HOME | DD

Description
I'm working through my backlog of commissions, so here's one from Dr-Arcade . I am not taking commissions right now.

This is a world where the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas serves as the basis of the political philosophies of most of the world. Many thanks to John Gobelinus for helping me brainstorm this.
The Mongol conquests of Eurasia changed history forever. The conquests not only brought about vast political changes and bloodshed, but they also led to the exchange of new ideas through the trade network the Mongols established. From the Nile to the Yangtze, the Mongol Empire facilitated an intellectual renaissance that would not have been possible otherwise. The Mongol conquests also pushed many peoples to the far corners of the globe, changing history as knowledge traveled with the refugees. Middle Eastern scholars traveled throughout Europe and Africa, while their Chinese counterparts fled to the islands of the south or even further away.

The Naturalists

Naturalism was the dominant political philosophy until about the 17th century. Naturalism is based on Aquinas’ ideas that, as all things have a particular nature and act according to this nature, humans also have a particular nature and act in a way according to this nature. In the political sphere, this takes the form of hierarchical authoritarian modes of government. Different classes of people also have particular natures, and these natures determine their role in society. Some classes of people are meant to lead nations, while others are meant to work the field, and so on.

The Scientific Revolution only confirmed this idea. As understanding of human anatomy grew, the different portions of society were analogized to organs: each with a different, important part to play, all acting for the good of the whole. Of course, parts of society that are not doing their part are akin to failing organs, and must be remedied by the state. For this reason, many Naturalist governments use medical terminology in the context of politics.

Naturalist ideology makes a differentiation between the metaphysical and spiritual nature of humans, and their physical nature. Both are separate from one another, with the spirit being every individual’s way of finding spiritual fulfillment, typically through religion. For this reason, freedom of religion is generally the rule in Naturalist societies, although irreligious philosophies such as atheism are generally considered asocial and therefore banned as a corrupting influence.

Economically, Naturalism lends itself to managed markets, regulatory states, and social welfare. Wealth is not a good in and of itself, but rather a means to greater societal good. The wealthiest in society were not entitled to their property, but rather were entrusted with managing their wealth for the good of society. The wealthy, and the state, had a duty to ensure that those at the bottom of society did not go without; therefore, robust welfare systems arose in Naturalist states. Likewise, Naturalists were not friendly to market economics, which often disrupted social roles. Instead, nobility and peasantry gradually shifted roles into industrial managers and workers, and then into post-industrial managers and workers. Industrialism was a slow, deliberate process in the Naturalist world, one reason it still lags behind the Universalist world in technology.

By its nature, Naturalism did not cause titanic shifts in the political order. It reinforced and provided new reasons for preexisting political orders to remain in place. It was popular in the Christian and Islamic worlds, but found lasting influence in the Indian subcontinent and the East Indies, where Naturalism meshed well with preexisting caste systems. Naturalism remains dominant in Europe, in the Indian subcontinent, the Indies, and Upper Platinia, where the Kingdom of Occidentia is located. Occidentia is a former Portuguese colony where the former Portuguese monarchy fled after Portugal’s conquest by Castile.

The Universalists

A rival arose to Naturalism: Universalism. Universalism focused on Aquinas’ idea of a singular spiritual leader of the universe, and reasoned that as there is one spiritual leader in the form of God, there must also be one temporal leader. The divided political nature of humanity was a result of mankind’s fall after the Tower of Babel incident, and this is a curse that must be fixed through the unification of every country under one universal monarchy.

Despite being a Catholic theologian, Aquinas’ philosophy had considerable success in the Islamic world. Centuries under the Mongol yoke did not rob the Islamic world of its religion, but the trade routes opened by the Mongol Empire brought in new ideas from East Asia and Europe. Aquinas’ philosophy was one of these, but another was the idea of a global empire. Although the Mongol conquerors of Eurasia initially had little interest in philosophical matters, as they learned the difficulties of managing a large empire, they favored ideas of unity.

In spite of its pretensions, the Universal Monarchy is not a unified political entity that in any way resembles a state. In theory, it is the beginnings of a proper, worldwide monarchy, with the King of Kings ruling as supreme despot of the planet. In practical function, it is an alliance of monarchies operating under Universalist philosophy. The throne of the King of Kings – and each major Universalist power has one set aside – remains empty. The Universalist powers are ruled instead by princes, satraps, governors, and other “servants” of the King of Kings, who are ruling directly in his absence. All Universalists agree that, once the Earth is unified, a King of Kings will be selected. How this universal monarch is selected is a matter of great debate, which fortunately remains theoretical.

