|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Jan 9, 2019 6:41:32 GMT
Historically England and Scotland were a bit like frenemies due to competing interests, and the Auld Alliance was more aimed at encircling England. Yet within decades, England and Scotland would form a dynastic union that evolved into the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
Was there a possibility for the UK to be Balkanized like Yugoslavia, and for the Balkan region to be completely peaceful like OTL Great Britain?
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795 
Likes: 1,178
|
Post by raunchel on Jan 9, 2019 15:49:36 GMT
To achieve that, you need a situation where you don't have a sibgle dominant power. So, you have to prevent England from being united in the first place. It also really helps if, like on the Balkans, there are foreign powers playing divide and rule and hurting the general area quite a bit. The problem is that there isn't really space for multiple competing powers to hold onto parts of Britain until the late nineteenth century, if only because there only really is one direction from which a sufficiently powerful country can exert control.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402 
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Jan 9, 2019 17:18:24 GMT
To achieve that, you need a situation where you don't have a sibgle dominant power. So, you have to prevent England from being united in the first place. It also really helps if, like on the Balkans, there are foreign powers playing divide and rule and hurting the general area quite a bit. The problem is that there isn't really space for multiple competing powers to hold onto parts of Britain until the late nineteenth century, if only because there only really is one direction from which a sufficiently powerful country can exert control.
Very true. You could in theory have a combined Scandinavian state competing with a French based one for influence but for much of the late medieval and early modern period France is so much larger and richer than anywhere else with an interest in Britain - other than the unified English state that emerged from Alfred's successful defence against the Danes - that its not really practical. Possibly if France was also fractured for the duration of the period as well? Although given Britain's island nature its still difficult to see major foreign intervention on a regular basis. Especially since without a powerful England its unlikely to be rich enough for to attract that much attention. Plus if one king becomes very successful the island status also makes unification of much of it relatively easier. Especially since so many people had a fairly common English identity.
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,178
|
Post by raunchel on Jan 9, 2019 17:35:49 GMT
To achieve that, you need a situation where you don't have a sibgle dominant power. So, you have to prevent England from being united in the first place. It also really helps if, like on the Balkans, there are foreign powers playing divide and rule and hurting the general area quite a bit. The problem is that there isn't really space for multiple competing powers to hold onto parts of Britain until the late nineteenth century, if only because there only really is one direction from which a sufficiently powerful country can exert control.
Very true. You could in theory have a combined Scandinavian state competing with a French based one for influence but for much of the late medieval and early modern period France is so much larger and richer than anywhere else with an interest in Britain - other than the unified English state that emerged from Alfred's successful defence against the Danes - that its not really practical. Possibly if France was also fractured for the duration of the period as well? Although given Britain's island nature its still difficult to see major foreign intervention on a regular basis. Especially since without a powerful England its unlikely to be rich enough for to attract that much attention. Plus if one king becomes very successful the island status also makes unification of much of it relatively easier. Especially since so many people had a fairly common English identity.
the common identity can be broken if you have different religious groups competing, which would probably mean Catholics and Protestants, because if Islam gets all the way to the north of France, I don't think that they wouldn't just deal with the tiny remnants of Christendom. Of course, you could have other splits there, but still. If Britain then somehow becomes a battleground with various regions converting or not converting and blaming the other for being treacherous, and not really a people, and all those things, you might have a chance. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Jan 9, 2019 18:46:11 GMT
Very true. You could in theory have a combined Scandinavian state competing with a French based one for influence but for much of the late medieval and early modern period France is so much larger and richer than anywhere else with an interest in Britain - other than the unified English state that emerged from Alfred's successful defence against the Danes - that its not really practical. Possibly if France was also fractured for the duration of the period as well? Although given Britain's island nature its still difficult to see major foreign intervention on a regular basis. Especially since without a powerful England its unlikely to be rich enough for to attract that much attention. Plus if one king becomes very successful the island status also makes unification of much of it relatively easier. Especially since so many people had a fairly common English identity.
the common identity can be broken if you have different religious groups competing, which would probably mean Catholics and Protestants, because if Islam gets all the way to the north of France, I don't think that they wouldn't just deal with the tiny remnants of Christendom. Of course, you could have other splits there, but still. If Britain then somehow becomes a battleground with various regions converting or not converting and blaming the other for being treacherous, and not really a people, and all those things, you might have a chance.
