Talk:Greece (1983: Doomsday)

Nowiki Marks
I don't think those marks are me. All I did was add asterisks so as to make a bulleted list. My computer doesn't like these new changes; then again Vista doesn't actually like anything at all. Mr.Xeight 20:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You might eant to contact an admin, I've been seeing it with all of your edits when it involves Wiki code. Mitro 20:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Dodecanese
What exactly are the "Turkish colonies" mentioned for the Dodecanese Republic? --DarthEinstein 19:22, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Tiny, little settlements on the Turkish coast directly across from the islands such as Rhodes; most I'm sure were mere abandoned towns that the surplus population was compelled to move to. Mr.Xeight 03:53, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Currency
The Commonwealth dollar does not seem like the most logical one for the Greeks to peg with; the ANZC may be powerful, but I do not think they're much of an economic force in the Mediterranean. Is there anything closer? The Nordic krone, maybe? Benkarnell 06:25, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I only pegged it to show that it might be a fortunate nation, though still a still emerging one. Though if the ANZCA is too far away I suppose it will only have its own set value for the dollar. I'm guessing the New Federation will do the same, but Lord knows when I'll break through the current melancholy/sloth I'm experiencing, I can barely keep my eyes open now. Mr.Xeight 07:21, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal COA
It took me a while to find and edit, but what do you think of this (if you think it needs improvments, just edit it).

Territory
I think with how strong the confederation is economically and militarily they would control more of mainland greece.Oerwinde 08:09, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

We still need a concrete map of the territories controlled by the confederation.

Yankovic270 22:50, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia
First of all, I'm very sorry about the whole thing, I'm new to the site and this is my first 1983: DD article, and I didn't know so sorry. Next, I don't know how to fix the map so I'm kind of stuck on that, but if I can, I'll change

Very Sorry Ownerzmcown 15:25, July 2, 2010 (UTC) 22:25, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Look, I know you don't think very well of me, but I would like to say on my page that our countries contacted each other, so if you'll let bygons be bygons, that I'd like to put that on my page.

Again Sorry Ownerzmcown 15:25, July 2, 2010 (UTC) 1:48, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Dude, seriously I need a response, can I include Greece in my Kingdom of Macedonia article or not? Ownerzmcown 17:00, July 3, 2010 (UTC) 18:00, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Calm down. He'll get you a response eventually. Caeruleus 21:58, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Military
Just putting in some of my 2 cents in here, but why haven't you guys written anything about the Greek military yet, and thinking about it I probably shouldn't put this in the Macedonia section, it has nothing to do with Macedonia. Ownerzmcown 03:04, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Flag of the Confederation
When the First United Parliament met to settle things, one of the first issues was a flag. The Hellenic Republic decided to use the flag of Greece from before 1983, whereas the Despotate of Moreos gave its idea of the flag of the Byzantine Empire. The Delian League proposed a new flag for the Confederacy, one that did not lean towards any one nation. One man Βενιαμίν Καρνέλλος (Veniamin Karnellos) proposed that the underlying theme by unity, in hopes of unifying the states one day. He chose the old colors of Greece (white and blue) and put gold stars for each of the states, even a star for Cyprus. In the center of the blue Saint Andrew's cross Venedethiktos placed a slightly larger gold star, for brotherhood and Hellenism. As of June 19th, 1994 Venedethiktos' proposal became the official flag of the new Confederacy of Greece.

Flag Gallery

 * Greek Saltire.PNG

Protected egyptian archaeological sites.
Sites under Greek Protection '''Sites under the joint Egyptian-Greek protection. (In Creation)'''
 * Alexandria's Library
 * Archaeological site of Abu Mena.
 * Archaeological site of Abusir.
 * Tell Al-Baladum
 * El-Manar
 * Pyramid of Userkaf
 * Pyramid of Teti
 * Pyramid of Unas
 * The Buried Piramid of Saqqara800px-All_Gizah_Pyramids.jpg
 * Serapeum
 * Sekhemkhet
 * Gisr el-Mudir
 * Mortuary Complex of Pepi-I
 * Step Pyramid
 * Pyramid of Merenre
 * Haram el-Shawaf
 * Pepi-I meryre
 * Saqqara tombs
 * Pepi-II's pyramid
 * Mastabet el-Fara'un
 * Ibi's Pyramid
 * Pyramid of Khendjer
 * White Pyramid
 * Red Pyramid
 * Pyramid of Amenemhat III
 * Bent's Pyramid
 * Giza Complex
 * Pyramid of Ameny Qemau
 * Pyramid of Amenemhet I
 * Pyramid of Senusret I
 * Gerzet Culture burial sites.
 * Pyramid of Medium
 * Pyramid of Lahun
 * Pyramid of Amenemhet III
 * Karanis
 * Pyramid of Seila
 * Antinopolis
 * Great Temple of the Aten
 * Tombs of Meir
 * Pyramid of Chui
 * Abydos Temple
 * Pyramid of Sinki
 * Dendara Complex

Sites under Greek Protection '''Sites under the joint Egyptian-Greek protection. (In Creation)'''
 * Alexandria's Library
 * Archaeological site of Abu Mena.
 * Archaeological site of Abusir.
 * Tell Al-Baladum
 * El-Manar
 * Pyramid of Userkaf
 * Pyramid of Teti
 * Pyramid of Unas
 * The Buried Piramid of Saqqara800px-All_Gizah_Pyramids.jpg
 * Serapeum
 * Sekhemkhet
 * Gisr el-Mudir
 * Mortuary Complex of Pepi-I
 * Step Pyramid
 * Pyramid of Merenre
 * Haram el-Shawaf
 * Pepi-I meryre
 * Saqqara tombs
 * Pepi-II's pyramid
 * Mastabet el-Fara'un
 * Ibi's Pyramid
 * Pyramid of Khendjer
 * White Pyramid
 * Red Pyramid
 * Pyramid of Amenemhat III
 * Bent's Pyramid
 * Giza Complex
 * Pyramid of Ameny Qemau
 * Pyramid of Amenemhet I
 * Pyramid of Senusret I
 * Gerzet Culture burial sites.
 * Pyramid of Medium
 * Pyramid of Lahun
 * Pyramid of Amenemhet III
 * Karanis
 * Pyramid of Seila
 * Antinopolis
 * Great Temple of the Aten
 * Tombs of Meir
 * Pyramid of Chui
 * Abydos Temple
 * Pyramid of Sinki
 * Dendara Complex

