HOME | DD
QuantumBranching — William Penn's Dream
Published: 2012-04-23 05:29:16 +0000 UTC; Views: 7895; Favourites: 54; Downloads: 86
Redirect to original
Description
Haven't put up a map in a while...among other things the pacifist William Penn was a proponent of an end of war through European union (including the Turks even) and wrote up a proposal in some detail. Here we assume that a passing Alien Space Bat and it's mind control rays have helped make this at least a temporary reality, with a few modifications...Related content
Comments: 31
Just another thought, I'm surprised that the Europeans even let the Ottomans into their little club. I would have thought they'd just unite to destroy Islam on the continent, and after that Ottoman history would be similar to that of a continental bitch. Woken up with a cup of piss in the face, slapped around for a while, tied up in a cupboard and occasionally getting whipped by either Spain, Austria or Russia.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Great map, any chance of doing one under the Albany Plan?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's a pity that in this time don't be created this Europe.
It would not be all these wars, nationalism, genocide.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Doubtful, considering how much fragmented territories and foreign domination still exist in this AU.
One half of Italy is dominated by Spain and the other half is consisting of bickering microstates, just like most of Germany.
The Baltic people are divided between Sweden, Russia, Poland and Prussia; while Ireland is under British boot.
The Ottoman, Romanov and Habsburg realms are still massive multi-ethnic empires, keeping their unhappy vassals by violent means in line.
Meanwhile the European colonial powers (particularly Spain, Britain, France, Portugal and the Netherlands) are still busy enslaving and exterminating the native people of Africa, Asia, Australia and the Americas, just as Russia does in it´s Siberian provinces.
Not to mention the status of European/Ottoman minorities, like Jews, Kurds, Romanies, etc.
So, still lots and lots of war, nationalism and genocide arround.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Firstly, you are right with Italy and Germany. Secondly, this in not Poland but Commonwealth of Both Nations - Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth, country of Poles, Lithuanians and Ruthenians - no one is oppressed. Thirdly, "still lots and lots of war, nationalism and genocide arround"? No, only wars, but nationalism don't born yet, like genocide plans.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No genocide at this time? Tell that to the native people of Virginia, the West Indies and New England. At this time anyone of them who survived the smallpox and flu was either sold as slave, killed by settler militas or expelled into the frontier land.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%C3%AD…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_C…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucayan_…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opchanac…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic_m…
And what shall we say about the Russian colonization of Siberia, which was already inhabitated by other people?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_…
Not to mention the African slave trade.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic…
Or Oliver Cromwells conquest of Ireland.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell…
Yes, genocides existed during that time. Maybe not planed as genocides, but the result was the same.
As for the Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth: It was probaly more progressive than other nations of this time, but hardly a haven of equality.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poloniza…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry, I not made clear what I mean. I mean genocides in Europe, not America nor Africa. You have right, Oliver Cromwell was a grim example of the fact that there were such situations.
Polonization in Poland_lithuania was voluntary and have another meaning in this time. For example, there was famous saying: gene ruthenus, natione polonus - its mean that "I am Ruthenian but also I am Pole", "My ancestors was Ruthenian, I live in Ruthenia but I am Pole". Its like nowadays British nationality: You can be English, Scot, Welsh, Cornish or Irish, but also you can be British. This is supra-nationality, transnationality. And for example, peasants in Poland, Lithuania and Ruthenia they had no nationality. They just peasants. Popular name for Polish peasant was "Mazur", but in this time nobody call any peasant Polish, even this peasant came from Polish lands.
But it is not topic of our conversation.
Slaughter sometimes happened, you right. But they do not have nationalist motivation. Religion, cultural, civilization or feudal motivation was in this time, but no nationalist. Cromwell hate royalists and Catholics. Unfortunately, Ireland was mostly catholic. Russians killing people of steppes from two reasons - they want to completly dominate this areas and they thought that they promote civilization to barbarian tribes. Same thing with antoher colonization maked countries.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Genocide remains genocide, no matter the reasons. Back then entire human cultures were wiped out, often by killing their population by purpose as much as by circumstances. And it wasn´t even considered a bad thing by most people, for everyone thought that humans with another religion/language/skin color weren´t seen as real human beings but more as talking animals.
As for British/Welsh/Scottish/Irish/Cornish/English trans-nationality and supranationality of this time:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_B…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Re…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_En…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobite…
Remember, were talking about back then, not about today.