Of the Principalities, the Principality of Ullakan Iranzamin, or the Principality of the Lands of Greater Iran, is the largest, and the one with the greatest claim to the title of Universal Monarchy. Such is its greatness that many lesser principalities acknowledge its claim and pay tribute to the Shah in Askhabad. A descendant of the Mongol Ilkhanate, it was reunified by the Turkmen-Mongol philosopher-general Ammanow. Ammanow was inspired by Aquinas’ philosophy, Islamic theology, and Confucian ideas and formulated the concept of the Universal Monarchy. In his lifetime, Ammanow tried his best to bring the entire world under his rule, focusing his efforts in Central and South Asia. Over the centuries, his successors have gained and lost much territory; particularly painful was the loss of the Indian subcontinent to the Tamils.

The ideal of the Universal Monarchy spread to other states. These other states tended to be historical hegemons of their part of the world, meaning that the idea of being the sole rulers of the world was a familiar and long-standing one in these cultures. In Europe, Universalism became popular in the Holy Roman Empire, at a time when the Holy Roman Empire was positioning itself as the temporal component of a singular Christian world order. Under this system, the Papacy – then under the Holy Roman Empire’s dominance – had its temporal powers severely curtailed and transferred over to the Holy Roman Emperor. Throughout the 15th and 16th centuries, the Holy Roman Empire sought to recreate the Roman Empire, centralizing drastically and defeating its French neighbors in numerous wars. Ultimately, the Holy Roman Empire was destroyed by the Priest Wars, reduced to a shadow of its former self, and forced to relinquish control of the Catholic Church.

These rival pretenders to the throne were not recognized in Askhabad, for there could only be one Universal Monarch. However, in the 19th century, the Ullakan Iranzamin dropped its pretensions of being the Universal Monarchy and instead transformed into a future ideal that all Universalists should work towards. This was done in an attempt to modernize and appeal to an international community of Universalist powers which controlled important trade routes: namely, the Romans who controlled the Dardanelles, and the Egyptians who controlled the Red Sea. The conference was also intended to appease the powerful Emperor of All Under Heaven, who were long-time rivals of the Shahs. Other powerful monarchs, such as the Iberian emperor, the Holy Roman emperor, and the Universal Monarch of the Four Corners in Platinia, were invited. All the Universalists invited agreed that they were all princes working towards the ideal of global unification. No Universalist “principality” recognizes the sovereignty of any other state, with the exception of Iberia, which maintains various “vassal principalities” that it intends to integrate into the Universal Empire at some future point.

Not all accepted the invitation of the Shah, and not all were invited. The Universal Monarch of Makedon, which claims the heritage of Alexander the Great, was a weak state in the Balkans and not considered a legitimate prince by the Shah. Others are the products of the post-colonial era: the Universal Monarchs of Malagasi and Simbawe were not independent countries during the conference in Askhabad.

According to Universalist ideology, each prince has a duty to their people to maintain a high standard of living, and the people have a duty to overthrow princes who have failed in this duty. For this reason, the princes of the Universal Monarchy have an active incentive to act as good leaders, while some have actually transitioned into de facto ceremonial monarchies as princes gradually shed their responsibilities – and the blame – onto ministers.

While Universalism has religious roots, it is meant to be a purely secular ideology, allowing people to find their own way to God. For example, Ullakan Iranzamin is majority Islamic, but it is not a caliphate. Monotheists, particularly Abrahamic monotheists, enjoy full religious freedom, and the areas such as Judea, Armenia, and Georgia are not majority Muslim. This religious tolerance is an outgrowth of Ullakan Iranzamin’s Mongol roots, but it is not all-accepting. “Paganism,” meaning any non-monotheistic religion, is not tolerated; this contributed to the Indian revolts and the loss of much of the subcontinent.

Universalist economics is friendlier to the free market. Universalism does not share the idea of natural class roles for humans. Rather, it has a diarchic view of humans: there is the one King of Earth, and everyone else. Whatever hierarchy arises from under the King of Earth is arbitrary and not natural, and therefore competition is allowed and even encouraged. Combined with Iranzamin’s control of vast oil reserves, the Ullakan Iranzamin became the industrial powerhouse of Earth, which only fueled its expansion into Asia, Europe and Africa. However, the Ullakan Iranzamin’s economic supremacy has since waned, as its heavy industrial economy proved difficult to bring into the information age.