Russian Confederacies promise to Greece
As part of the Russian Confederacies program of international relations it's trying to build alliances with other powers in the former USSR, the Baltic, and the Balkans. Although it doesn't claim to be a successor to the USSR I suspect it would have no love for Turkey due to Russia's almost constant rivalry with Turkey and before that the Ottoman Empire. As a result of that as one of the RC's creators i'd like to make the following offer to Greece.

In this the Confederacy would promise to uphold Greece's independence by essentially pointing some of its Pioneer and Scud missiles at turkey and saying that of it attacks Greece it will face bombardment with Chemical weapons. In return for this the Confederacy would want Greece to stand up for the Confederacy in the LoN and other organisations wich the ANZC and USSR have blocked it's admittance to. What are your thoughts on this?.Vegas adict 10:03, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that in the post-Doomsday world, no one would accept a regime who uses nuclear, chemical, or biological weaponry... Caeruleus
 * They don't actualy use them, its mainly a way of saying to its enemies that it will use them should they or thier allies have there existence threatened. The nukes are part of a seperate program to stop the USSR from attacking. The pioneers can also carry a Fuel Air explosive and the scuds can carry a convential explosive as well.Vegas adict 20:54, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * And what about Macedonia in this situationa dn creating an alliance with them? Ownerzmcown 21:02, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * No concern, does Macedonia have IRBM's (Intermediate Range Balistic Missiles) or theater Balistic Missiles. No, does it possess bombers/ground attack aircraft able to bypass MiG-25 and MiG-21 interceptors, No. Therefore Macedonia would not pose a strategic threat although it also might face sporadic strikes from Missiles and aircraft. Remember this promise is still only an offer, the Greek caretakers have not yet respondedVegas adict 21:17, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

As much as I might enjoy the history of the Russian Empire and be frustrated over a great percentage of average-American citizens' Russophobia and all around bigotry, I can't accept-this alliance would be Turkey's excuse to declare war on me, and I certainly won't let that happen. I thank you for your alliance, but it would be a detriment as opposed to a mutual-benefit. Mr.Xeight 21:30, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * ^I agree with the above statement. Thank you for your realism Mr.Xeight, and that's honest btw.
 * Also, I'm just curious about something Vegas. Why would you reach out to Greece in this way? Greece is focusing on the Meditterranean, faces greater threats from elsewhere (Sicily and Turkey), and has little power projection capability into the area. You also would make an enemy of Turkey, a nation that to date has shown little interest in Russia or opposition to the Russian Confederacy. Why don't you try reaching out to a nation that is both interested in the area and can compete with Socialist Siberia, such as the Nordic Union? Caeruleus 23:14, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oh butt out, this isn't your conversation... Mr.Xeight 23:30, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a wiki. It's everyone's conversation. Besides, it was a genuine question with no derogatory intent. Caeruleus 23:39, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

But Greece and the Confederacy of Russia fall with the respective domains of me and Vegas, not you. And really, you don't think after all the snyde comments and you trying to undo every talk I'm trying to have with Macedonia as if you control Macedonia and Owner I don't take everything you say as annoying and obnoxious? Mr.Xeight 23:43, August 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * You never give this up do you? My comments aren't "snide." I'm simply pursing the facts, attempting to achieve a realistic outcome, and, of course, pursuing what would be the interests of Turkey, when referring to the Macedonian issue. Also, I have made no attempts to show I "control" Macedonia. Like you and everyone else here, I try to pursue the most realistic outcome in line with our goal to make our althists as historically plausible as possible. Caeruleus 23:48, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Caeruleus, my reasons for choosing greece as a potential ally are: Vegas adict 04:38, August 26, 2010 (UTC) Also the recen the RC has been denied access to the LoN is due to some of its opresive member states, greece has a facist dictatorship and so is less likely to object to speaking for the RC in the LoNVegas adict 04:46, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Russia and Turkey share a historical hatred.
 * 2) The magority of the RC is orthodox christian as is greece.
 * 3) The RC is able to project power into Turkey and the Balklans without having to use its IRBM's.
 * Okay. That makes sense. You could also try improving connections with Belarus, another breakaway republic that fears Socialist Siberia. Caeruleus 18:49, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Libya
I was thinking, since Greece is going through this anceint Greek revival phase, Libya should be called Cyrenaica in accordance to the ancient Greek name for the area. Caeruleus 23:58, August 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed.Oerwinde 00:47, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

cultural Greeks
I was thinking that maybe the greeks (specially the politicians) could be cultural love people, and new Athens being a city covered in giant gardens and greek like buildings with fountains, flowers, and paintings of all type, and some people reviving pythagoreanism, so if you like this idea I might do a part of the article about New Athens. VENEZUELA 05:03, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Sparta
With Athens gone, why don't they construct a new capital over the old ruins of Sparta? It is a historical part of Greece and would be better than a "New Athens" in my opinion. It would include Sparti I believe too. Arstarpool 01:21, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Sparti is where old Sparta was, and is the capital of Morea. So Morea would have to give up their capital. Skyros has an airport and a transportation port and was centrally located so made sense for a Confederate capital. There are more likely locations, but Xeight picked that spot and its not unlikely so thats where it is Oerwinde 02:08, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

I just picked Skyros because it's so close to my ancestral home on the island of Euboea so it's not like the capital is set-in-stone-what ideas do you have, Oerwinde? Mr.Xeight 02:00, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

I think its a good place myself, to be frank. Prolly need it to be another Confederation member if its not the capital district.