Peasantry might not had nationality during this times. But they had their language, religion and culture. And this language, religion and culture was not necesserily the same as their lords.
For example the Polish-Lituanian Commonwealth: The Polish nobility was mostly Roman Catholic, while the Ukrainian peasentry was mostly Orthodox or Greek Ukrainian Catholic, always a reason for internal strife. Not to mention the enforcement of Polish language in administration, education and public life, which was necessary for an efficient state...but was also perceived as cultural opression by many non-Polish citizen with a different first language. In fact the internal tensions about cultural and religious assimilation between the nobility, Cossacks and Ukrainian-Ruthenian peasants in the eastern territories are considered a major factor in the downfall of the Commonwealth.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorovy…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulyma_U…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostryany…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlyuk_…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnyt…
And did the author of your witty saying mention that Ruthenian language was downright forbidden as an official language in the late 17th century?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenia…
www.zum.de/whkmla/region/eceur…
Yes, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had a lot of very progressive laws about religious and cultural tolerance. But that doesn´t necessarily mean real equal treatment in reality. If you actually bother to read this properly:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poloniza…
Or take a look in the history of the USA and their real treatement of Polish, Irish, Italian and German Catholics in the 19th/early 20th centuries despite all the good sounding laws about religious freedom. Not to mention all of their non-white/non-Christian people...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When I say that Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was something like Great Britian, I mean today Great Britian. In XVII there wasn't Great Britian but England with occupied territories of Wales and Ireland, with union with Scotlan.
Ukrainian peasants was Orthodox nor Greek Catholic, yes. However Greek Catholic religion wasn't oppressed, unless by orthodox Cossacks.
I think, you dont know about language situation in PLC. In Crown (lands of today's Poland and Ukraina) was Polish language, but in Lithuania (lands of today's Lithuania and Belarus) official language was Oldruthenian (ancestor of Bylorussian language, so in fact - Ruthenian). And this language wasn't opressed or something that - until the establishment of the Constitution of 3 May (first constitution in Europe) in PLC was 2 official languages. Remember that Ruthenian language in XVII century is
a different language than the current Ruthenian.
Cossacks Uprisings is more complicated question... You have right, this is one of caustion that PLC was falled, I also think that. Our nobles wasn't ideal, they also ignored and mistreated the peasants (not as much as Moscow, but yes), so Cossacks make few uprisings. The biggest uprising of Chmielnicki(Khmelnytsky) was great tragedy for Polish, Bylorussian, Ukrainian nations. Ukrainian peasents killed nobles, priests and Jews, Ukrainian aristocracy like Jeremi Wiśniowiecki (who took over the Polish culture, so he was "gene ruthenus, natione polonus") killed Cossacks and Ukrainian peasants. After all Poland lost power and many lands in Ukraine, Cossacks lost liberty and laws in Moscow Tsardom. Only Moscow win. There was chance to change it, in Treaty of Hadiach.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_o…
Where you read about PLC and our historicial situation?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Did you read the links?
They clearly state everything you mention here, but also the fact that it was not all sunshine and peaches between the various ethnicities of the Commonwealth, especially not between rulers and ruled ones. It never was or is in multi-ethnic societies.
You could as well praise the Second German Empire as a great place for Jews to live in, because Kaiser Willhelm II. was good friends with Albert Ballin, Eduard Arnhold, Carl Fürstenberg, Paul von Schwabach, Emil Rathenau and Walther Rathenau and it was in general the time when German Jews achieved great things in science, technology, art, economy and politics. But it did´nt change the fact that there was wide-spread anti-semitism in society and government and they used many different methods to harass and discriminate against Jews in a small way, although this was nothing compared to the future crimes of the nationalsocialists.
Whether it is the Commonwealth or another past nation, it´s never advisable to carry idealised views about how great everything was there back then and how great the world would have been later, if this or that realm just woulda survived. That everything I say about this topic and let it go at that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Maybe you misinterpreting my words.
It was not a land of milk and honey, but much better than other countries in this time. Another country who have so many privilege for minorities was Austro-Hungarian Empire in XIX century, before was only PLC (and maybe Ottoman Empire in some issue). Candy was not, but it was much better than elsewhere.
Yes, we can stop at this conclusion and let it go.
Thank you for conversation!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Just as a last goodbye:
There WAS a relious conflicts between the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church in the Commonwealth.
