I'm happy with how this has come along, and I hope the group likes the general direction of the changes. [[User:False Dmitri|False Dmitri]] ([[User talk:False Dmitri|talk]]) 17:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy with how this has come along, and I hope the group likes the general direction of the changes. [[User:False Dmitri|False Dmitri]] ([[User talk:False Dmitri|talk]]) 17:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
+
+
First: Considering that myself and Oer are the ones (primarily) who helped finish things up on ''at least'' the sub articles, something about this at the start ''should'' have been said to us. Not bloody happy about that, and it's not the first time this has happened, despite rules or ''manners.'' For the record, I think you exaggerate the nation as we (and Xeight, since it did get approved by him and community!) laid it out, but you're welcome to your opinion.
+
+
Quite frankly, even though you discussed it with Xeight, I have to question just how much of that is his opinion, and how much is you adding to it, since you don't differentiate between the two all that much Doesn't matter much, but I don't like it either way.
+
+
I imagine parts of this you'll hate, some you'll like, and others will be "huh? - like normal for us, lol.
+
+
Restoring the Republic as a goal? You'd have a hard time pressing that as a goal in ''modern Greece otl,'' let alone here. Unifying Greece period, fine. Monarchy or not is a much more iffy factor, and if even one of the statelets has such a thing going on, you have to deal with it, be it at least as hereditary governors, or the like. At the very least, looking at the... very poorly done and somewhat corrupt referendums in the early 1970s, especially the 1973 one, the two areas that were close, despite the net results, are the Peloponnese area, and the Thrace/Macedonia area, with one region in each actually voting against a republic outright. Most of the votes for a republic, truthfully, were in the Athens Metro (40% of the population in the early 1970s, and roughly 35% in the early 1980s) and Crete. Taking out Athens by itself at least makes the referendum close. You see a similar result in most of these countries in Europe that flipped in the last century and a bit - corrupt or flawed referendum, with the monarchy side having little to know ability to do anything in it, and then barred from the country. Italy is another example.
+
+
The Peloponnese being under something like Golden Dawn makes a ''ton'' of sense. That area and the region around Mount Athos and towards Thrace are where such groups always do well, often getting near to surpassing 10-15% of the vote. Golden Dawn in the last decade is the highest of these, true, but not by much. More nationalistic parties like them do better in the Peloponnese, and the more religion based ones do better in the north, but they both do well in the other area too. (Comparatively, the communists do the same in the Athens Metro, Crete, and east-central Greece) Most of these parties, however, are temporary movements based around one figure or another, and none have lasted long even if they aren't. Little as Golden Dawn would have been in the early 1980s, they are probably the only organized group of their inkling in the area at the time, and them taking some semblance of control does make sense. The main political parties aren't based here, and their leadership more or less gone in Athens... recipe for disaster, or the extremists taking control.
+
+
Xeight may want them gone, and that may work long-term, but in the short term, not going to happen. There's just too many people of that direction there. As you note, Ben, this is their chance to shine/flourish. Heck, should he have control, Michaloliakos going as far as to crown himself ''something'' makes sense given his known personality and political goals. And, given things, "Despot" would be a far better choice than anything else.
+
+
The Egypt "expansion" is a combination of mandates, relatively neutral powers, and desires of the locals to have nothing to do with "Cairo." By all rights, the locals would have only the Alexandria area, but the Canal part comes into play because of local issues.
+
+
After DD, the Egyptian government teeters on for a little bit, before falling in a coup to the Muslim Brotherhood. When combined with the general mood (and, this is already going on, just made far worse) the coup leads to a ''ton'' of anti-Copt and anti-outsider backlash. Now, in otl modern times, the population of Copts in Egypt is 5-20 million, or 5-20% of the population. This is considered in many places to be an intentionally lowered figure, with the true number being anywhere from 25-40 million - we really have no idea, given how it is conducted. Given the bias of the government, and the obvious discrimination against them, no way to tell what it actually is. Heck, they don't even do the census in this regard by region, so we have no idea there. Though, given it is where the church head is located, it stands to reason that the largest number would likely be in the Alexandria area. Much the same logic exists for them fleeing there, both before and after the Israeli war atl. Heck, otl Egypt has only had a single ''token'' Copt governor, despite supposed rights from the government, and that was an appointed position off in the south somewhere for a very short period.
+
+
Add to the chaos in Egypt that they will have to change crops over from commercial to food (at least to some degree), and deal with fluctuations of the Nile. Some will go hungry.
+
+
Now, I can see the Brotherhood government wanting to get rid of this area, but... probably not going to be their priority, and a harder (supposedly) nut to crack than Israel, for somewhat obvious reasons. Israel would have gone, most likely, under a period of military rule (with the government largely gone, or regrouping, someone has to take control) and then joint rule with government remnants. Between the Israeli leadership vacuum, and the Palestinian leadership facing a similar fate in many ways, and the overall (military) situation, you're see some kind of agreement made/forced with the military. Not even going to begin to speculate on its exact nature (not wanting to open that can of worms) other than inducting the Palestinians into the nation somehow.
+
+
Now, remember: Palestinians have been screwed over by the local Arab governments at this point nearly as much as the Israelis. Promises made, not kept, opportunities not taken, land not given, states not set up, etc. A big list, really. Heck, Israel itself is on better terms by 1983 with a couple of them than the Palestinians are.
+
+
So, however the exact details are... you have Israeli troops, backed by Palestinian militia and possibly some troops from Jordan, facing the large Egyptian "conscript" army at the border. No matter how many people die or starve in Egypt, they will be outnumbered. the Israeli leadership isn't stupid - they can see the writing on that one. So, they nuke Cairo, removing the leadership there, and, since they time it well, screwing with the Nile and radiating the silt temporarily... and screwing with the crops downriver, at least somewhat. Maybe add smaller strikes on the military field headquarters too, though that probably isn't needed, and works better if the generals are the ones that start the war. Either way, the resulting leadership vacuum results in some of the troops attacking, but most pulling back towards Cairo, and into the resulting Civil War. I foresee a lot of dead this way, for a variety of reasons, and them being too busy to go after the Copts or Israel for a ''long'' time. This results in the Egypt state based out of more to the south as, or similar to, we have atl right now.
+
+
The Israelis, of course, take advantage of this, and crush those that are left, advancing to the canal. Not only is the land not effected by radiation, compared to their own lands, but the canal itself offers a far better defensive position. I'd also bet on them keeping anything organized from appearing on the other side of it, as well, since it would be to their benefit. This, combined with other things, screws up the canal, leading to later LoN work there.
+
+
Now, the Copts in Alexandria.. they will likely take advantage to seize part of the Delta. Can't blame them. They'd be radicalized by this point, with good reason. And overcrowded. By this point, I see Greek traders working their way out of the islands, and finding them. As they are not Muslims, overall, and given the Greek history in the city, I see them being treated fairly well. Especially since they'd be in need of food and other things, and the Greek Islands export a lot, so... works well. Now, they're not going to join the Confederation that forms in this era. But them allying with it does make sense. When the Federation forms, maybe some sort of associated status, given events near the canal.