True there are other crucial identities such as religion that can divide an otherwise fairly homogeneous community. Although again it does make an area as small as the UK more vulnerable to a foreign power taking control and hence enforcing some uniformity. Especially since the demographically and economically most important region, the low lands of southern, eastern and central England are the most vulnerable to invasion from the continent.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Jan 10, 2019 3:04:27 GMT
To achieve that, you need a situation where you don't have a sibgle dominant power. So, you have to prevent England from being united in the first place. It also really helps if, like on the Balkans, there are foreign powers playing divide and rule and hurting the general area quite a bit. The problem is that there isn't really space for multiple competing powers to hold onto parts of Britain until the late nineteenth century, if only because there only really is one direction from which a sufficiently powerful country can exert control.
Very true. You could in theory have a combined Scandinavian state competing with a French based one for influence but for much of the late medieval and early modern period France is so much larger and richer than anywhere else with an interest in Britain - other than the unified English state that emerged from Alfred's successful defence against the Danes - that its not really practical. Possibly if France was also fractured for the duration of the period as well? Although given Britain's island nature its still difficult to see major foreign intervention on a regular basis. Especially since without a powerful England its unlikely to be rich enough for to attract that much attention. Plus if one king becomes very successful the island status also makes unification of much of it relatively easier. Especially since so many people had a fairly common English identity.
France and Scotland were allied together, but only against England. Although there is also the possibility of a closer alliance between England and Spain or England and the HRE. If perhaps the Protestant Reformation had gone out of control, with various reformist sects competing with each other viciously, then you may have a chance of a long lasting feud. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Jan 10, 2019 10:26:04 GMT
On the other side of the coin the simplest way of keeping the Balkans unified and probably a good bit wealthier is probably a surviving and successful Byzantium that maintains control of the region or fairly quickly regains control after the Hunnic/Avar period. Given Christianity your still likely to have numerous sects occurring and being repressed but a slow Greekification of the region so you have a common language and culture would probably occur. If it could keep control of Syria especially and possibly also Egypt you might have something fairly stable for centuries, although a change towards a more modern democratic culture in a long time successful empire could be difficult and any period of violence and disorder could lead to a lasting division. However if you thinking of say before the modern age that may not be necessary.
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,178
|
Post by raunchel on Jan 10, 2019 14:25:22 GMT
Very true. You could in theory have a combined Scandinavian state competing with a French based one for influence but for much of the late medieval and early modern period France is so much larger and richer than anywhere else with an interest in Britain - other than the unified English state that emerged from Alfred's successful defence against the Danes - that its not really practical. Possibly if France was also fractured for the duration of the period as well? Although given Britain's island nature its still difficult to see major foreign intervention on a regular basis. Especially since without a powerful England its unlikely to be rich enough for to attract that much attention. Plus if one king becomes very successful the island status also makes unification of much of it relatively easier. Especially since so many people had a fairly common English identity.
