugal its unlikely that a free indian state would take stan in its name, just as they wouldnt name themselves british. India would be the way to go or just keep the name of the indian state which won it with events granting full national cultures.
Countries like Tannu Tuva, Ryukyu, Far East Republic and Republic of Taiwan were missing in Vicky 1. Please include them.
Vladimir, thanks for the information. At some point, though, doesn't it become easier to say, "Every province rebels," than to create dozens of micro-factions that are identical in all but name? That gets you a situation where you need to pacify the entire nation to reunify it, which sounds about right to me.
Orinsul, thanks for your thoughtful reply!
I respectfully think you're misunderstanding the nature of Federalism if you believe the Union could have "released" a grateful Maine or New York. It doesn't make sense to me that if Britain had invaded the U.S. a third time and won, they could have imposed as a peace condition, "You will dissolve the Union and become two dozen independent countries, one of which will still call itself 'The United States of America' even though it contains only one state." In order to stop the states from immediately reuniting, they'd have needed to occupy them anyway. I also don't think it would be "more fun" in the game: Victoria's model of unification can't handle that situation reasonably, and there are far too many possible combinations of states inside and outside the U.S. to script this as a special case. It would be better to represent this scenario as Britain taking and recolonizing provinces from the U.S., which would still consider them core.
What you've stated is a very hardline pro-Confederate position. If everybody had believed that before the Civil War, there'd have been no Civil War! During the war, the seceding states wanted to go it together, not alone. There hasn't been a significant movement since then to turn a state into an independent nation after it's been admitted into the Union, and it's impossible to imagine any president since Lincoln going along with it, so I don't see any basis to add Northern states as independent nations in this period. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly say that states can or cannot secede, but the Confederate Constitution did add such a clause. If the South wins the Civil war, it might therefore make sense to allow states to secede from the Confederacy, and thus have game tags for them, if there is a scripted event to break up the Confederacy. Otherwise, it wouldn't. It might also make sense to represent a border state that stays on the fence for a while, such as Kentucky, as a neutral, waiting to be diplo-annexed by event. This could more simply be a provincial flag, though.
It could also be possible for other regions to become independent nations instead of states, for example because the U.S. didn't expand successfully in that playthrough.
But what if Shaka had won? Another interesting what-if: Mohandas Gandhi's campaign in South Africa took place in this period. What if he'd succeeded there as well as, or instead of, in India?
Other than the Boers, I'm finding it hard to imagine white colonists in Africa wanting to break free of their mother country in this period. Maybe there could be a similar dynamic with European settlers who've both been there for a while and had their colonies taken over by someone else, for instance the Pieds-noirs if someone else had conquered Algeria, but that wouldn't really fit this proposed dynamic. It might be simpler to represent them with rebels who want to defect back to the former colonial power; this shouldn't require new tags.
I agree with you. Ironically enough, if I'm understanding you correctly, our positions seem to be reversed from the discussion of North America. I'm not proposing nineteenth-century Burgundian revolts, I'm saying that, if Prussia had created a buffer state with France after annexing Lorraine, they would have called it Burgundy for historical and geographic reasons. (Just like the name Prussia, in fact.) This would be a much simpler situation for the AI to handle; at most, add a mission for France to free Burgundy and instantly diplo-annex it without a reputation hit. Other buffer states created at gunpoint could follow this model.
On further reflection, I agree with you that India is a better name to use. That's what we call the place today, and that's presumably what we'd call it if the Independence movement had succeeded sooner, whether that were in 1857 or 1918 or 1930. The only caveat is that we'd then want to use terms such as "The British Raj" or "The Indian Subcontinent" instead of "India," to avoid confusion: India might exist as a nation with different borders. (Oh, and the rebellion of 1857 did try to restore the Mughal emperor.)
Thank you for the pleasant conversation.
Orinsul, thanks for your thoughtful reply!