+
+
The Canal itself.... as noted, the LoN will eventually get involved here, by need. The whole world benefits by having it open, but it is spilt between the Israelis on one side, and (sort of, as noted above why) the Egyptian government on the other, with little practical control on the west side.
+
+
For obvious reasons, neither Egypt or Israel will tolerate the other being in control, nor would Egypt want the Copts there... and the Israelis probably aren't going to be happy about that, either. That results in the LoN mandate, as noted, over the areas west of the canal and parts of the eastern Delta.
+
+
The LoN itself really doesn't have the means on its own the police/administrate the area, so ''someone'' has to do it. Look at the region... who has any means to do so, and is reasonably neutral? Honestly, the only answer is probably Greece at this point. So, the net mandate is government by them, in concert with whatever locals are there, supervised by an LoN official of some sort. More or less like the otl LoN mandates were. This results in the current "Kemet" state spilt into the Coptic "Kemet" out of Alexandria, and a Greek-governed "Suez" out of the Canal Area. Currently, this is more or less merged together, which is flawed, admittedly.
+
+
Copts still support the Greek cause in the Second Sicilian War, which changes little, since they are technically allied, and Sicilian aggression is a threat in their direction anyways.
+
+
As you note, Libya falling is going to happen. Too many things wrong there, and no international backing (heck, Sicily by this point may even be screwing with them on some level) will cause a collapse. The otl result from last decade is probably an improvement over how this would turn out. Now, from here, there is a lot of directions to go from there. The one that results in the smallest changes - the '''goal''' in any review, though many seem to have forgotten that fact - is putting a different "crown" in place and making them an "associated" or "allied" state of the Federation. There is a logic to this! I swear!
+
+
After the coup which he took power in, Gadhafi didn't exile or execute the Royal Family. Those who were in the country at the time were instead moved to a "walled villa" on the coast, and put under house arrest. My best guess as to why would be to not inflame the supported of the religious sect that they head into active opposition/revolt in Cyrenaica. As it is, they took it far better than I would have expected, for the noted reason, and to keep them alive.
+
+
Just before DD, in ~1982, their villa was sold from under them - Gadhafi seems to have somewhat forgotten them - and they moved into near-shacks on the beach near Tripoli. Note, too, that amidst all the attempts on him and his rule, a least one of the military attempts did have royal (in the east, Cyrenaica) backing, though only from a couple of princes that were outside of Libya in 1969... one of which ended up getting caught and imprisoned for decades. Even in modern otl times, there is a lot of support for them in this region, and one of the princes is even part of the head(s) of the eastern government. In many ways, this was even more prevalent in the past. Their religious movement has been at the forefront of resistance to Gadhafi in the east for pretty much his entire rule, in fact. As a side note, they only took over all of Libya with Allied support, and it was, considering where their later overthrow came from, a bad idea. Heck, the new Libyan "government" even adopted their symbols for the country! Have a look into their order, interesting history read.
+
+
Given his inattention of them, I don't see Gadhafi moving against them with DD. It certainly was not outside pressure that caused them to be ignored otl, after all. Heck, he cared so little not long after this that he signed off on them leaving the country. Of curse, had they fled earlier... bet on death.
+
+
So, when the ball ''really'' drops in Libya, they do have the supporters to flee to, and probably some nearby they can count on. If nothing else, they are on the coast, so they can get boats to flee in, which they'd know how to use. They'd have their pick of cities in Cyrenaica to go to and with some weaponry take over. Nothing too big, and likely one of the cities where they have more support. Guess would be Bayda.
+
+
From there, they would be able to expand some, but... military matters would prevent much further, with military units in control over more of the region. Around the same time as Alexandria, you'd see Greek ships getting here. I imagine the reception in Bayda would be better than elsewhere, and they would need arms, so... works well. Greek industry is, based on spread in Greece itself, better off than most, so they can to some degree meet that need. They'd also be more prone, from Morea, to arm the royals anyway. Eventually, this would probably get them shaky control of the region. Have them, from there, go the same route as Kemet. Given past events I rather doubt there would be much interest in going past Sirte, which I foresee as being an extreme hotbed of pro-Gadhafi forces and too hard to take/destroy.
+
+
Most of Fezzan would end up reverting to nomads and warlords, with Tripolitania going to chaos. I would imagine it being some combination of Sicilian and Senussi backed groups, jockeying for balance, not actively intervening since it would start a war... and when Sicilian forces do move, it helps start the Second Sicily War.
+
+
Far as I'm concerned, Sicily doesn't really need edits. I'm willing to listen - and a ''long'' post is coming on it - but far as I'm seeing right now, we have an Italian nationalist offended by some of it, and it needs to be looked at in that light. There's a reason we've always had the "local" rule unofficially in place.
+
+
You're wrong about Cyprus. Some details about it being added are a must, but the rest has long been covered. The only reason for the island to be as it is otl is Turkey intervened, quite frankly - why they didn't just spilt the island between Greece and Turkey instead of trying independence originally I'll never understand - but the continued presence of those troops is the problem. As Caer established, the army commanders that took over the southern coast of Anatolia were in charge of these troops, and recalled them to the mainland to bring order to it, which is within their ability and command structure. They'd bring what Turkish civilians they could with them, probably most. The strikes on the British bases would not hurt/help either side, in the end.
+
+
The lack of these troops and civilians, and the Greeks will take over fairly easily. That they would join up with a Greek state is a given, honestly. They'd do it otl if they could.
+
+
Calling Thrace at the two choke points and the islands in between "large scale" is an exaggeration. They claim the north side, and "control" it, but outside of a few pockets it is not "occupied" or "administered." You're going to see punitive expeditions in the region fairly often as the majority of it expands slowly, with Turkish arms being funneled in in recent years. A festering sore, but needed in their opinion.
+
+
The Hellenic Republic would be killed off at the head. We can place most of the leadership of both main parties in/around Athens at DD, and while Crete would no doubt be where it eventually regroups, it will take a long time. By the time they are able to exert much of anything, the idea of them being the national government is just not a realistic idea. They had little legitimacy at DD, and that just makes it worse. It's going to have to be part of a national confederation simply for that reason, with the other areas being separate parts, with just as much claim to be the official government.
+
+
The idea for the capital was always for it to be on all the islands in that area, spread out somewhat. Call it a lesson from DD.
+
+
The Greek state next to Albania has long held claim to the area, due to refugees and irredentist Greek attitudes towards the region(s) of Southern Albania. Even today a fairly large number of the people there are of such descent. That the "states" there are pariahs and rouge states... no one will complain much outside of Albania/Macedonia, who agreed to the move. Helps even more that the one statelet there joined the Federation.