Lordganon 02:08, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Ancient-Greek Reconstructionism
I'd prefer if ideas for an Ancient-Greek Reconstruction were to be stopped, please; conservatism is on the rise and the Eastern Roman Empire would be chosen to be looked back upon with nostalgia first and then some aspects of Ancient Greece second. You have to know that we Greeks are not phil-Hellenes like people farther west are-neo-pagans, for instance-only make up about .02% of the population and looked upon with extreme disdain-a priest once said "They are a handful of miserable resuscitators of a degenerate dead religion who wish to return to the monstrous dark delusions of the past."-and he's right. We destroyed Ancient-Greek archaeological sites to build the Olympic Stadium, and there's been violence towards Neopagans for years-we don't care about ancient times that much. If anything, New Thrace's capital would be called Constantinople-there are no myths of Apollo coming to save the Greek people, but there is a myth of Emperor Constantine XII coming to do so. So all in all, to be honest, forget about any ideas of Ancient-Greek Reconstructionism-stick with Byzantine Reconstructionism and the concept of the monarchy with a Senate. Mr.Xeight 02:10, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Thrace's capital is New Byzantium because they plan on rebuilding Constantinople. Since New Byzantium in the eyes of the greeks is the beginning of a new Greek age for Thrace, going to the original name would be both a throwback, plus wouldn't cheapen the idea of rebuilding Constantinople.Oerwinde 10:04, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought New Byzantium was going to be built over the ruins of Constantinople; two different cities seems like a pretty interesting idea. Perhaps New Byzantium could supplant old Adrianople as the second most-important city of Thrace. Mr.Xeight 23:13, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Very likely - and all the easier since Adrianople went up in hellfire ;)

The old religion won't be brought back, though maybe a slight increase in numbers over OTL will occur (Doomsday and all). About the only Ancient Greece part that is likely to happen again is an increase in liking the art, at most.

Lordganon 23:22, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Wait... is the Greek ancient religion still around? Fedelede 23:50, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

There has been a tiny revival by some neo-pagans in recent years though it is as Xeight said - like 0.02% of the population. Basically, it died out, but has been brought back by some, though only a very small number.

Lordganon 00:13, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

I was actually thinking in the utter bedlum of Doomsday some people might return to the extreme old-ways and more people might be neo-pagans, but still it'd be small, maybe .7-.9%. Mr.Xeight 02:00, September 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt it would be nearly that high. People tend to turn to their own religion in times of crisis, not another religion and especially another religion they would know nothing about. Caeruleus 02:33, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Modern Spartans
Couldn't the Greek special forces be known as the Spartans? Irregardless on how "into" the Ancient times they are, the Spartans are still a Greek icon. Everyone knows the story of how 300 Spartans killed around 200,000 Persians in a single battle.

Yankovic270 03:38, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

That is a myth. There were 700 Thespians, as well as about 400 thebians present as well. And that was on the last day, after the other greeks left as well. The Ancient Greek historian Herodotus puts Persian casualties at around 20,000. Perhaps "Sacred Band" would be a better name?HAD 13:38, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Did you literally not just listen to a word I said, Yank, really? Spartans are what you non-Greeks think of when you think of Greece because of that godawful movie; we don't. There shall we no army named after the Spartan Hoplites, and if anyone asks to make some reconstructionist-Ancient Greek thing whatever is because when you were eight you liked Greek mythology, then I'm deleting the comment without reading it. Mr.Xeight 23:09, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. On another note, calling them that would be seen as catering to the Moreans - their capital is Sparta, after all - so it would not be done anyway.

Lordganon 23:11, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

The Spartans were a part of legend long before the graphic novel was released. The graphic novel (and resulting movie) was based on legends that have been around for centuries.The movie might have been bad, but it provided us with one of the most iconic lines of the decade ("THIS. IS. SPARTA!") Besides the Spartan vs Ninja episode of Deadliest Warrior proves that the Spartan's strength wasn't a myth.

Yankovic270 02:39, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

No one is denying their strength. Just their relevance to the Federation.HAD 13:50, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Monarchy
Given that there is supposed to be a referendum on the issue in October, we should likely make some sort of decision on the matter.

So, what do you guys think we should do? Personally, I think the monarchists should win, though barely.

Lordganon 03:29, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Well Xeight wanted a monarchy. We discussed a Crowned Republic (Elected monarch, rules for life, when he dies a new one is elected). Another option would be a restored monarchy and approaching nobility from abroad to take the throne. The British royal family was evacuated, and while he did renounce his claim, they could offer the throne to Prince Philip. There hasn't been any word on whether he's alive or dead, but if Elizabeth was safely evacuated its entirely possible he was as well. Though this would put Andrew of New Britain in line for the Greek throne when he dies. And his age would make that quite likely. There's been a huge upswing in the nobility and monarchy across Europe, so there's plenty to choose from if offering a crown to established nobility. Another question is that of Peerage. Greece hasn't had nobility and the original constitution forbade the granting of noble titles. Since there is a new constitution would this be maintained? The establishment of some Greek noble houses would make choosing a new king easier were the new royal line die out.Oerwinde 08:52, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Is this for Greece as a whole, or for one of it's states? HAD 10:53, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Greece as a wholeOerwinde 15:58, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that with Philip - but given all things, since the Queen died from radiation induced liver-failure, I kinda doubt that he would have survived this long with the same dosage.