I respectfully think you're misunderstanding the nature of Federalism if you believe the Union could have "released" a grateful Maine or New York. It doesn't make sense to me that if Britain had invaded the U.S. a third time and won, they could have imposed as a peace condition, "You will dissolve the Union and become two dozen independent countries, one of which will still call itself 'The United States of America' even though it contains only one state." In order to stop the states from immediately reuniting, they'd have needed to occupy them anyway. I also don't think it would be "more fun" in the game: Victoria's model of unification can't handle that situation reasonably, and there are far too many possible combinations of states inside and outside the U.S. to script this as a special case. It would be better to represent this scenario as Britain taking and recolonizing provinces from the U.S., which would still consider them core.
What you've stated is a very hardline pro-Confederate position. If everybody had believed that before the Civil War, there'd have been no Civil War! During the war, the seceding states wanted to go it together, not alone. There hasn't been a significant movement since then to turn a state into an independent nation after it's been admitted into the Union, and it's impossible to imagine any president since Lincoln going along with it, so I don't see any basis to add Northern states as independent nations in this period. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly say that states can or cannot secede, but the Confederate Constitution did add such a clause. If the South wins the Civil war, it might therefore make sense to allow states to secede from the Confederacy, and thus have game tags for them, if there is a scripted event to break up the Confederacy. Otherwise, it wouldn't. It might also make sense to represent a border state that stays on the fence for a while, such as Kentucky, as a neutral, waiting to be diplo-annexed by event. This could more simply be a provincial flag, though.
It could also be possible for other regions to become independent nations instead of states, for example because the U.S. didn't expand successfully in that playthrough.
But what if Shaka had won? Another interesting what-if: Mohandas Gandhi's campaign in South Africa took place in this period. What if he'd succeeded there as well as, or instead of, in India?
Other than the Boers, I'm finding it hard to imagine white colonists in Africa wanting to break free of their mother country in this period. Maybe there could be a similar dynamic with European settlers who've both been there for a while and had their colonies taken over by someone else, for instance the Pieds-noirs if someone else had conquered Algeria, but that wouldn't really fit this proposed dynamic. It might be simpler to represent them with rebels who want to defect back to the former colonial power; this shouldn't require new tags.
I agree with you. Ironically enough, if I'm understanding you correctly, our positions seem to be reversed from the discussion of North America. I'm not proposing nineteenth-century Burgundian revolts, I'm saying that, if Prussia had created a buffer state with France after annexing Lorraine, they would have called it Burgundy for historical and geographic reasons. (Just like the name Prussia, in fact.) This would be a much simpler situation for the AI to handle; at most, add a mission for France to free Burgundy and instantly diplo-annex it without a reputation hit. Other buffer states created at gunpoint could follow this model.
On further reflection, I agree with you that India is a better name to use. That's what we call the place today, and that's presumably what we'd call it if the Independence movement had succeeded sooner, whether that were in 1857 or 1918 or 1930. The only caveat is that we'd then want to use terms such as "The British Raj" or "The Indian Subcontinent" instead of "India," to avoid confusion: India might exist as a nation with different borders. (Oh, and the rebellion of 1857 did try to restore the Mughal emperor.)
Thank you for the pleasant conversation.
Wait wait, is it a thread about plausible 18th/19th centuries nations, or about nations that some guy pulled off his butt?
Cause if we're going for the first option, then most of the propositions make absolutely no sense. At all.
Brittany? Burgundy? Alsace? Catalunia? Novgorod? A pan-arabic state including Turkey and Iran? That makes even less sense than the Manhattan commune. And at least this one is funny.
Cause if we're going for the first option, then most of the propositions make absolutely no sense. At all.
Brittany? Burgundy? Alsace? Catalunia? Novgorod? A pan-arabic state including Turkey and Iran? That makes even less sense than the Manhattan commune. And at least this one is funny.
Alsace-Lorraine declared independence from Germany during the final stages of WW1. Brittany is plausible, because it has a different cultural background than the rest of France, and that different cultural background remained in the game's time period. Catalonia, same as Brittany, but in relation to Spain.