+
+
Much as I hate to admit it, Macedonia taking over the immediate region of Thessaloniki makes some degree of sense, as the area is ruined and the Greek statelets have other problems. There's better non-ruined areas for a port, even in the north. But considering that Macedonian nationalists even otl claim the area, the move makes sense. Xeight may not like it, but the disputes between Macedonia and Greece over things like even the ''word'' Macedonia, it's likely to happen.
+
+
I do like your spilt for Mount Athos and the regions north of it to be separate. A oversight on the original work.
+
+
Think that covers more or less everything. May add if I rememeber more - been working on this on/off for a while.
+
+
[[User:Lordganon|Lordganon]] ([[User talk:Lordganon|talk]]) 17:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
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).
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.
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)
Hey guys, I noticed your military section is lacking a little, if you want, I can make the section for you, I'm pretty good with military stuff. Ownerzmcown 16:22, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
Naw. I will get to it, rest assured. Lordganon 17:30, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
Okay then, if you're sure, just checking. Ownerzmcown 17:39, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
Archive of Article stuff:
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
Protected egyptian archaeological sites.
Sites under Greek Protection
Alexandria's Library
Archaeological site of Abu Mena.
Archaeological site of Abusir.
Tell Al-Baladum
Sites under the joint Egyptian-Greek protection. (In Creation)
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:
Russia and Turkey share a historical hatred.
The magority of the RC is orthodox christian as is greece.
The RC is able to project power into Turkey and the Balklans without having to use its IRBM's.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 .
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.......
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. {C
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? {C
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!
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 Morean nobility is nothing more than a group of people with no power and were just award purely honorary 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)
Agreed, Xeight (calm is good!). I honestly doubt that the despot would have a chance at actually winning, though I could see him making it to the runoff election, where he'd be slaughtered.
It should be elected, true - but we also want it to be fairly stable as well, unlike the Poles. Myself, I would aim for an elective monarchy in the style of the old Norse monarchies, such as Denmark prior to the 1660s, where it is elective, but in practice usually staying in one family. If their children, or even their heir, are seen as being incompetent, etc. it could pass to their other relatives, or even to other claimants. And, of course, other candidates, like politicians, etc. could be nominated (one per party, max.), though I'd stick a precedent against that into play immediately. This way, we avoid pointless squabbling, yet still have the elections for it - I'd go, after the original election, with this being done by Parliament.
Of course, we still need the original election, which would likely go best with each party, and state, being able to nominate a candidate. Of course, it would get somewhat crowded with this, but a simple run-off election between the top two takes care of it from there.
Reminds me, I need to fill out the Greece article more... sigh.
That sounds pretty good (the elective monarchy), although what family should we nominate? Now the point of the neo- East Roman and in smaller does neo-Ancient Greek culture being resurrected and the monarchy itself are because the people are conservatising and looking to their old roots, and not just the republican or the past of the kingdom, so no monarch flown in from Italy, Germany, Denmark, or Spain is going to fly. Perhaps a Greek family of a politician or even a surviving millionaire could be elected. I personally don't like making up people since this is has a PoD from 1983 and anyone born because of the turn-of-events would still be too young to rise through the ranks of any state, so perhaps we need to do our research and see who could survive. Also, when there are succession crises-such you can't find a monarch to take over because the current royal family's heir is a twit, the Patriarch or any Bishop could be "crowned" asa regent who will govern the affairs of the state and will immediately and happily relinquish power when a suitable Emperor/King is found. His auxiliary bishop will run the bishopric while he's gone, so there's no need to worry about that.
Also, thinking of the population-dent in the world, women might be able to become deacons again. Priests and bishops, however, is still unlikely.
Re: creating people - People born after 1983 wouldn't be the only people created. Plenty of prominent people would have been killed, and those born prior to 1983 would have taken a much different path, paving the way for many leaders and such that wouldn't have existed as such. Say someone who was 13 in 1983 and OTL grew up to be a mechanic. Not exactly Wikipedia material, but what if the path after 1983 lead him to be the leader of a major labour movement or something and eventually political agitator or party leader? Suddenly this guy is historically significant. Thats just an example, and why I tend to use fictional people unless it makes more sense to use real people.
If you're going to use a real person, I say try to find some sort of politician who was a historian or something like that prior to entering politics. Someone who would heavily draw on the Byzantine revival movement, possibly declaring himself Constantine XII or such following his coronation.Oerwinde 18:53, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
Once again I find myself agreeing with both of you. I too, however, would prefer a real person.
How about we all nominate a few (2-4) candidates each, which we will have all run in the election. The Despot (and his nephew) would be automatically running too, of course. Not that either of those two would win, lol. maybe one is in the runoff, but....)
Then we just decide on the last two, and our final choice from there.
Essentially, what I would like to see is a couple choices made by parties, someone chosen by each state, and a couple Greek royal family members. (Of course, some of these, be they party or otherwise, could be the same person).
How does that sound?
I like the thought of women becoming deacons again. Lets do that.
Sounds good to me. Any ideas on who might become the monarch by 2012? As I said before, I'm a little bit leary about a claimant to the OTL throne who survived DD coming to Greece because it's become such a cliché. But any OTL Greek politician I'm game for, although I'd assume anyone from PASOK won't become the monarch anytime soon ;). Oh, and did we ever reunite the Eastern Orthodox-Christian Patriarchate of Alexandria with the Oriental Orthodox-Christian one? I assumed they'd unite since the numbers of both have dwindled so much and that both Patriarchs didn't survive because the "Greek" Patriarch was in-exile in Athens and the Coptic Patriarch probably wouldn't have survived the Israeli nuking. I was also thinking about bringing the dioceses of Crete into the jurisdiction of Alexandria to bring more Greeks in the Patriarchate's flock, but I believe someone made an intelligent argument against it because there are already enough Greeks in the Egyptian area. And have I missed anything major with Greece? Hopefully nothing to do with war :D!
Mr.Xeight 05:00, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
No worries, my list is mostly guys who are politicians and the like. Few claimants, true, but.... no worries. Can be safely said none would vote for them enough to win everything.
No, nothing major to have missed. Aside from the political parties nothing I didn't tell you about has happened, lol.
Never really did come to a result with the churches. Way I figure it though, numbers at this point will have dwindled enough so that there would only be one of'em now atl. I did find a candidate at one point, I believe.... will try to find the name again.
Rather than unifying, I think it more likely that they would just allow cross-communion. Churches that split thousands of years ago wouldn't unite simply because they have fewer followers. The cross communion could be a first step in eventual unification, but it will take a lot I think.Oerwinde 19:57, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
Just realized that I'd forgotten to post the list I came up with. Mostly my thoughts on who could be nominated by the various political parties/factions, and prolly a few too many actual royal claimants, but.... meh.