Looking at Greek royalty and its descendants, the majority of the ones that could still be alive today- the king and many of them lived in the US or London - are members of the British Royal family or the Yugoslavian royal family.

Obvious reasons mean that the Yugoslavian branches are out - and by the looks of things, Andrew would be the senior representative of the British descendants, the majority of which likely cannot be found and would have died on DD.

Of members of the Greek royal family, there are 4 other avenues in play. Two of them are:


 * Michael of Romania, the king of Romania until 1947. Lived(s) in Switzerland, a grandson of Constantine I of Greece, son of his eldest daughter, Helen, and a cousin of the last King of Greece.
 * Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta, a third cousin of the Heir to the Italian throne, Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples, and a rival claimant to the throne in his own right, holding that the heir lost his dynastic rights because of his marriage in 1971. Also a grandson of Constantine I of Greece, by way of his second daughter, Irene. Also a cousin of the last King of Greece and a resident of Switzerland.

These two being the strongest claims, they also have the most reason to turn down such an offer, as per other claims. I'd also like to keep Michael available for Transylvania, depending where I take that article. Also a little tempted to give the other Genoa, lol.

The other two are:


 * Carlo Alessandro, 3rd Duke of Castel Duino and a member of the Czech branch of the House of Thurn and Taxis (The Imperial post-masters of the HRE), who seemed to live in southern France at the time (he had gotten married and had two sons in Cannes and Saint-Tropez a couple years before) and would likely have ended up in Monaco after DD. A great-grandson of King George I, by way of his son, Prince George, and granddaughter, Princess Eugénie, he is a distant cousin of the last king of Greece. However, through his mother he is also a great-great-great-grandnephew of Napoleon I, through his brother, Lucien Bonaparte, which could lead him to decline the throne for other reasons, as he may very well be the senior Bonaparte alive.
 * For the last path, there are several candidates. Lennart Bernadotte, Count of Wisborg (Luxembourg title), a Swedish nobleman stripped of his Swedish titles for an unrecognized marriage, is a great-grandson of King George as well, through his eldest daughter, Grand Duchess Alexandra Georgievna of Russia, and his granddaughter, Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia. He has lived for many years at his estate on the German island of Mainau, in Lake Constance near Konstanz, Baden-Württemberg. According to current canon, this city was not hit on DD, and given its proximity to the Alpine Confederation it would more than likely become part of it. Now, he died in 2004 on his island, but by all accounts many of his children and grandchildren were born nearby in Konstanz, and still live in the area - most of whom are still alive today - with most of the remainder being in Sweden. Their status and wealth on their island would lead at least some of them to decline, however.

Of all these, a descendant of Lennart Bernadotte would be the most likely, given a lack of other claims and titles. However, by my guess the entire Greek Royal Family would have some sort of negative stigma, even with the upswing in monrachists within Greece, due to past history.

And, of course, we all know the Despot would want the crown himself or his family, which complicates things even more.

I'd give all of the above titles of nobility in Greece, for sure. But, the question at hand - who should be king?

Lordganon 23:31, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

All of those claimants to the throne lived in places like London, NYC, and LA and were all German-it'd be easier to just make an elected monarchy and the people would probably rather have real-Greeks who survived Doomsday along with the common people than some monarch who fled in the 1970s. Now one elected monarch giving himself too much power and setting up a dynasty is a different story... Mr.Xeight 23:43, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Er... the ones I listed lived in/near Switzerland, for the most part, with the other one being near Monaco.

Lordganon 23:47, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Still, these guys finding out about the monarchy and going hundreds of kilometers to Skyros and saying "So, I survived Doomsday, may I please have my crown back?" Little too ASB for me. Mr.Xeight 23:55, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Aye. The only way any of these guys would become king would be if the Federation government actually sent out someone looking for claimants.

Personally, I'd make the Despot or something similar king. Not him or his son - likely his nephew, but given things it would likely be the most plausible.

Elected monarchies are just trouble, in my opinion - you only need look at Poland and the early Norse kingdoms for the reasoning. Wouldn't be so bad here, but.......

Lordganon 00:17, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, if I remember freshman-World History correctly, the reason the elected monarchy of the PolLith Commonwealth failed was because as usual, the nobles were power-hungry and greedy bastards and elected incompetent kings and stole power from him. If we have a checks-and-balances system, then the democratically-elected Senate (A throwback to Rome; if you guys want to have an even older throwback we can have a bicameral system with one house named the Gerousia and the other the Boule) might not spiral out of control like the Polish and Lithuanian nobles. Hmmm, how will the government of Greece work now? I was thinking the King could have roughly as much power as the President of the United States of America. Whether we have a unicameral or bicameral system is beyond me, and finally, because Doomsday has probably brought the people so much closer to Orthodox-Christianity than in a long time, perhaps the Judiciary Branch can be paralleled by maybe deacons or priests, like how Iran's judiciary system employs Shi'a clerics. I'll have to look into whether my faith would allow it or not, but I don't think they would. I know a President of Cyprus was a bishop, I'll look into that case and see what the Church said about him having political-power. Mr.Xeight 00:35, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

That's half of it - the nobles also fought amongst each other so often that nothing constructive could be done. I know that we will have a system of balances on the whole idea, but... its just a recipe for trouble, with elected politicians eventually replacing the nobles, even if they cannot become the monarch themselves.

An election as to who becomes king, however, would work (with a two-step vote), with various claimants being contacted and given a spot on the ballot, along with members of the despot's family. Highest two choices (though not two from the same family, to avoid trouble and bribery) are voted on again at a later date, to decide who holds the kingship.