I don't even remember some of these, but exactly two are ideas I endorsed, Catalonia and Burgundy. I'll take one shot at explaining just what I was thinking, and then move on.
There was a Catalan nationalist movement during this period, and even a declaration of independence in 1931. It didn't succeed, but I don't think the idea is crazy.
As for Burgundy, here's my example: You're Prussia, it's 1875, and France declares war on you again, to get back Alsace-Lorraine. You crush them even worse this time. Now what? You took all their money last time. You didn't take any of their colonies, and you don't have the navy to take care of them anyway. You could annex the provinces near your new western border, but that'd ruin your reputation, you have no claims on that land, and it's full of French Catholics who hate you.
Maybe you could set up a buffer state on the border instead? Of course, the people would rejoin France the first chance they got, so you'd have to keep them your vassals to prevent that, but they'd be a lot more content and productive under a puppet government. To switch perspectives for a moment, an example from the period might be the Saarland from 1920 to 1935, and a closer but later example would be East Germany.
This is looking like a good option for you. So, what do you call this buffer state between France and Alsace-Lorraine? Burgundy, of course. I don't think that's crazy.
Lots of great ideas guys. I also have some ideas:
One nation from the later game period that I find interesting is Southern Rhodesia. It became a dominion (technically it was called something else but effectively it was a dominion) of the UK in 1923, twelve years before the game ends. Technically it wasen't white-ruled because the requirement for voting was that you were wealthy and spoke English, but the result of this was an almost completely white government so the only national culture would be English, and national religion would be Protestant.
Also, perhaps the African nations of Kenya, Algeria, and Mozambique? They all had significant white populations and so could plausibly have been released as dominions.
Someone earlier suggested a broken-up Indonesia, which makes sense because Indonesia has so many different ethnicities.
I love the Byzantine Empire, its one of my favorite nations throughout history.
One nation from the later game period that I find interesting is Southern Rhodesia. It became a dominion (technically it was called something else but effectively it was a dominion) of the UK in 1923, twelve years before the game ends. Technically it wasen't white-ruled because the requirement for voting was that you were wealthy and spoke English, but the result of this was an almost completely white government so the only national culture would be English, and national religion would be Protestant.
Also, perhaps the African nations of Kenya, Algeria, and Mozambique? They all had significant white populations and so could plausibly have been released as dominions.
Someone earlier suggested a broken-up Indonesia, which makes sense because Indonesia has so many different ethnicities.
I love the Byzantine Empire, its one of my favorite nations throughout history.
For America I wasnt meaning external sundering but rather a division of the states on the ground of internal strife. Should America collapse completely rather than just switch to a monarchy rather than just the whole nation going along with it but for states to succeed, declare independence and fight to establish indpendent indepent 'democratic' states, with event chains in place that should the Union be ideologically and consititutionally acceptable and with high relations the break aways might be re-turned to the union but may very well remain seperate for the rest of history.
For Africa it would be separation, Dominions or for revolters that would only be late in the game in which case if it was a revolt against colonial power rather than in favour of it the same tag could be used but with the extention dropped or replaced with a black cultural tag rather than a colonial. 'Azande Congo' or 'British Congo' depending on which 'cultural class' lead the revolution.
If Shaka had won, it wouldnt change this, just one small area would have been left to a tag already in the first game and the rest would have been coloured in all the same.
Anyway the point of my proposal is this, its not just africa and its not just the road of history, if every colonial state in the world, all that start of empty hold the potential to be release as a state undefined in culture and direction and taking in its very name its culture or parent this creates with a single tag every possibility.
I can easily see Alstace-Lorraine as a cuffer state but Historical justifications for release while potentially to be carried out by a monarchist france or austria is not a direction Prussia with its forward thinking prussianism and dedicated defense of Nationalism to a level surpassing that of the french would be willing to take, much less risk.
Brittany makes a good revolter from Republican France but an unlikely to be let go, probably more the first step in a full french civil war than as the birth of an independant state but it certainly deserves its place especially should france be broken on the wheel.