Carl Johan (Jan) Gustaf Vilhelm Count Bernadotte, Great-Great-Grandson of King George of Greece. Senior possible Heir without a claim to other thrones, etc. (Union of Royalists)
Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta, Distant Cousin of the Last King of Greece, second-most senior claimant, and grandson of king Constantine I (Heptanesa)
Nikolaos Horeftakis, bishop on Crete (Agion Oros, Orthodox Democratic League)
George Koskotas, banker on Crete (Hellas, Party for Justice and Integration, New Democracy)
Sakis Rouvas, entertainer/businessman from Corfu (Turkish League, National Front for the Salvation of Libya, Nasserist Party) (regarded as a joke)
Kypros Chrysostomides, politician from Cyprus (Cyprus)
Bahaa el-Din Ahmed Hussein el-Akkad, member of a Muslim group for co-existence in Kemet (Kemet, Coptic Association, New Wafd Party)
King Alexander of Macedonia (grandson of king Alexander I of Greece, distant cousin of the last Greek king) (something to do with unity and peace, by the Delian League and Party for Peace)
Despot of Morea (Morea, and the Golden Dawn Party)
Despot of Cyrenicia (Cyrenicia)
Diamanto Manolakou, politician from Hellas (Panhellenic Socialist Movement)
King Andrew I of New Britain (Thrace, Ecological Movement of Greece)
I figure, myself, despite my personal preference of Carl Johan, that given population numbers, etc. from my list here it would end up coming down to one of the Greeks - I suspect the one from Cyprus, given that the rest would split their votes badly - and Bahaa. Interesting.....
Thought I'd add this too, more for the heck of it than anything. Note that in all of this, I couldn't find any members of Greek nobility but the royals. Their seniority:
Michael of Romania, mother was third child of Constantine I of Greece
Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta, mother was fifth child of Constantine I
Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, King of Macedonia, grandson of Alexander of Greece through his daughter and a great-grandson of Constantine I (second child)
Carlo Alessandro, 3rd Duke of Castel Duino, great grandson of George I (2nd child, after Cons~), father of Constantine I
Carl Johan (Jan) Gustaf Vilhelm Count Bernadotte, great-great grandson of George I, through his eldest daughter/3rd child
Maximilian, Margrave of Baden, great grandson of George I, through his 7th child, Prince Andrew, and his 2nd child
King Andrew I of New Britain, great grandson of George I, through his 7th child, Prince Andrew, and then his 5th child, Prince Phillip
The Original Greek dynasty of Otto was killed in Munich (titular Bavarian king was the heir), erasing any potential there as well.
Definitely would I be opposed to doing what 90% of the monarchies do around here; some king's next of kin who conveniently survived Doomsday and somehow made his way home when he was several-thousand miles away shows up and everyone rejoices and makes him king. By no means am I trying to challenge, but the challenger "Kypros Chrysostomides", is named after the island from which he hails from? Don't get me wrong, people can name their children whatever they please, but did they really name their own son "Cyprus"? But yeah, I'd definitely vote for him and I'm sure that a lot of people will simply because he's true-blue Greek and not a clergyman, like the other true Greek is. Hell I'd vote for him just for that reason. Of course though, with Egypt controlling such a large amount of the vote, might Sakis Rouvas or Bahaa el-Din Ahmed Hussein el-Akkad win? Things could get interesting if the an idiot and a Muslim gets in; some people might be rather uncomfortable having a Muslim king when the state has such a close relationship to the EOC, and one memberstate is a theocracy. As for going with cross-communion, your reasoning makes sense, I say we go for it.
Yeah, I thought it was odd too, lol. But it really is the guy's name. Problem in all of this is the 42% overall population percentage of Kemet, and the majority of it being Muslims, as well as the Turks and Arabs elsewhere. Maybe 45%~ of the population overall is Muslim, or Copts who'd vote for that guy. Factor in the Neutral types and the League, and it's going to be really close, no matter the outcome. I figure 51%-49% type thing. Note that our %'s on the article are wrong, and I need to fix'em, lol. If the Egyptian won, I'd make him convert, mind. No idea between the two, of course. Maybe a vote overall? lol Lordganon 04:42, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
I personally like the idea of Bahaa el-Din Ahmed Hussein el-Akkad. After looking him up, and his disillusionment with islam and conversion to Christianity, I think as a unifying figure for the country he'd be awesome, as long as he takes a Greek as his queen.
Will this be an election? If so it would likely require runoff elections to ensure the winner has a clear majority.Oerwinde 08:54, May 12, 2011 (UTC)
That sums up why he was the choice I made for Kemet, lol. Only guy that they all could agree on. Definitely would need a Greek queen, mind. I really have no preference between the two, myself. Going to e-mail Xeight and see if he could stomach Bahaa, lol.
Yes, an election. The top two candidates go into a run-off, with the winner becoming King. The Cypriot and Bahaa being the most likely top two, of course.
I would think there would be more than one runoff with 12 candidates. Say top 4 then top 2. Could really change the results. Likely top 4 being Carl Johan, the Cypriot, the Hellene, and Bahaa. Not that it really matters, but that could affect the final 2. Campaigning on unity between the states I could see Bahaa gaining some more Liberal Greek voters as well as the Turkish vote, so he's really the most likely to win despite our preferencesOerwinde 09:32, May 12, 2011 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, there is no runoff system that has more than two rounds. And most have 12, or even more, candidates in the first round, too. In the last French presidential election, for instance, there was 12 candidates, and the run-off only had two people. Question of expense, in the end. But even with another round I don't see the result changing.
Have to think about totals, but your four more or less describe the top four I was thinking about too, lol.
Bah, I was thinking of the last Liberal party leadership convention that had like 4 rounds of voting. But then I realized having delegates voting at a convention is extremely different from a widespread public election.Oerwinde 17:54, May 12, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, party conventions are a whole different matter entirely.
So, I suppose that means that Bahaa el-Din Ahmed Hussein el-Akkad wins. Thoughts on a regal name, and house name?
The Cypriot in second, Carl Johan in third, and a Hellene in fourth. I'll think about them past that. All of the candidates, and the potential claimants, will all receive noble titles as well. Thoughts on those too?
Constantine would be a pretty likely regnal name. As well as symbolic. There were a lot of Johns as well in Greek history. As for house name, Soter was the surname of Ptolemy, the hellenic Macedonian ruler of Egypt that established the Ptolemaic dynasty. Linking both Greece and Egypt. Taking Skyros as the house name could also link the monarch to the federation, being the capital region.
Taking an Arab or Coptic Regnal name with a Greek house name would also be a unifying gesture as well.
As for noble titles for the rest, possibly linking them to their homelands would be ideal. Dukes of Cyprus, Crete, etc. And for some of the candidates from outside greece, maybe granting titles based on claimed or new territories, ie: Thrace, Macedonia, etc. With Alexander of Macedonia being one of the candidates, naming him as duke or whatnot of Greek Macedonia (title would be duke of Macedonia in Greece, and duke of Greek Macedonia in Macedonia), would be a move to improve relations with Macedonia, especially in conjecture with a future possible territorial exchange.Oerwinde 23:12, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
Good ideas, as always, Oer. Now, to hear back from Xeight, lol.
Constantine and Soter sound really good to me. As for the titles, that's more or less what I had in mind. Going to hunt up what noble titles there actually were in the Greek Kingdom, etc. too.