Had to look those two house up - lets just stick to the Senate, as that's a pretty common name. But having the king hold about as much power as a president works. It would need to be a bicameral legislature - the smaller members of the Federation would not want to be dominated by the larger ones, and vice-versa, after all.

I like the thought on the priests.

P.S. Please respond to the patriarch note on your page, Xeight.

Lordganon 01:24, September 22, 2010 (UTC) Greece is the birthplace of Western democracy. Shouldn't they stay at least somewhat more democratic than the average state? Either remaining as a democratic federation with no monarch or having a very weak monarchy and strong legislature. Also, Senate is a Latin word. Maybe a Greece word for it would be better? Caeruleus 01:29, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

What does that matter? Italy was the birthplace of the Roman Republic and it had a thousand years of autocratic states. A weak central government means that the Federation never unified at all. That's like saying "Well, the Articles of Confederation didn't work, so let's unify. But while we're at it let's uphold our tradition of democracy and give the president little-to-no power. Sound good?". The word the Eastern Romans themselves used was "Synklētos" and "Gerousia"; I assure you "Gerousia" is a very Greek word. Mr.Xeight 01:37, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, you misunderstand what I say. I was referring to the symbolism of Greece and I said nothing about a weak central government. Caeruleus 02:30, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was thinking "elected" in the most democratic sense of the word. That anyone a political party nominates can become a king, and that the king is chosen by an electoral college who takes into the peoples' votes for their vote for king. That way, the election of a king would transcend the former state-lines. Perhaps the electoral college members might not even be based on geographic locations, but chosen some other way? Mr.Xeight 02:35, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Read the Spartan argument-symbolism has nothing to do with this new Greece. And even so, if the monarch is weak and the legislature strong, then things'll probably turn out like they did in Poland as Lordganon points out. All this powerless king would be is a figurehead, and why would the people want a parasite who drains their tax dollars to support his trapping of regality? At least if he justly rules the people he can wear any crown or cape proudly. Mr.Xeight 02:35, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Besides, the view that it was the birthplace of Western democracy is overstated - there are much earlier "democratic" cities of record in Ancient Sumeria where the Greeks are thought to have heard the idea from in some form. Even so, Greece has rarely been democratic - even in ancient times the majority of states were essentially dictatorships.

Caer, you're falling into much the same trap Europeans fell into around the time of the Greek War of Independence - theirs being, or course, that they thought the Greeks looked like the Ancient Greeks and spoke Ancient Greek still, when they ended up looking and acting more like the Turks than anything - since Greece has been under dictators for almost all of its history.

Personally Xeight, I think we should try to keep the political parties out of this - the ones more vehemently opposed to the idea will just make trouble, and the political debates will merely tarnish the reputation of the winner. Maybe have possible claimants and the despot on the ballot, along with anyone else who gains a certain amount of signatures? That way, its more above politics. Though, we still need the second round - think of the trouble if the winner becomes king with only 20% of the vote!

Lordganon 03:51, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * True. I hadn't thought of it that way. Personally, I think a Morean candidate is the most likely possibility, but I would also expect that to lead to problems down the road due to rivalries within the Federation (possibly forced abdication, return to a republic, etc.) Caeruleus 18:32, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

The Moren nobility is nothing more than a group of people with no power and were just award purely honourary titles for their commendable actions, which since the Despot is a bloody neo-nazi, was giving a hateful speech about an Albanian/Jewish conspiracy. Do you all really want a slobbering bunch of fascists ruling the country? I specifically tried to set up an elected monarchy to make sure the monarch can be as capable as possible and not a hereditary position. Mr.Xeight 02:34, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Population & Government Issues
Currently, the population of Greece is about 15 million, 54% of which is apparently Greek (that adds up to 8.1 million Greeks). That's impossible. Between the nuclear strikes on Athens, Thessaloniki, and other Greece cities, the loss of most of northern Greece, and the warfare, disease, and famine that broke out post-Doomsday, the Greek population would be substantially lower. The pre-Doomsday population of Greece was 9,847,000. If you subtract an estimated 1-2 million dead from the nuclear strike on Athens, 600,000 lost from Thessaloniki (since Greece no longer controls it, relative population loss would be 100%), another 2-4 million living in northern and central Greece (some dead, some not within Greece's borders), and another 500,000 - 1 million dead from the aftermath of Doomsday, you have a Greek population of about 2.5 - 5 million.

However, you must add to that the Greece population of Cyprus, which even if being unrealistically optimistic and assuming it maintains OTL population numbers. The OTL 2010 Greek population of Cyprus is about 600,000. Also, assuming OTL population numbers are maintained, the Greek population of Egypt is about 700,000. The post-Doomsday Greek population of Turkey would be insignificant since most Greeks lived in the urban areas that were nuked. The Greek population of Libya is non-existent. That gives you a final possible Greek population of 3.8 - 6.3 million.

Finally, accounting for the Greek birthrate, which was 14.5 births per 1,000 people in 1981, you could have a population of 5.6 - 9.3 million (assuming all of them lived and none died during childbirth). However, in a post-Doomsday world, birth rates would have fallen dramatically (due to the inability to care for a child in a post-Doomsday environment), death rates would have skyrocketed, and child mortality rates would have gone way up. A more realistic birth rate is around 5 births per 1,000 people, immediately after Doomsday, which would probably increase to around 7 births per 1,000 people in 2010. Using the adjusted 2010 number for all 27 years of population growth (for simplicity), that gives you a population of 4.6 - 7.6 million people. Something around 5.5 million would be the most appropriate number.