France and Scotland were allied together, but only against England. Although there is also the possibility of a closer alliance between England and Spain or England and the HRE. If perhaps the Protestant Reformation had gone out of control, with various reformist sects competing with each other viciously, then you may have a chance of a long lasting feud. The problem with that is that both the Spanish and the Empire have easier ways to get at the French than sailing up to England. They can just march over there. It wasn't really the era of proxy wars yet. But perhaps we could do it internally. If you get the Reformation to really get out of hand you might get a seriously bloody civil war. Or you could have Alfred not managing to unite Britain, so you are left with a bunch of squabbling petty kings. The problem then becomes preventing someone from uniting them all by force. I don't really see a way to delay this all the way until the Reformation when you can easily get several religous groups creating bad blood, especially if one becomes associated with a foreign conqueror. That might actually be something. If you can keep strong regional identities and a certain branch of Christianity (or several, mostly tied to regions. Like, this part of the country is Lutheran, this bit if Calvinist, this bit if Arminian. And then you can bring in a foreign (Catholic) conqueror that manages to take over the small kingdoms and imposes foreign rule. Somehow, this power isn't really interested in mass conversions, but there are areas that do convert in order to win favour and rise. The majority of the population however doesn't. Then throw in a few bloody failed revolts, and perhaps even some foreign interventions (like by the Superswedes), who basically make even more of a mess before being chased out by the French again. Then, you have Britain somehow winning independence, and flaring up in the mother of all civil wars soon after. |
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Jan 12, 2019 6:53:08 GMT
France and Scotland were allied together, but only against England. Although there is also the possibility of a closer alliance between England and Spain or England and the HRE. If perhaps the Protestant Reformation had gone out of control, with various reformist sects competing with each other viciously, then you may have a chance of a long lasting feud. The problem with that is that both the Spanish and the Empire have easier ways to get at the French than sailing up to England. They can just march over there. It wasn't really the era of proxy wars yet. But perhaps we could do it internally. If you get the Reformation to really get out of hand you might get a seriously bloody civil war. Or you could have Alfred not managing to unite Britain, so you are left with a bunch of squabbling petty kings. The problem then becomes preventing someone from uniting them all by force. I don't really see a way to delay this all the way until the Reformation when you can easily get several religous groups creating bad blood, especially if one becomes associated with a foreign conqueror. That might actually be something. If you can keep strong regional identities and a certain branch of Christianity (or several, mostly tied to regions. Like, this part of the country is Lutheran, this bit if Calvinist, this bit if Arminian. And then you can bring in a foreign (Catholic) conqueror that manages to take over the small kingdoms and imposes foreign rule. Somehow, this power isn't really interested in mass conversions, but there are areas that do convert in order to win favour and rise. The majority of the population however doesn't. Then throw in a few bloody failed revolts, and perhaps even some foreign interventions (like by the Superswedes), who basically make even more of a mess before being chased out by the French again. Then, you have Britain somehow winning independence, and flaring up in the mother of all civil wars soon after. True, although in this case it would be Northumbria, Cornwall, Wales and the rest of England that would be fractured. |
|
mobiyuz
Chief petty officer
I have returned.
Posts: 167
Likes: 161
|
Post by mobiyuz on Jan 20, 2019 8:47:23 GMT
I'm not really sure how to create such a scenario, but I imagine the scenario might unfold like this:
In the Balkans, Yugoslavia is the big, major power of the region. The nations of Croatia, Bosnia-Herzgovina, Serbia, Montenegro, and Slovenia have all slowly been assimilated into a Yugoslav culture that is still largely dominated by Serbian culture, and Belgrade is a city known all over the world.
However, Yugoslavia also used to control Bulgaria, and the Bulgarians never embraced Serbian culture. For years, the Serbians dominated Bulgaria politically, culturally, and economically until Bulgaria violently seceded, eventually becoming an entirely separate entity.
However, there's one problem: Northern Macedonia. The region, though mostly Bulgarian, is split culturally between Catholics and Orthodox, but it remains politically part of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia really wanted to try and keep Northern Macedonia as part of itself, and a good number of people want to stay with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but the Republic of Bulgaria has a lot of elements who want to see Northern Macedonia reunified with Bulgaria. Civil unrest in Northern Macedonia remains a problem for decades until the two eventually come to a peaceful agreement that allows those born in Northern Macedonia to either have Yugoslav citizenship or Bulgarian citizenship, and relaxes many of the border points between Bulgaria and Northern Macedonia specifically to allow a free flow of people and goods. While tensions remain, and Bulgaria would prefer if they were able to re-annex Northern Macedonia, there is no longer a chance of war.