There weren't many titles in actual Greek kingdoms, I think in the most recent kingdom, Duke of Sparta as a title for the crown prince was the only ones used. The crusader states had dukes of Athens and Naxos and such, but since Xeight favors the Byzantine Greeks, they used the terms Despotes or Archon as the administrator of a theme. These were the equivalent of a Duke, so to differentiate from the Despots of Cyrenaica and Morea, we could use Archon as the Duke equivalent title.Oerwinde 03:16, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, more or less what my research has shown. Though I have extended my Greek claimant-type list somewhat, because of that search, lol. The entire Danish relatives of George I can, in theory, make a claim. However, none will get titles past Andrew, as their claims are just so sketchy past there.
Yeah, Archon works for me. And we can have Sparta be the Crown Prince title, though as "Prince of Sparta" (with a Greek version of Prince, of course), not Archon. Have it kinda like the setup of the Brits, with the monarch and their duchies for spending, too. Maybe use "Despot" as the Princely title? Would appease the Despots.
Having a look at things, the population of Cyprus is too tiny for their guy to get to the end. Hellas guys split the vote too cleanly, and neither make the top 4. Can't see how the Despot would have a small vote, either. Funny enough, it ends up being Bahad, Carl Johan, the Despot of Morea, and the "joke" candidate being the top 4. Thought I'd leave this note about it. Lordganon 20:29, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
So is he going to be Emperor, or King? By the looks of things, given the nature of the Federation and its government, I'd say emperor, myself. Thoughts guys? Lordganon 13:33, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I never considered that. Given Xeight's insistence on a Byzantine resurgence, emperor might be the more likely one, but from what I've seen Despot is about equivalent to a Duke in terms of rank. With use going with Archon as the Ducal title, Despot would be more like Grand Duke, so King would still make sense. I'm not sure.Oerwinde 17:32, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
Well, Russia had Grand Dukes and still had the Tsar. Not a deal=breaker on it being emperor and not king.
Haven't quite decided where Despot lies on the scale, but my thinking was more so some sort of minor prince, or a lesser king, like was the case in the German Empire. They have more power than a grand duke in Russia, but not as much as a prince in the UK or the like and have no right to the throne.
If you think about it, the Despots are kinda like sub-kings to the new throne. With that, really need to have an emperor.
My comparison I was going to use was the Despots being more like a German Grand Duke... then I remembered the Holy Roman Empire, and I think this situation is quite similar and just supports the idea of an Emperor. German Grand Dukes were for the most part independent rulers of Grand Duchies, but answered to the Holy Roman Emperor. They were absolute rulers of their own realms, but within the Empire weren't as high in rank as the Kings of Bohemia or Prussia.
My only issue with it being an emperor is mostly a foreign affairs thing. Some nations such as Turkey already view Greece as a neo-imperial power, and electing an Emperor would just confirm the fears of such nations. The leaders of Greece wouldn't want to inflame relations with Turkey especially so soon after being weakened in the 2nd Sicily War.
When you look at the internal political makeup of the Federation, Emperor makes the most sense, but I think they would go with King based both on recent history and so as not to threaten nearby hostile nations.Oerwinde 19:39, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
Well, the neo-imperial charge is already there. It being "King" or "Emperor" won't make difference in that regard. If anything, him being an Emperor may help, lol - kinda thumbing their noses at them, so to speak, maybe showing that others have less to fear. And note the concession to the League written into the constitution that I refer to in the League article ;)
The Turks are preoccupied elsewhere, and despite the claims Caer makes, the Federation is a even match for them, if not more. With Sicily defeated and weakened - and unable to launch anything for quite some time - that's even more so true.
Yeah, that's more or less my opinion on the matter. Though, the Grand Dukes and Princes in the HRE were more or less the same. (note I am aware of the differences)
Don't see how they could inflame any nearby nations any further by doing it. They have their allies, and their enemies, already - there really isn't any neutral parties to offend.
At this point, given that the Federation itself is barely a year and half old, something to help stabilize things internally would be more desirous than worrying about other powers. It being "King," in my mind, would just give the Despots a good reason to be uppity. Not the case with "Emperor."
Please clarify that last part. The Despots of old were basically the appointed governors of Byzantine themes. Declaring an emperor might even make them seem like they are being referred to as simply subnational governors rather than rulers in their own right, whereas a king wouldn't have any connection to the old byzantine ways.
I don't really care either way. To me, Emperor makes the most sense in what the role of the King will be. King seems to make the most sense so as not to hurt feelings, to me at least.Oerwinde 20:30, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's where the term originated. But, that's not how it ended up. It went from court titles/governors to a term used for younger sons and son-in-laws of the emperors, who controlled large amounts of territory to finance extensive estates within the empire, such as the islands of Lesbos and Rhodes, held in this fashion by such as John Palaiologos, younger brother of Emperor Michael VIII.
From there, the term was used to refer to the rulers of semi-autonomous appanages inside the empire, in what amounted to an extension of giving the title to the younger sons, and son-in-laws, such as King Béla III of Hungary. The title started as separate from the lands they were given for this purpose, being given separately to them by the emperor, but it eventually became something they passed to their sons, without any sort of appointment by the emperor. Foremost of these were the Despots of Epirus and Morea, both nominally - very nominally - under the Emperor, but for all practical purposes independent - which are also the main examples.
From this, it passed throughout the Balkans, used in both the ruler and governor fashions, depending on the location. In Serbia and Bulgaria, it was used for the most senior and powerful nobility, appointed by either the Byzantine Emperor or their own rulers. Other places, such as in Albania, used it like in Morea, though far weaker. The Pope and the King of Hungary both appointed Despots too, on a couple occasions.
In the context of the Federation, it's kinda a cross between the usage by the relatives and the largely independent despots that recognized the Byzantines in name only. Think of it as like a "King" rank under the Emperor, if you would.
Have a look at the despot article on wikipedia for more.
On a different matter. I'm not huge on the choice of bride. Since its a political marriage, one of the main purposes would be to produce heirs. Also, the requirement of marrying a Greek is kind of ignored. Being a 39 year old German/Swede, not really the best match for fulfilling either the role of producing heirs or being Greek.Oerwinde 16:08, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
It's more-so Greek by proxy, along with the wishes of Bahaa. Do need to touch that up a smudge, mind. Keep the royalists happy too.
Actually, that may be what you'd think, but the woman, otl, actually had children in 2006 and 2009, so she'll be fine in that regard. Note that this is the case in virtually that entire family, so they'd know about it.
Also, it can be easily said that they'd agree to it so that he has no heirs, in their minds, and they can have another crack at it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I've updated the section on Politics and Government, as well as included some info on political parties. Very open to adding more of them if there's any ideas for more, though I think that I got all the bases covered. Seats can be adjusted quite easily too. I figure all of this leads, as it is now, to some sort of minority conservative coalition government, relying on another party (Copts would be likely) to maintain power over the Socialists and the various minority/nationalist parties.