Also, the population of Arabs and Turks in Greece is far too low. The population of Arabs, currently, is 900,000, while the Turkish population is only 300,000. The 1983 population of Libya was 3,546,713. Libya wasn't nuked, is self-sufficient agriculturally, and has plenty of oil for energy generation. The collapse of the Libyan government would have been purely political. Mass famine would not set in, so Libya's population numbers would not change very much. This means that, in 2010, Cyrenaica (which controls about half of Libya) would have a Libyan Arab population of about 3,000,000.

For Egypt, the Nile Delta (which Greece claims) was the most densely populated area of Egypt. A quarter (or more) of Egypt's population lives there. They're not all just going to flee to southern Egypt. That's both impossible and unrealistic. Egypt's population in 1983 was 48 million. That means at least 12 million people, who are 86% non-Coptic Egyptian Arabs. The nuclear strike on Cairo would have resulted in 1-3 million deaths, however, thanks to Egypt's agricultural self-sufficiency and the rapid military takeover of the country, few further deaths would have resulted from famine or disease. 50% or more of the population will not just flee when they have access to the coast, food, and plenty of water. At most, 25-30% of the population would flee. Because of this, in 2010, the total population of the Nile Delta would be about 15 million (with 1.35 million native Copts). However, since the Copts apparently began migrating to the Delta post-Doomsday, if you use the same factors to calculate the population numbers above, the total Coptic population of Egypt in 2010 TTL would be about 7 million. So, even if we assume all Copts migrated to the Nile Delta (which they all wouldn't. Only about 50% at the most would migrate), the total population of Kemet would be about 22 million, with 8.35 million Copts and 12.9 million Arabs.

In the Greek-controlled areas of Turkey, the Turkish population would be much larger (especially in Thrace). The Dodecanese Republic controls most of OTL Mugla Province, Turkey, had a population of about 500,000 in 1983. Assuming 50% population loss from various factors, that would leave you with a population of about 250,000 shortly after Doomsday. Using the same population growth numbers (7 births for 1000 people) as I used earlier, the 2010 Turkish population of the Dodecanese Republic would be 650,000. The current population listed is only 723,000 total. Thrace controls most of the coastal areas of Turkish Thrace, which pre-Doomsday comprised 15-20% of the total Turkish population, or 8-10 million Turks. After subtracting the losses from the destruction of Istanbul (2-4 million) and the aftermath (1-3 million), you have a Turkish population of 1-7 million (most likely on the high side, 5+ million). The population listed is only 305,000. Though Greece only controls the coastal areas, at least 1-3 million Turks would be within the borders of Thrace.

Another problem with the population is the percentage of Greeks in overseas territories. Using the current numbers given (not my adjusted numbers), 150,000 Greeks live in Thrace, 320,000 live in Cyrenaica, and 756,000 live in Egypt. Pre-Doomsday, only Egypt had those numbers of Greeks in the country, but many Greek Egyptians would have died in the destruction of Cairo and several thousand Greeks, plus soldiers, would have to emigrate there in order to keep the country under Greek control. So, ignoring Egypt for now, why, when, and how did half a million Greeks travel overseas after Doomsday? Also, you need to refer to all these Greeks as settlers, since they're non-native.

Finally, all of this adds up to a total population of the Greek Federation of 31.6 million, minimum, that is 12% Greek, 9.5% Libyan Arab, 26.4% Coptic, 40.8% Egyptian Arab, and 3.1% Turkish or a maximum population of 36.1 million that is 21.1% Greek, 8.3% Libyan Arab, 23.1% Coptic, 35.7% Egyptian Arab, and 8.3% Turkish.

And, as you can obviously tell, you can't have a democratic, ethnically based state where the ethnic group that founded and should control the state is in the minority. Which means the political situation you've described is impossible. Thrace, Cyrenaica, and Kemet would deny minorities all political rights if they wish to maintain Greek control. The Dodecanese Republic may not because they seem to be more humanitarian and liberal. If Greece was a democracy, all these states would fall under majority rule and either secede from Greece or you would see non-Greeks dominate a Greek state.

tl;dr

Lots of issues with the population numbers. All Greek colonies (Thrace, Kemet, Cyrenaica) must deprive non-Greeks of political rights to realistically exist.

Caeruleus 20:49, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

I haven't gotten around to writing the Morea article yet, but I planned on enacting a forced birth policy in order to increase the greek population in Morea in order to facilitate its imperialistic goals, and the majority of overseas Greeks would come from there, though you're right about some of the %. I pretty much just put some ethnic % in there to add flavor, and they need adjusting.

One thing I don't understand about the assumptions on birth rates on this timeline. The areas of Earth that have the highest population growth are the areas with the worst health care and living conditions. Why would this be different?

~Oer


 * That would be a lot of forced babies. Morea also isn't particularly large. That kind of massive population growth, even though a forced birth policy, is impossible because it would overtax Morean resources, especially in a post-Doomsday enviroment.


 * Personally, I assume that the birth rate in all countries that were nuked would fall dramatically. Typical situations in the third world wouldn't apply because of the radiation poisoning (which would make many infertile) and the sheer devastation (when you're starving, you don't want to give birth to another mouth to feed). Also, birth rates are a cultural thing. In many developing countries, large families are seen as a good thing. In most developed countries, they're seen as an excessive burden. Caeruleus 00:02, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

First off, you need to look at more than the population numbers on the articles - it is obvious to me you did no more than glance at them.

Irregardless, you estimate of the amount of Greeks is way off - you consider a drop in the birth rate due to the inability to care for children post-doomsday as something that would occur. In reality, it is much more likely that with a loss of modern ways to prevent pregnancy - something that would be among the last things to actually be a concern for rebuilding - the birthrate, despite radiation-induced sterilization in some people, would actually go up. The Greek population percentage also included those surviving Greeks from Cyprus, Egypt, and southern Albania (under Heptanese control), which you do not include. As Oer said, the rate of population growth is highest in less developed nations - and the entire area took a slide in that direction after Doomsday (Turkey is largely not included in this, since even in otl it has held a fairly high rate, which would be about the same here).