I dunno, that's just me trying to write Britain and Ireland into the Balkans. In real life there'd probably be a lot more people killing each other over rivalries stretching back to the Byzantine Empire.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Jan 21, 2019 1:48:54 GMT
I'm not really sure how to create such a scenario, but I imagine the scenario might unfold like this: In the Balkans, Yugoslavia is the big, major power of the region. The nations of Croatia, Bosnia-Herzgovina, Serbia, Montenegro, and Slovenia have all slowly been assimilated into a Yugoslav culture that is still largely dominated by Serbian culture, and Belgrade is a city known all over the world. However, Yugoslavia also used to control Bulgaria, and the Bulgarians never embraced Serbian culture. For years, the Serbians dominated Bulgaria politically, culturally, and economically until Bulgaria violently seceded, eventually becoming an entirely separate entity. However, there's one problem: Northern Macedonia. The region, though mostly Bulgarian, is split culturally between Catholics and Orthodox, but it remains politically part of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia really wanted to try and keep Northern Macedonia as part of itself, and a good number of people want to stay with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but the Republic of Bulgaria has a lot of elements who want to see Northern Macedonia reunified with Bulgaria. Civil unrest in Northern Macedonia remains a problem for decades until the two eventually come to a peaceful agreement that allows those born in Northern Macedonia to either have Yugoslav citizenship or Bulgarian citizenship, and relaxes many of the border points between Bulgaria and Northern Macedonia specifically to allow a free flow of people and goods. While tensions remain, and Bulgaria would prefer if they were able to re-annex Northern Macedonia, there is no longer a chance of war. I dunno, that's just me trying to write Britain and Ireland into the Balkans. In real life there'd probably be a lot more people killing each other over rivalries stretching back to the Byzantine Empire. One problem with this: northern Macedonia was wholly Orthodox, although in this scenario we could try to have a Bulgaria that embraced Greek Catholicism in order to make the split even more vicious, with the Macedonian Orthodox identifying with Serbia and Macedonian Uniates identifying with Bulgaria. As for the British Isles, I thought of having these entities of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and an England that has fractured further, with the entities of Northumbria, Cornwall and Wessex becoming autonomous states or independent states. The only problem would be how to fracture England, which in itself is difficult to achieve. |
|
mobiyuz
Chief petty officer
I have returned.
Posts: 167
Likes: 161
|
Post by mobiyuz on Jan 21, 2019 1:57:30 GMT
I'm not really sure how to create such a scenario, but I imagine the scenario might unfold like this: In the Balkans, Yugoslavia is the big, major power of the region. The nations of Croatia, Bosnia-Herzgovina, Serbia, Montenegro, and Slovenia have all slowly been assimilated into a Yugoslav culture that is still largely dominated by Serbian culture, and Belgrade is a city known all over the world. However, Yugoslavia also used to control Bulgaria, and the Bulgarians never embraced Serbian culture. For years, the Serbians dominated Bulgaria politically, culturally, and economically until Bulgaria violently seceded, eventually becoming an entirely separate entity. However, there's one problem: Northern Macedonia. The region, though mostly Bulgarian, is split culturally between Catholics and Orthodox, but it remains politically part of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia really wanted to try and keep Northern Macedonia as part of itself, and a good number of people want to stay with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but the Republic of Bulgaria has a lot of elements who want to see Northern Macedonia reunified with Bulgaria. Civil unrest in Northern Macedonia remains a problem for decades until the two eventually come to a peaceful agreement that allows those born in Northern Macedonia to either have Yugoslav citizenship or Bulgarian citizenship, and relaxes many of the border points between Bulgaria and Northern Macedonia specifically to allow a free flow of people and goods. While tensions remain, and Bulgaria would prefer if they were able to re-annex Northern Macedonia, there is no longer a chance of war. I dunno, that's just me trying to write Britain and Ireland into the Balkans. In real life there'd probably be a lot more people killing each other over rivalries stretching back to the Byzantine Empire. One problem with this: northern Macedonia was wholly Orthodox, although in this scenario we could try to have a