I think the Wafd votes would be split between a Kemet independence party and an Egyptian nationalist party.Oerwinde 10:28, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
Added a party for that purpose. Lordganon 17:58, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
I hope you guys didn't mind, but I thought the Coptic Rights Party that's neither for-nor-against Kemetian Independence would object to a monarchy, so long as the Coptic people are treated as equals. Oh, and Mr. Ganon, I'll comment on your letters tomorrow, so I haven't done so sooner. Oh, and Mr. Oer, I found a guy who speaks Occitan on another Uchronie website. If you ever need translations for your TL because of of Occitan playing a bigger role in the world, I can ask him on your behalf. Oh, and I was thinking that some of the more liberal and less insane Moreons would vote New Democracy and thus the liberals would ironically be voting conservative. Whether it's enough for the Moreos to be considered a power base of the ND, I don't know.
Mr.Xeight 04:48, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
No worries, Xeight. I know you'll get to it eventually.
More or less what I'd thought. Basically, anyone (except the nationalists of one stripe or another) without a listed preference I figured would be neutral on the matter.
I'd figured that the less rabid Moreans would be the royalists.
More of a nitpick than anything, but when it comes to building the Greek Imperal Palace, why were there no Greek proposals? Oerwinde 09:40, February 8, 2012 (UTC)
Well, there isn't really any Greek architects that I could find. I've operated on the assumption that none would have managed to get to the committee stage, if that makes any sense. Lordganon 10:17, February 8, 2012 (UTC)
Well none of the greek architects OTL would likely exist ATL anyway. Same with any foreign firms.Oerwinde 10:31, February 8, 2012 (UTC)
Most firms are actually older than the PoD, including all the ones I've got here.
Yes, I know that they would not really exist atl.
But, in my research, I actually couldn't find any Greek firms, or anything. Felt I couldn't make one up in that context, especially one that would be capable of winning such a proposal.
Wow, great job you two. I've really liked what you've done with the history of Greece and the coronation of its first king. The images are all nice touches, too, especially because they show a bigger Greece than from the time I left about a year ago! Kudos to both of you!
Mr.Xeight 03:37, May 2, 2012 (UTC)
I'm still in contact with the original writer, User:Mr.Xeight, and we're talking about some of the problems both with his original ideas and how they developed after he left the wiki. Some of the problems can be seen in the way that its writing developed. To briefly summarize how Greece got to be how it is:
Mr.Xeight offered his original idea: Greece as a Byzantine revivalist state that conquers all its neighbors and creates a new monarchy. This archived discussion, "New Lands for the Hungry UL", is a good illustration of his original mindset.
Other editors workshopped those ideas so that Greece became less powerful, a loosely-governed confederation of survivor states. Its territory expanded, but only because some of those states, in particular the islands, were able to extend help to the people suffering on the opposite shores. And then the League of Nations gave Greece "mandate" control over some other areas.
At this point, Mr.Xeight left.
A couple of other editors adopted the page and began to flesh it out, notably without marking it as a proposal again.
By the time they were done, Greece had become... a Byzantine revivalist state that conquered all its neighbors and created a new monarchy. The idea of expansion happening in small pieces and largely through the LoN was largely dropped.
Mr.Xeight dropped by in the above section ☝️ and gave his blessing to the changes, because, after all, they were what he had originally wanted (but had earlier been persuaded to scale back).
Plan
After a lengthy discussion with Mr.Xeight off site, I have a basic plan for how to make changes to make Greece more realistic. Roughly:
The idea of a confederation of small states that slowly reunites will be kept, but the goal will be the recreation of the Hellenic Republic rather than any kind of monarchy.
The Peloponnese will still be a dictatorship, but Golden Dawn's role will be removed. That was a rather anachronistic element to put into the TL, because Golden Dawn in the 1980s was an irrelevant fringe movement and there are more interesting things that can be done with the region. This is Mr.Xeight's wish for the region - I actually argued that fringe movements have a chance to flourish in a post-apocalypse environment; but he really wants them gone.
Greek expansion onto some areas of the Turkish coast will occur in roughly similar fashion: beginning as a humanitarian effort that slowly evolves into territorial control. But the expansion onto the African continent is wholly unrealistic. A new history would have to be written for Libya as well as Egypt and the Suez Canal. There's really no justifiable reason for Greece to have those territories in TTL - a shattered, targeted nation expanding into nations that were never targeted.
The broad timeline of wars with Sicily will be maintained, but reinterpreted somewhat in light of the revisions being made both to Greece and to Sicily.
Cyprus needs a rewrite to take into account the ethnic and cultural complexity of the place. It is unlikely to end up as Greek territory, but may be an ally. But things are going to get ugly there in the Aftermath period.
With Istanbul destroyed, the Greeks will at some point try to establish a station there and claim it together with the Hellespont, but this remains a small presence today rather than a large-scale occupation of the whole region of Turkish Thrace.
Anyway, if this does go forward it will be a very big undertaking and probably take a long time and affect many pages. Personally I think it would be worth it, and luckily we have the blessing of the original author. (I can post screenshots if need be.) I hope we can discuss changes and ramifications as a group. Benkarnell (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Here are a couple of sample screenshots from our conversation.
As you can see, I haven't done anything about Macedonians coming down to Thessaloniki. Honestly I haven't looked into that yet. But otherwise, the outlines of my changes came from that conversation. False Dmitri (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
For Greece's government, I think the correct model might be how the OTL Russian Federation is supposed to work, or Spain before it fully federalized, or even the post-devolution UK: the nation consists of a rump unitary state, the Hellenic Republic, directly under the federal government, together with a set of smallish autonomous areas consisting of the locally-created post-DD governments. So the Greek Confederation can still be the initial form that the new Greece took, but the transition from confederation to federal republic meant more that the smaller states joined the Hellenic Republic as special autonomous areas. This is mostly me thinking out loud here, but that may be the best way to square the new ideas with the previous content. False Dmitri (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I have written a modified proposal for Greece, currently at User:False Dmitri/sandbox. It mostly does what I said in the bulleted list above. There's a lot to it, it's a big and complex topic. And if the changes are accepted, that will entail lots of further changes: to the individual Greek states, to Egypt, and especially to Libya. With the exception of those countries, I tried to keep Greece's relationship with other countries the same, so that Greece can leave the same "footprint" in the timeline and we can avoid too many cascading changes. Some other things to note:
The Hellenic Republic now serves as both one of the states, and as the national government. The idea is asymmetric federalism, as I explained just above. I think it's a reasonable approach for the country to take, but it also just intrinsically appeals to me.
I kept the ethnic cleansing of Cyprus, followed by its joining Greece as an autonomous state. No doubt some of its details will need to be re-written to take into account the island's complex history and demographics, but this seems to be a plausible if tragic end result.
The original version had a lovely new capital being built on the island of Skyros. This seems unlikely to me on such an inconveniently tiny island, so I replaced that with a move to Chalcis. The former capital territory of Skyros then becomes an autonomous state.