The Purificationists

A syncretic movement has emerged, blending the ideas of Universalism and Naturalism: Purificationism. The ruling philosophy in the court of the Platinian World Empire, it fuses Naturalism’s view of humans as behaving according to their nature and Universalism’s desire to create one unified world. However, it also takes another idea from Aquinas: that anything in the mind is first received through the senses. The Purificationists thus believe that good can be achieved by removing evil from perception. To this end, the Purificationists of the Platinian Empire have created a completely totalitarian state, where control of information by the state is absolute. Nothing foreign is allowed, and everything is produced by the state. The Purificationists also believe that the family is the core unit of society, the prototypical “cell” of the body politic, and therefore must be maintained at all costs. Strict controls on lifestyle are thus implemented by the state, down to controlling when and to whom people are married, what jobs they can have, how they can dress and eat, and how they spend their free time. The Platinian World Empire is ruled by a single emperor, who has his own ambition of being the King of Earth.

The Platinian World Empire is the sole Purificationist state, as it tolerates the existence of no other state and is hemmed in by the powerful Principality of the Four Corners on its western flank, and the oceans on the other.

Everyone Else

The Far East remains generally outside the influence of Thomist philosophy, preferring their own philosophical traditions. Nevertheless, Aquinas’ philosophy did make its way into China via the Mongol Empire, and fused into the existing Confucian philosophical systems in place. This did not apply to parts of the Sinosphere which were not under the Mongol yoke, or were soon removed from under it. The Mongol rule over China instigated mass emigration, particularly from southern China, to surrounding island nations. Nevertheless, the spread of Aquinas' ideas followed after the Mongols, and geopolitics has drawn many of these nations into the Naturalist bloc.

Overall, the world is more religious than OTL. Outright atheism is rare, and even those who do not subscribe to a particular religious tradition believe in a divine creator of the universe. Moral subjectivism is also unpopular, with the major ideologies each believing that theirs is the only way to properly govern humans, and therefore none of them are friendly to internal opposition.

Description
I'm working through my backlog of commissions, so here's one from Dr-Arcade . I am not taking commissions right now.

This is a world where the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas serves as the basis of the political philosophies of most of the world. Many thanks to John Gobelinus for helping me brainstorm this.
The Mongol conquests of Eurasia changed history forever. The conquests not only brought about vast political changes and bloodshed, but they also led to the exchange of new ideas through the trade network the Mongols established. From the Nile to the Yangtze, the Mongol Empire facilitated an intellectual renaissance that would not have been possible otherwise. The Mongol conquests also pushed many peoples to the far corners of the globe, changing history as knowledge traveled with the refugees. Middle Eastern scholars traveled throughout Europe and Africa, while their Chinese counterparts fled to the islands of the south or even further away.

The Naturalists

Naturalism was the dominant political philosophy until about the 17th century. Naturalism is based on Aquinas’ ideas that, as all things have a particular nature and act according to this nature, humans also have a particular nature and act in a way according to this nature. In the political sphere, this takes the form of hierarchical authoritarian modes of government. Different classes of people also have particular natures, and these natures determine their role in society. Some classes of people are meant to lead nations, while others are meant to work the field, and so on.

The Scientific Revolution only confirmed this idea. As understanding of human anatomy grew, the different portions of society were analogized to organs: each with a different, important part to play, all acting for the good of the whole. Of course, parts of society that are not doing their part are akin to failing organs, and must be remedied by the state. For this reason, many Naturalist governments use medical terminology in the context of politics.

Naturalist ideology makes a differentiation between the metaphysical and spiritual nature of humans, and their physical nature. Both are separate from one another, with the spirit being every individual’s way of finding spiritual fulfillment, typically through religion. For this reason, freedom of religion is generally the rule in Naturalist societies, although irreligious philosophies such as atheism are generally considered asocial and therefore banned as a corrupting influence.