Bulgaria that embraced Greek Catholicism in order to make the split even more vicious, with the Macedonian Orthodox identifying with Serbia and Macedonian Uniates identifying with Bulgaria. As for the British Isles, I thought of having these entities of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and an England that has fractured further, with the entities of Northumbria, Cornwall and Wessex becoming autonomous states or independent states. The only problem would be how to fracture England, which in itself is difficult to achieve. Well, that just helps, doesn't it? OTL Northern Ireland was slowly made Protestant as part of the Ulster Plantations, hence a part of why they stayed with the UK. Something similar might go down in Northern Macedonia. |
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Jan 21, 2019 4:05:22 GMT
True, although it could go depending on whether or not Serbia or Bulgaria ends up Uniate.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Jan 21, 2019 16:43:03 GMT
I'm not really sure how to create such a scenario, but I imagine the scenario might unfold like this: In the Balkans, Yugoslavia is the big, major power of the region. The nations of Croatia, Bosnia-Herzgovina, Serbia, Montenegro, and Slovenia have all slowly been assimilated into a Yugoslav culture that is still largely dominated by Serbian culture, and Belgrade is a city known all over the world. However, Yugoslavia also used to control Bulgaria, and the Bulgarians never embraced Serbian culture. For years, the Serbians dominated Bulgaria politically, culturally, and economically until Bulgaria violently seceded, eventually becoming an entirely separate entity. However, there's one problem: Northern Macedonia. The region, though mostly Bulgarian, is split culturally between Catholics and Orthodox, but it remains politically part of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia really wanted to try and keep Northern Macedonia as part of itself, and a good number of people want to stay with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but the Republic of Bulgaria has a lot of elements who want to see Northern Macedonia reunified with Bulgaria. Civil unrest in Northern Macedonia remains a problem for decades until the two eventually come to a peaceful agreement that allows those born in Northern Macedonia to either have Yugoslav citizenship or Bulgarian citizenship, and relaxes many of the border points between Bulgaria and Northern Macedonia specifically to allow a free flow of people and goods. While tensions remain, and Bulgaria would prefer if they were able to re-annex Northern Macedonia, there is no longer a chance of war. I dunno, that's just me trying to write Britain and Ireland into the Balkans. In real life there'd probably be a lot more people killing each other over rivalries stretching back to the Byzantine Empire. One problem with this: northern Macedonia was wholly Orthodox, although in this scenario we could try to have a Bulgaria that embraced Greek Catholicism in order to make the split even more vicious, with the Macedonian Orthodox identifying with Serbia and Macedonian Uniates identifying with Bulgaria. As for the British Isles, I thought of having these entities of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and an England that has fractured further, with the entities of Northumbria, Cornwall and Wessex becoming autonomous states or independent states. The only problem would be how to fracture England, which in itself is difficult to achieve.
Possibly if somehow you butterfly the Viking period, as the three main kingdoms [Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria] and at least some of the smaller ones, could stay independent longer. Although sooner or later there is likely to be a substantial external threat that either conquers them all - possibly forcing unification then - or prompts some form of unification to resist such a threat.
With a unified Balkans would the simplest route be that the eastern empire maintains control of the region or regains it quickly after the Slavic invasions. Say Emperor Maurance avoids getting deposed and manages a markedly more successful reconquest of the region without the crippling Persian invasion of OTL or even earlier Justinian isn't such an idiot, trusts Belesarius and manages not to lose much of the region, but probably loses Italy and possibly the southern Coptic and Syric lands at some time.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Jan 28, 2019 0:00:51 GMT
Avoiding the Slavic migration into the Balkans would require the Avar Khaganate to be nerfed, because the Avars had used Slavic auxilliaries during their incursions into Byzantine territory. However, an inverse might also be feasible (ie: a successful Avar conquest of the Balkan region).
You also forgot East Anglia as another potential major kingdom in the British Isles.
|
|