For Africa it would be separation, Dominions or for revolters that would only be late in the game in which case if it was a revolt against colonial power rather than in favour of it the same tag could be used but with the extention dropped or replaced with a black cultural tag rather than a colonial. 'Azande Congo' or 'British Congo' depending on which 'cultural class' lead the revolution.
If Shaka had won, it wouldnt change this, just one small area would have been left to a tag already in the first game and the rest would have been coloured in all the same.
Anyway the point of my proposal is this, its not just africa and its not just the road of history, if every colonial state in the world, all that start of empty hold the potential to be release as a state undefined in culture and direction and taking in its very name its culture or parent this creates with a single tag every possibility.
I can easily see Alstace-Lorraine as a cuffer state but Historical justifications for release while potentially to be carried out by a monarchist france or austria is not a direction Prussia with its forward thinking prussianism and dedicated defense of Nationalism to a level surpassing that of the french would be willing to take, much less risk.
Brittany makes a good revolter from Republican France but an unlikely to be let go, probably more the first step in a full french civil war than as the birth of an independant state but it certainly deserves its place especially should france be broken on the wheel.
I agree, especially since Ottoman restrictions on Jewish immigration and land ownership could have been eased earlier than actually occurred. Historically, this only happened with the British conquest of Ottoman territory in WWI, but in the 1830s Muhammad Ali, the governor of Egypt, had managed to conquer this and much other Ottoman territory in a bid to take control of the Empire. In the end, France was the only one of the great powers that supported Muhammad Ali, and the July Monarchy backed down over the threat of war. However, Ali lost several opportunities to negotiate a more favourable settlement for himself that would have allowed him to retain territory in the Levant. After being forced to abandon his dream of becoming Emperor, Ali set about reforming Egypt and encouraged European immigration. If the land of Israel had become part of Ali's territories, then there would have been a gradual increase in Jewish immigration and quite likely the organized Zionist movements would have been established earlier than the 1890s, followed by a much larger upsurge in immigration than was historically possible.
The Arab nationalist movements became important after WWI, but it took longer for pan-Arabism to become a major factor. As for the number of Arab countries in the Levant, the entire area is already filled by Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. If it hadn't been for the Balfour Declaration and Zionism, the British would have established Jordan with all the land from the desert to the Mediterranean.
That's an interesting scenario; I brought it up earlier myself, but I'm not sure what would have happened. I think it would be better to focus on the direct causes than to try to script specific event chains. What's important here is: the government that holds Jerusalem is tolerant toward Jews. So, the game should have a rule that Jews slowly migrate from intolerant countries to religiously-tolerant ones, are more likely to join existing Jewish populations, and are more likely to make aliyah to Palestine. If the state of Israel does exist, having passed its Law of Return, it should be easier to get them to move there. This, I think, would pretty closely model what happened.
Maybe pan-Syrianism would be a better term than pan-Arabism?
Britain in 1919 had at least three serious proposals before it on how to dispose of the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. One was to make it a part of a client kingdom of Syria, along with what's now Syria, Jordan and Lebanon and parts of their neighbors. Another was to create a Jewish state of Israel. There was also an attempt to craft a compromise, an Arab Palestine with autonomy and religious freedom for a Jewish community of limited size (Edit: not correct). Britain initially announced its support for the second option, and later changed its mind. However, in the game, someone who conquers those lands should get the chance to make these decisions.
Last edited:
I agree that along with Palistine, Israel should be included BUT: Zionism was really fringe until the Holocaust happened. Should there maybe be some sort of 'world intolerance' measurement as a requirement for Israel to be formed?
That's the real history after 1911.
In fact, I still forget to list some warlords who just have the prefecture under province.