You also remove far too much population for Northern and Central Greece. The current population of the areas in question is about 3,538,429, out of a population of about 11,150,000. Assuming the same percentage existed in 1983 (should be more or less the same, anyway), there would have been about 3,124,924 in the region, give or take. Outside of Macedonian-controlled areas, most of it is under the control of Heptanesa, Hellenics, Mount Athos, or the Zone. The amount of losses you estimate should be much lower - maybe in the one million range, outside of the loss of Thessaloniki and Larissa. And in the case of Thessaloniki, not all would be gone - Mount Athos is not that far away - surely some would have lived and got there, or immigrated from Macedonia to Greece - along with other Greeks in the area as well.

I will give you that the percentages of the various nationalities on the Greece page are indeed off - we need to finish all the sub-articles and tabulate everything still.

You are being much too pessimistic in some parts of all that, and then optimistic in others.

There is a reason why this is a Federation, after all - and the fact that there is several Greek states has little to do with it.

Thrace:

In the case of Thrace, there is more losses than that from Doomsday. You are merely taking out the population of Istanbul - and not all of it, at that.

In reality - and like I wrote - there would be more than a single strike in and around Istanbul. The net result is that the majority of the population of Istanbul Province is dead - not more than a couple hundred thousand escape the city itself, with maybe half of that again from the remainder of the province. There is also the Edirne strike to consider, as well as the substantial radiation from other strikes in the area, as well as the fighting with Soviet and Bulgarian troops along parts of the border.

The radiation from the strikes, as well as the substantial chaos with the refugee panic afterwards, drove the surviving population in Europe west, and in Anatolia southwards/eastwards. In Europe, following an unofficial "ceasefire" on the border (read: Turks and Greeks win), the Turkish troops attempt to maintain order (those that do not follow the order to evacuate outright, for whatever reason) and the Greek troops, along with whatever civilians they can manage, retreat following the government order and go to Mount Athos or points southward.

Inside Thrace, the swarm of refugees westward overwhelms the inhabitants there - no matter how many escape the destruction with their lives - as well as the islands of authority in place held by the troops. The majority of the inhabitants die off, with the net result being an immense drop in the population of the region, leaving the situation found there by Greek explorers years later.

Today, Turks form the majority of the population of the zone - but are subject to restrictions on where they can live, rendering them as being restricted to inland areas for the most part - they have even been deported from the two areas of Anatolia under Greek control in the Zone. A fair amount have fled northwards, outside of their control, or immigrated to Turkey. There is a map on the Zone article showing this, somewhat. There's a reason why the area wasn't made a state of the Federation, after all.

As for the Greek population, the islands in the rest of the Federation can only hold so many people for so long - the Greek colonists here would be from those areas as well as Morea.

The area suffered a massive depopulation following doomsday - given the population density, worse than other areas.

Dodecanese Republic:

I do not see how that Turkish population could be at all realistic. The population of the area you give for today is 140,000 less than what the population of the province is today - and yet, you have half the population being killed off in 1983. So how on earth is that possible, even with a increased population growth? You can't, really. The population growth of the area between 1983 and the present was only about 290,000 or so - and that rate of growth is the basis of the current estimate. An increase of a little more than half (plus a little bit, of course - there is a little bit of another province here, and a slightly higher growth rate, after all!) puts the population at the present number, give or take (as well as a higher Greek population, which will occur with the increased rate of growth after Doomsday).

There has been an exchange of population between the two areas - Turks still form a majority on the mainland, though many have been moved to the islands, with Greeks going the other way. Most of the Turkish population in the Federation today lives here, and they are fairly loyal (since the islands sacrificed so much for them after Doomsday, and being Republicans and all), though most cannot go near the border anyway.

Heptanesa, Hellenic Republic, and the Delian League:

I stand by the populations of all of these. Also remember that Heptanesa includes Italian refugees, as well as Albanians and Greeks in southern Albania.

Morea and Agion Oros:

I think both of these are accurate as well. Besides, nothing has been written yet.

Cyprus:

In light of those who would die with the destruction of the bases, the evacuation of the Turks, and the fighting, this should be about right, as you have admitted yourself.

Cyrenaica:

As Oer said, a forced birth/migration policy in Morea would cover the Greek population in Cyrenaica. Unlike several of the Greek states, Morea has no room to expand elsewhere - and there is only so much room there. They've got to go somewhere, and the population of the League, Crete, and the Dodecanese/Ionian islands themselves won't only go to Greece itself either.

I will give you that the population of Arabs should be increased - but your number, and reasoning, completely ignores the splitting of Libya into warlord and city-states fighting each other. Not only would there be deaths resulting from this, but localized famine in some locations. The entire area could feed itself - but who is to say that in a warzone, or situation of war in general, that small parts of the area could not feed themselves? That answer is likely. Sieges, the destruction of irrigation works, etc. - all would cause famine in some regions. You do not take that into account.

And given the known story of the area, the population is reasonably loyal - no need for a police state either.

Kemet:

Kemet is another story. Your estimates take neither the irradiation of parts of the Nile Delta, or the chaos that would result from the Egyptian government and army fleeing to Aswan, into account. Both would result in many more deaths than you assume.

Actually, the largest amount of Greeks inside Egypt live in the Delta, and especially Alexandria. I do admit the number is off, but yours kills too many. The percentage should really be adjusted of course, but I believe that given the attitudes held by the Greek states, the Greek population of the region (again, especially Alexandria) would have had many new immigrants.

The amount of Copts is a bit much, I admit - the Arab and Copt percentages should really be switched.