Again, you have to actually read the links.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainia…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Alas, the hopes of scholars and intellectuals and reformers are so often dashed by the follies of kings and politicians. Slowly we progress.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
However, on which program you have created this map?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Not only kings and politicians, also demagogs and uneducated peasant masses, which worked to the detriment of themselves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Now, don't run down the peasant masses. They usually just wanted to get on with their farming and get enough to eat...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But it was easy to manipulate them, saying that those who are fighting for freedom, they really are their enemies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Buddy, you clearly have no clue about the life of an average 16th century peasant. Most of them were just glad to be alive at the end of every day, let alone spare any of their little energy to fight for ill-defined concepts like freedom ("Rising against our good, godly emperor? What vile madness is this? You might just as well claim these dirty Saxons with their Lutheran heresy to be real human beings!") Besides, they tried often enough (for example the German Peasants War of 1525) but most of the times it ended really, really badly for them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I doubt. For some peasant war are good time to get rich or have an adventure. For some peasant fight for the better own are good reason to make a revolt, even if this would have been incited. However, no one can be one hundred percent sure.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Let the Pope be outraged, he's lucky the Roman people don't depose him and create a republic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
He could easily point out how the Irish get nothing despite being a seperate Kingdom from England and Scotland. Maybe do some lobbying to shake the administration by the Spanish, France, and Austrian of the Church, it's positions, tithes, and lands. The didn't try overthrowing the Pope OTL until he showed that he wasn't going to have a crusade against the Austrians to get them out of Italy. If he stands his ground against the French and Spanish, though... Hey, merely getting Sardinia, Sicily, Naples, and Milan to have the status of Hanover would be a victory.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I find it hard to think of the world before international institutions like the UN or EU, and it is odd to think how effective things like that might have been in earlier centuries.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Fetch my time machine and mind-control devices. I have me an EU-Enlightened Absolutism-wank to perform...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
As usual I shall approach this from my Irish-centric perspective.
Ireland would have one seat at least, Dublin was the second-city of the UK untill the Famine and Industrialisation kicked in, a very well cultured place. Though of course Britain may be rather touchy about the Confederation trying to stick their big Papist noses into how they deal with they deal with their rebellious natives.
Also, if Irelands population grows at the rate it did OTL, and is then struck by some potato blight, with Britain reacting with the same veiled indifference as OTL, they could get themselves a very good case for independence.
But of course it all depends on other events really, how nationalism, republicanism and liberalism all take off for one.
Also, what does the New World look like? Is that ever discussed by the Confederation or have Britain, France, Spain and all the other great colonisers collectively said "Fuck off you nosy bastards!"?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Given the overall map, it´s save to assume that the Confederation gives just as many shits about Irish representation as it gives about Hessian, Czech, Estonian, Ukrainian, Armenian, Romanian, Syrian, Greek, Palatinian, Egypt, Albanian or Neapolitan representation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I thought I'd already replied to this. Ah well.
Ireland at this time was of very important interest to France and Spain, they had always seen it as the backdoor to England, and they had a lot of military officers, colonial governers, and regiments made up of Irish exiles. Obviously they're not warring with England at this point, but they could try and gain influence with an Irish representative. Also at this time Ireland, like Scotland, had it's own parliament, it was it's own separate kingdom under the whole umbrella of Britain. So if Scotland has votes then Ireland should have some too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well, I thought the British would consider Ireland at the time as directly under the rule of London, and the six British votes represent the economic and population weight of Britain+Ireland: but perhaps the notion of gaining an extra seat or two by spinning off a seperate Irish parliament (see Soviet Ukraine's UN seat) might get some traction. The potato thing was a side effect of the loss of most Irish land to big landlords: growing potatoes allowed people to feed themselves on their little plots without effectively enserfing themselves to the same landlords. If we see improved rural conditions in Ireland as part of results of a seperate Irish parliament, there might be a less potato-centric agriculture.
I assume the New World is currently without local votes, since the colonies are considered subordinate territories, although the weight of the population in the Americas gives the Spanish some extra votes (colonial populations count in representation, although they don't pick the representatives themselves. This is likely to bring some aggravated comments from the Americans as the century progresses).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Interesting and well executed idea. One cannot but think how an earlier EU could have affected the Enlightement and the Utopian thinking.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So in other words, the modern EU shows up ahead of schedule?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0