And I also list some provinces exist after 1936:
Xuanhua (South Chahar)
Datong (North Shanxi)
Jidong (East Hebei)
Zhedong (East Zhejiang)
Subei (North Jiangsu)
Zhongyuan
Pingyuan
Suining/Mudanjiang
Liaodong
Liaoxi
Liaonan
Liaobei
Hejiang
Nenjiang
Songjiang
Andong
Chamdo
Tsang (capital Shigatse)
Last edited:
Republic of New Netherland
This has actually appeared in fiction once, and the odd VictoriAAR. It encompasses RL New York (Nieuw Amsterdam), Delaware, New Jersey (Nieuw Zweden) and Albany (Fort Oranje). And possibly the Iroquois Confederacy, Connecticut, Vermont and Rhode Island. It could be a survivor of a "What-if?" scenerio where the Dutch held its North American colonies and expanded into New England. Or if the settlers in the British colonies rebelled over religious freedom and nationalist sentiment instead of its English population protesting against tax. With its wealth and influx of European immigrants it would be a troublesome foe for the United States which is seperated from New England by it, and the British in Canada may be wary of this North American Boer republic.
Benelux
A really weird state wherein Dutch and French speaking people can manage to get along. For some reason. Actually, the Netherlands at the start of 1930 would encompas the same area, but with Belgian rebels in the south. Only the king of that time wasn't interested in some politically correct amalgation of cultures or economic cooperation zone that formed after the second world war. It would be a more troublesome neutral power, with as much colonial ambition as either Belgium or the Netherlands.
Indonesian Minors
Asside from Atjeh and Bali which are in Vicky, Malacca and Makassar from EU could come back to trouble any colonial power that hasn't swallowed this archipelago whole yet. Mataram might be present on Java, if the island cannot unite under one government (Diponegro demanded it, but this was unrealistic as he was already on the losing hand at that time).
Indonesia
Either as rebel country or Dutch dominion, there should be a possibility to have Indonesia in the game. By the 20th century this can be a realistic possibility as Indonesians were educated in Dutch schools and gained the consciousness and militancy necessary for a pan-Indonesian movement. Also, with Darwinism the region's clergy will lose their effect, and the Dutch tendency to favour capitalist pops tends to also make the aristocrats even more useless.
Kazakhstan
Because we need AARs filled with Borat jokes.
This has actually appeared in fiction once, and the odd VictoriAAR. It encompasses RL New York (Nieuw Amsterdam), Delaware, New Jersey (Nieuw Zweden) and Albany (Fort Oranje). And possibly the Iroquois Confederacy, Connecticut, Vermont and Rhode Island. It could be a survivor of a "What-if?" scenerio where the Dutch held its North American colonies and expanded into New England. Or if the settlers in the British colonies rebelled over religious freedom and nationalist sentiment instead of its English population protesting against tax. With its wealth and influx of European immigrants it would be a troublesome foe for the United States which is seperated from New England by it, and the British in Canada may be wary of this North American Boer republic.
Benelux
A really weird state wherein Dutch and French speaking people can manage to get along. For some reason. Actually, the Netherlands at the start of 1930 would encompas the same area, but with Belgian rebels in the south. Only the king of that time wasn't interested in some politically correct amalgation of cultures or economic cooperation zone that formed after the second world war. It would be a more troublesome neutral power, with as much colonial ambition as either Belgium or the Netherlands.
Indonesian Minors
Asside from Atjeh and Bali which are in Vicky, Malacca and Makassar from EU could come back to trouble any colonial power that hasn't swallowed this archipelago whole yet. Mataram might be present on Java, if the island cannot unite under one government (Diponegro demanded it, but this was unrealistic as he was already on the losing hand at that time).
Indonesia
Either as rebel country or Dutch dominion, there should be a possibility to have Indonesia in the game. By the 20th century this can be a realistic possibility as Indonesians were educated in Dutch schools and gained the consciousness and militancy necessary for a pan-Indonesian movement. Also, with Darwinism the region's clergy will lose their effect, and the Dutch tendency to favour capitalist pops tends to also make the aristocrats even more useless.
Kazakhstan
Because we need AARs filled with Borat jokes.
- Status