Economically, Naturalism lends itself to managed markets, regulatory states, and social welfare. Wealth is not a good in and of itself, but rather a means to greater societal good. The wealthiest in society were not entitled to their property, but rather were entrusted with managing their wealth for the good of society. The wealthy, and the state, had a duty to ensure that those at the bottom of society did not go without; therefore, robust welfare systems arose in Naturalist states. Likewise, Naturalists were not friendly to market economics, which often disrupted social roles. Instead, nobility and peasantry gradually shifted roles into industrial managers and workers, and then into post-industrial managers and workers. Industrialism was a slow, deliberate process in the Naturalist world, one reason it still lags behind the Universalist world in technology.

By its nature, Naturalism did not cause titanic shifts in the political order. It reinforced and provided new reasons for preexisting political orders to remain in place. It was popular in the Christian and Islamic worlds, but found lasting influence in the Indian subcontinent and the East Indies, where Naturalism meshed well with preexisting caste systems. Naturalism remains dominant in Europe, in the Indian subcontinent, the Indies, and Upper Platinia, where the Kingdom of Occidentia is located. Occidentia is a former Portuguese colony where the former Portuguese monarchy fled after Portugal’s conquest by Castile.

The Universalists

A rival arose to Naturalism: Universalism. Universalism focused on Aquinas’ idea of a singular spiritual leader of the universe, and reasoned that as there is one spiritual leader in the form of God, there must also be one temporal leader. The divided political nature of humanity was a result of mankind’s fall after the Tower of Babel incident, and this is a curse that must be fixed through the unification of every country under one universal monarchy.

Despite being a Catholic theologian, Aquinas’ philosophy had considerable success in the Islamic world. Centuries under the Mongol yoke did not rob the Islamic world of its religion, but the trade routes opened by the Mongol Empire brought in new ideas from East Asia and Europe. Aquinas’ philosophy was one of these, but another was the idea of a global empire. Although the Mongol conquerors of Eurasia initially had little interest in philosophical matters, as they learned the difficulties of managing a large empire, they favored ideas of unity.

In spite of its pretensions, the Universal Monarchy is not a unified political entity that in any way resembles a state. In theory, it is the beginnings of a proper, worldwide monarchy, with the King of Kings ruling as supreme despot of the planet. In practical function, it is an alliance of monarchies operating under Universalist philosophy. The throne of the King of Kings – and each major Universalist power has one set aside – remains empty. The Universalist powers are ruled instead by princes, satraps, governors, and other “servants” of the King of Kings, who are ruling directly in his absence. All Universalists agree that, once the Earth is unified, a King of Kings will be selected. How this universal monarch is selected is a matter of great debate, which fortunately remains theoretical.

Of the Principalities, the Principality of Ullakan Iranzamin, or the Principality of the Lands of Greater Iran, is the largest, and the one with the greatest claim to the title of Universal Monarchy. Such is its greatness that many lesser principalities acknowledge its claim and pay tribute to the Shah in Askhabad. A descendant of the Mongol Ilkhanate, it was reunified by the Turkmen-Mongol philosopher-general Ammanow. Ammanow was inspired by Aquinas’ philosophy, Islamic theology, and Confucian ideas and formulated the concept of the Universal Monarchy. In his lifetime, Ammanow tried his best to bring the entire world under his rule, focusing his efforts in Central and South Asia. Over the centuries, his successors have gained and lost much territory; particularly painful was the loss of the Indian subcontinent to the Tamils.

The ideal of the Universal Monarchy spread to other states. These other states tended to be historical hegemons of their part of the world, meaning that the idea of being the sole rulers of the world was a familiar and long-standing one in these cultures. In Europe, Universalism became popular in the Holy Roman Empire, at a time when the Holy Roman Empire was positioning itself as the temporal component of a singular Christian world order. Under this system, the Papacy – then under the Holy Roman Empire’s dominance – had its temporal powers severely curtailed and transferred over to the Holy Roman Emperor. Throughout the 15th and 16th centuries, the Holy Roman Empire sought to recreate the Roman Empire, centralizing drastically and defeating its French neighbors in numerous wars. Ultimately, the Holy Roman Empire was destroyed by the Priest Wars, reduced to a shadow of its former self, and forced to relinquish control of the Catholic Church.