The residents of the area (barely) agreed to join the Federation as a state rather than be a territory. Not a conquered territory at all, so no need for a police state.

Other than that, the population is about right.

Lordganon 09:28, October 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * The Greek populations of Cyprus and Egypt were included in the tally, and both are minimal. The Greek population of southern Albania wasn't included, but despite that, it is minimal (about 200,000 OTL in 2010). That wouldn't add substantially to the population either way.


 * Even if all of Istanbul's population died, millions of Turks would still inhabit Turkish Thrace. Even if what you said happened, there would still be 750,000-1,500,000 million Turks in Greek Thrace. Now if these people were deported or not counted as part of the official population, that's one thing. However, that needs to be stated in the article if that's the case.


 * You need to reread what I wrote about the Dodecanese Republic. There were 500,000 Turks there in 1983. I assumed about 250,000 would survive Doomsday and its aftermath. The Republic cared for them well, which is why they maintained a decent birth rate. That would still give them a higher population in the Republic than the Greeks.


 * I didn't look into your figures for the Heptanesa, Hellenic Republic, and the Delian League.


 * I never disputed the non-Greek population of Cyprus. I trusted your figures there.


 * I'll give you that a forced birth policy could give birth to the 360,000 Greek settlers in Libya. However, your explanation of Libya's collapse is unrealistic. Libya experienced a political collapse. It's government was unable to cope with the strains of a post-Doomsday world. This merely means its authority would have shrunk. The central Libyan government may continue to control the area around Tripoli, or it could have been couped. What happened doesn't really matter. What wouldn't have happened was mass destruction, war losses of the scale your describing, and the size of famines you're describing. While yes, could Libyan agriculture experienced a decline thanks to warfare? Yes. However, that decline wouldn't have been dramatic or devastating. Libya would have broken apart into several states, not collapsed into total violence. At most, 100,000-300,000 should be subtracted from my numbers above. Libya's population isn't that large. 500,000 deaths as a result of warfare would mean one-seventh of the country died. That never happens, especially in the kind of smaller-scale warfare that would have occurred in Libya.


 * Also, why would the population of Libya, or any other foreign Greek-controlled territory, be loyal? Pre-Doomsday, Libya was a fairly radical, independent-minded nation with strong nationalistic and tribal tendencies. They also had a tense, sometimes hateful, relationship with the West. And unlike nations that were nuked, they would not be in such a desperate position that they would abandon these beliefs, especially their strong belief in tribalism. Also, as European imperialism in Africa showed, technologically improving a foreign society doesn't make them like you. If anything, it makes them hate you more. With such a small Greek population in Libya, the only way Greece could keep control of the area would be with the institution of a police state.


 * Do the math about Egypt's population. Only 40,000 Greeks lived in Egypt in 1996. I'll assume about the same number lived there in 1983. And yes, they do live in the Delta. Their population would increase naturally and through immigration, though overall Greek birthrates can already go so high. Let's assume your current numbers are correct: 760,000 Greeks in Egypt. The percentages of Arabs and Copts are way off. About 8% of the Egyptian population is Coptic. That means, even with OTL numbers, the total Coptic population is only about 7 million, as I said previously. For there to be more Copts than Arabs, massive amounts of Arabs would either have to die or leave Kemet, which wouldn't have happened since the Nile Delta is one of the most populous areas of Egypt. Also, the numbers I used for the population of Copts is too high. For the sake of simplicity, I assumed every single Copt in Egypt migrated to Kemet, which would never happen.


 * My numbers for the deaths from the nuking of Cairo may be a little high. The population of Cairo at the time, based on modern percentages, would be about 4 million. Since the nuclear weapon used was fairly small, the death toll would have been under 1 million. After deaths from radiation, I would add another 1 million or so. So total deaths would have been about 2 million. That doesn't significantly affect the numbers though.


 * The majority of the people in Kemet would be Egyptian Arabs who would not want to live under Greek rule when an Egyptian state still exists. Also, you're overestimated the chaos after the destruction of Cairo. Even the Egypt article says it only took a year for things to calm back down, which was long before the Greeks even could begin to think to take the Nile Delta. Egypt wasn't a weak country either. I question your entire reasoning for how the Greeks would be able to conquer the area or take the Suez Canal. But, even assuming Greece somehow did conquer the Delta, they would need a police state to control it because, even if they could get the Copts to side with them, the majority of the population would still be Egyptian and they would still want to be under Egyptian rule (based on the same arguments given above).


 * Also, why would either Cyrenaica or Kemet vote to join the Federation? Both are majority Arab who would either want independence (in the case of Libya) or to rejoin their nation (in the case of Kemet). The only way that could possibly vote to remain part of the Federation is if the Arab majorities were disenfranchised and not allowed to vote (or at least not in large numbers). Caeruleus 00:02, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Ionia
In my opinion it would have been normal for the Greeks to reoccupy the lost province of Ionia with Smyrna at its capital. Why hasn't this happened here? Hellenicemperor 12:50, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Not only is the Greek nation in the area pacifistic, and Turkey in control of that area, but Izmir - modern Smyrna - is gone. Really.

Lordganon 13:49, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

I know Izmir is gone, I was talking of the past. I just can't understand the the greeks have followed the Megali Idea reoccupying the Eastern Thrace region and Cyprus (even to occupy the Nile Delta). But not the ex-province Ionia? Hellenicemperor 19:34, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Sure doesn't sound at all like you knew it was gone.

I suggest you read the History of Greece in this article, as well as in its parts, because it doesn't seem you've done that. Neither Thrace nor Egypt nor Cyprus atl have anything to do with that idea whatsoever.

That's besides the fact that the Turks were already there when Thrace was occupied.

Lordganon 19:43, October 24, 2010 (UTC)