The last history written for Greece was 2012, when it invaded and occupied southern Albania. This had the same vibe as much of the rest of the history - the Greeks conquered and colonized a bunch of Muslims, who for whatever reason were happy and grateful for it - but instead of replacing this storyline, I kept it and added consequences for Greece diplomatically.
I'm happy with how this has come along, and I hope the group likes the general direction of the changes. False Dmitri (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
First: Considering that myself and Oer are the ones (primarily) who helped finish things up on at least the sub articles, something about this at the start should have been said to us. Not bloody happy about that, and it's not the first time this has happened, despite rules or manners. For the record, I think you exaggerate the nation as we (and Xeight, since it did get approved by him and community!) laid it out, but you're welcome to your opinion.
Quite frankly, even though you discussed it with Xeight, I have to question just how much of that is his opinion, and how much is you adding to it, since you don't differentiate between the two all that much Doesn't matter much, but I don't like it either way.
I imagine parts of this you'll hate, some you'll like, and others will be "huh? - like normal for us, lol.
Restoring the Republic as a goal? You'd have a hard time pressing that as a goal in modern Greece otl, let alone here. Unifying Greece period, fine. Monarchy or not is a much more iffy factor, and if even one of the statelets has such a thing going on, you have to deal with it, be it at least as hereditary governors, or the like. At the very least, looking at the... very poorly done and somewhat corrupt referendums in the early 1970s, especially the 1973 one, the two areas that were close, despite the net results, are the Peloponnese area, and the Thrace/Macedonia area, with one region in each actually voting against a republic outright. Most of the votes for a republic, truthfully, were in the Athens Metro (40% of the population in the early 1970s, and roughly 35% in the early 1980s) and Crete. Taking out Athens by itself at least makes the referendum close. You see a similar result in most of these countries in Europe that flipped in the last century and a bit - corrupt or flawed referendum, with the monarchy side having little to know ability to do anything in it, and then barred from the country. Italy is another example.
The Peloponnese being under something like Golden Dawn makes a ton of sense. That area and the region around Mount Athos and towards Thrace are where such groups always do well, often getting near to surpassing 10-15% of the vote. Golden Dawn in the last decade is the highest of these, true, but not by much. More nationalistic parties like them do better in the Peloponnese, and the more religion based ones do better in the north, but they both do well in the other area too. (Comparatively, the communists do the same in the Athens Metro, Crete, and east-central Greece) Most of these parties, however, are temporary movements based around one figure or another, and none have lasted long even if they aren't. Little as Golden Dawn would have been in the early 1980s, they are probably the only organized group of their inkling in the area at the time, and them taking some semblance of control does make sense. The main political parties aren't based here, and their leadership more or less gone in Athens... recipe for disaster, or the extremists taking control.
Xeight may want them gone, and that may work long-term, but in the short term, not going to happen. There's just too many people of that direction there. As you note, Ben, this is their chance to shine/flourish. Heck, should he have control, Michaloliakos going as far as to crown himself something makes sense given his known personality and political goals. And, given things, "Despot" would be a far better choice than anything else.
The Egypt "expansion" is a combination of mandates, relatively neutral powers, and desires of the locals to have nothing to do with "Cairo." By all rights, the locals would have only the Alexandria area, but the Canal part comes into play because of local issues.
After DD, the Egyptian government teeters on for a little bit, before falling in a coup to the Muslim Brotherhood. When combined with the general mood (and, this is already going on, just made far worse) the coup leads to a ton of anti-Copt and anti-outsider backlash. Now, in otl modern times, the population of Copts in Egypt is 5-20 million, or 5-20% of the population. This is considered in many places to be an intentionally lowered figure, with the true number being anywhere from 25-40 million - we really have no idea, given how it is conducted. Given the bias of the government, and the obvious discrimination against them, no way to tell what it actually is. Heck, they don't even do the census in this regard by region, so we have no idea there. Though, given it is where the church head is located, it stands to reason that the largest number would likely be in the Alexandria area. Much the same logic exists for them fleeing there, both before and after the Israeli war atl. Heck, otl Egypt has only had a single token Copt governor, despite supposed rights from the government, and that was an appointed position off in the south somewhere for a very short period.
Add to the chaos in Egypt that they will have to change crops over from commercial to food (at least to some degree), and deal with fluctuations of the Nile. Some will go hungry.
Now, I can see the Brotherhood government wanting to get rid of this area, but... probably not going to be their priority, and a harder (supposedly) nut to crack than Israel, for somewhat obvious reasons. Israel would have gone, most likely, under a period of military rule (with the government largely gone, or regrouping, someone has to take control) and then joint rule with government remnants. Between the Israeli leadership vacuum, and the Palestinian leadership facing a similar fate in many ways, and the overall (military) situation, you're see some kind of agreement made/forced with the military. Not even going to begin to speculate on its exact nature (not wanting to open that can of worms) other than inducting the Palestinians into the nation somehow.
Now, remember: Palestinians have been screwed over by the local Arab governments at this point nearly as much as the Israelis. Promises made, not kept, opportunities not taken, land not given, states not set up, etc. A big list, really. Heck, Israel itself is on better terms by 1983 with a couple of them than the Palestinians are.
So, however the exact details are... you have Israeli troops, backed by Palestinian militia and possibly some troops from Jordan, facing the large Egyptian "conscript" army at the border. No matter how many people die or starve in Egypt, they will be outnumbered. the Israeli leadership isn't stupid - they can see the writing on that one. So, they nuke Cairo, removing the leadership there, and, since they time it well, screwing with the Nile and radiating the silt temporarily... and screwing with the crops downriver, at least somewhat. Maybe add smaller strikes on the military field headquarters too, though that probably isn't needed, and works better if the generals are the ones that start the war. Either way, the resulting leadership vacuum results in some of the troops attacking, but most pulling back towards Cairo, and into the resulting Civil War. I foresee a lot of dead this way, for a variety of reasons, and them being too busy to go after the Copts or Israel for a long time. This results in the Egypt state based out of more to the south as, or similar to, we have atl right now.
The Israelis, of course, take advantage of this, and crush those that are left, advancing to the canal. Not only is the land not effected by radiation, compared to their own lands, but the canal itself offers a far better defensive position. I'd also bet on them keeping anything organized from appearing on the other side of it, as well, since it would be to their benefit. This, combined with other things, screws up the canal, leading to later LoN work there.
Now, the Copts in Alexandria.. they will likely take advantage to seize part of the Delta. Can't blame them. They'd be radicalized by this point, with good reason. And overcrowded. By this point, I see Greek traders working their way out of the islands, and finding them. As they are not Muslims, overall, and given the Greek history in the city, I see them being treated fairly well. Especially since they'd be in need of food and other things, and the Greek Islands export a lot, so... works well. Now, they're not going to join the Confederation that forms in this era. But them allying with it does make sense. When the Federation forms, maybe some sort of associated status, given events near the canal.