These rival pretenders to the throne were not recognized in Askhabad, for there could only be one Universal Monarch. However, in the 19th century, the Ullakan Iranzamin dropped its pretensions of being the Universal Monarchy and instead transformed into a future ideal that all Universalists should work towards. This was done in an attempt to modernize and appeal to an international community of Universalist powers which controlled important trade routes: namely, the Romans who controlled the Dardanelles, and the Egyptians who controlled the Red Sea. The conference was also intended to appease the powerful Emperor of All Under Heaven, who were long-time rivals of the Shahs. Other powerful monarchs, such as the Iberian emperor, the Holy Roman emperor, and the Universal Monarch of the Four Corners in Platinia, were invited. All the Universalists invited agreed that they were all princes working towards the ideal of global unification. No Universalist “principality” recognizes the sovereignty of any other state, with the exception of Iberia, which maintains various “vassal principalities” that it intends to integrate into the Universal Empire at some future point.

Not all accepted the invitation of the Shah, and not all were invited. The Universal Monarch of Makedon, which claims the heritage of Alexander the Great, was a weak state in the Balkans and not considered a legitimate prince by the Shah. Others are the products of the post-colonial era: the Universal Monarchs of Malagasi and Simbawe were not independent countries during the conference in Askhabad.

According to Universalist ideology, each prince has a duty to their people to maintain a high standard of living, and the people have a duty to overthrow princes who have failed in this duty. For this reason, the princes of the Universal Monarchy have an active incentive to act as good leaders, while some have actually transitioned into de facto ceremonial monarchies as princes gradually shed their responsibilities – and the blame – onto ministers.

While Universalism has religious roots, it is meant to be a purely secular ideology, allowing people to find their own way to God. For example, Ullakan Iranzamin is majority Islamic, but it is not a caliphate. Monotheists, particularly Abrahamic monotheists, enjoy full religious freedom, and the areas such as Judea, Armenia, and Georgia are not majority Muslim. This religious tolerance is an outgrowth of Ullakan Iranzamin’s Mongol roots, but it is not all-accepting. “Paganism,” meaning any non-monotheistic religion, is not tolerated; this contributed to the Indian revolts and the loss of much of the subcontinent.

Universalist economics is friendlier to the free market. Universalism does not share the idea of natural class roles for humans. Rather, it has a diarchic view of humans: there is the one King of Earth, and everyone else. Whatever hierarchy arises from under the King of Earth is arbitrary and not natural, and therefore competition is allowed and even encouraged. Combined with Iranzamin’s control of vast oil reserves, the Ullakan Iranzamin became the industrial powerhouse of Earth, which only fueled its expansion into Asia, Europe and Africa. However, the Ullakan Iranzamin’s economic supremacy has since waned, as its heavy industrial economy proved difficult to bring into the information age.

The Purificationists

A syncretic movement has emerged, blending the ideas of Universalism and Naturalism: Purificationism. The ruling philosophy in the court of the Platinian World Empire, it fuses Naturalism’s view of humans as behaving according to their nature and Universalism’s desire to create one unified world. However, it also takes another idea from Aquinas: that anything in the mind is first received through the senses. The Purificationists thus believe that good can be achieved by removing evil from perception. To this end, the Purificationists of the Platinian Empire have created a completely totalitarian state, where control of information by the state is absolute. Nothing foreign is allowed, and everything is produced by the state. The Purificationists also believe that the family is the core unit of society, the prototypical “cell” of the body politic, and therefore must be maintained at all costs. Strict controls on lifestyle are thus implemented by the state, down to controlling when and to whom people are married, what jobs they can have, how they can dress and eat, and how they spend their free time. The Platinian World Empire is ruled by a single emperor, who has his own ambition of being the King of Earth.

The Platinian World Empire is the sole Purificationist state, as it tolerates the existence of no other state and is hemmed in by the powerful Principality of the Four Corners on its western flank, and the oceans on the other.

Everyone Else

The Far East remains generally outside the influence of Thomist philosophy, preferring their own philosophical traditions. Nevertheless, Aquinas’ philosophy did make its way into China via the Mongol Empire, and fused into the existing Confucian philosophical systems in place. This did not apply to parts of the Sinosphere which were not under the Mongol yoke, or were soon removed from under it. The Mongol rule over China instigated mass emigration, particularly from southern China, to surrounding island nations. Nevertheless, the spread of Aquinas' ideas followed after the Mongols, and geopolitics has drawn many of these nations into the Naturalist bloc.

Overall, the world is more religious than OTL. Outright atheism is rare, and even those who do not subscribe to a particular religious tradition believe in a divine creator of the universe. Moral subjectivism is also unpopular, with the major ideologies each believing that theirs is the only way to properly govern humans, and therefore none of them are friendly to internal opposition.