The Canal itself.... as noted, the LoN will eventually get involved here, by need. The whole world benefits by having it open, but it is spilt between the Israelis on one side, and (sort of, as noted above why) the Egyptian government on the other, with little practical control on the west side.
For obvious reasons, neither Egypt or Israel will tolerate the other being in control, nor would Egypt want the Copts there... and the Israelis probably aren't going to be happy about that, either. That results in the LoN mandate, as noted, over the areas west of the canal and parts of the eastern Delta.
The LoN itself really doesn't have the means on its own the police/administrate the area, so someone has to do it. Look at the region... who has any means to do so, and is reasonably neutral? Honestly, the only answer is probably Greece at this point. So, the net mandate is government by them, in concert with whatever locals are there, supervised by an LoN official of some sort. More or less like the otl LoN mandates were. This results in the current "Kemet" state spilt into the Coptic "Kemet" out of Alexandria, and a Greek-governed "Suez" out of the Canal Area. Currently, this is more or less merged together, which is flawed, admittedly.
Copts still support the Greek cause in the Second Sicilian War, which changes little, since they are technically allied, and Sicilian aggression is a threat in their direction anyways.
As you note, Libya falling is going to happen. Too many things wrong there, and no international backing (heck, Sicily by this point may even be screwing with them on some level) will cause a collapse. The otl result from last decade is probably an improvement over how this would turn out. Now, from here, there is a lot of directions to go from there. The one that results in the smallest changes - the goal in any review, though many seem to have forgotten that fact - is putting a different "crown" in place and making them an "associated" or "allied" state of the Federation. There is a logic to this! I swear!
After the coup which he took power in, Gadhafi didn't exile or execute the Royal Family. Those who were in the country at the time were instead moved to a "walled villa" on the coast, and put under house arrest. My best guess as to why would be to not inflame the supported of the religious sect that they head into active opposition/revolt in Cyrenaica. As it is, they took it far better than I would have expected, for the noted reason, and to keep them alive.
Just before DD, in ~1982, their villa was sold from under them - Gadhafi seems to have somewhat forgotten them - and they moved into near-shacks on the beach near Tripoli. Note, too, that amidst all the attempts on him and his rule, a least one of the military attempts did have royal (in the east, Cyrenaica) backing, though only from a couple of princes that were outside of Libya in 1969... one of which ended up getting caught and imprisoned for decades. Even in modern otl times, there is a lot of support for them in this region, and one of the princes is even part of the head(s) of the eastern government. In many ways, this was even more prevalent in the past. Their religious movement has been at the forefront of resistance to Gadhafi in the east for pretty much his entire rule, in fact. As a side note, they only took over all of Libya with Allied support, and it was, considering where their later overthrow came from, a bad idea. Heck, the new Libyan "government" even adopted their symbols for the country! Have a look into their order, interesting history read.
Given his inattention of them, I don't see Gadhafi moving against them with DD. It certainly was not outside pressure that caused them to be ignored otl, after all. Heck, he cared so little not long after this that he signed off on them leaving the country. Of curse, had they fled earlier... bet on death.
So, when the ball really drops in Libya, they do have the supporters to flee to, and probably some nearby they can count on. If nothing else, they are on the coast, so they can get boats to flee in, which they'd know how to use. They'd have their pick of cities in Cyrenaica to go to and with some weaponry take over. Nothing too big, and likely one of the cities where they have more support. Guess would be Bayda.
From there, they would be able to expand some, but... military matters would prevent much further, with military units in control over more of the region. Around the same time as Alexandria, you'd see Greek ships getting here. I imagine the reception in Bayda would be better than elsewhere, and they would need arms, so... works well. Greek industry is, based on spread in Greece itself, better off than most, so they can to some degree meet that need. They'd also be more prone, from Morea, to arm the royals anyway. Eventually, this would probably get them shaky control of the region. Have them, from there, go the same route as Kemet. Given past events I rather doubt there would be much interest in going past Sirte, which I foresee as being an extreme hotbed of pro-Gadhafi forces and too hard to take/destroy.
Most of Fezzan would end up reverting to nomads and warlords, with Tripolitania going to chaos. I would imagine it being some combination of Sicilian and Senussi backed groups, jockeying for balance, not actively intervening since it would start a war... and when Sicilian forces do move, it helps start the Second Sicily War.
Far as I'm concerned, Sicily doesn't really need edits. I'm willing to listen - and a long post is coming on it - but far as I'm seeing right now, we have an Italian nationalist offended by some of it, and it needs to be looked at in that light. There's a reason we've always had the "local" rule unofficially in place.
You're wrong about Cyprus. Some details about it being added are a must, but the rest has long been covered. The only reason for the island to be as it is otl is Turkey intervened, quite frankly - why they didn't just spilt the island between Greece and Turkey instead of trying independence originally I'll never understand - but the continued presence of those troops is the problem. As Caer established, the army commanders that took over the southern coast of Anatolia were in charge of these troops, and recalled them to the mainland to bring order to it, which is within their ability and command structure. They'd bring what Turkish civilians they could with them, probably most. The strikes on the British bases would not hurt/help either side, in the end.
The lack of these troops and civilians, and the Greeks will take over fairly easily. That they would join up with a Greek state is a given, honestly. They'd do it otl if they could.
Calling Thrace at the two choke points and the islands in between "large scale" is an exaggeration. They claim the north side, and "control" it, but outside of a few pockets it is not "occupied" or "administered." You're going to see punitive expeditions in the region fairly often as the majority of it expands slowly, with Turkish arms being funneled in in recent years. A festering sore, but needed in their opinion.
The Hellenic Republic would be killed off at the head. We can place most of the leadership of both main parties in/around Athens at DD, and while Crete would no doubt be where it eventually regroups, it will take a long time. By the time they are able to exert much of anything, the idea of them being the national government is just not a realistic idea. They had little legitimacy at DD, and that just makes it worse. It's going to have to be part of a national confederation simply for that reason, with the other areas being separate parts, with just as much claim to be the official government.
The idea for the capital was always for it to be on all the islands in that area, spread out somewhat. Call it a lesson from DD.
The Greek state next to Albania has long held claim to the area, due to refugees and irredentist Greek attitudes towards the region(s) of Southern Albania. Even today a fairly large number of the people there are of such descent. That the "states" there are pariahs and rouge states... no one will complain much outside of Albania/Macedonia, who agreed to the move. Helps even more that the one statelet there joined the Federation.
Much as I hate to admit it, Macedonia taking over the immediate region of Thessaloniki makes some degree of sense, as the area is ruined and the Greek statelets have other problems. There's better non-ruined areas for a port, even in the north. But considering that Macedonian nationalists even otl claim the area, the move makes sense. Xeight may not like it, but the disputes between Macedonia and Greece over things like even the word Macedonia, it's likely to happen.
I do like your spilt for Mount Athos and the regions north of it to be separate. A oversight on the original work.
Think that covers more or less everything. May add if I rememeber more - been working on this on/off for a while.
