Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries (British Isles and Scandanavia) Date: 02 Aug 2001 12:59:21 GMT From: sc0t18nd@aol.compere (Ian MacAninch) Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 How about this: Invert the British Isles and Scandanavia so that by the end of the 20th century the British Isles are a collection of independent social democratic states and Scandanavia is a united kingdom (having just lost its worldwide empire) with a troublesome "provinvce" claimed by a neighbouring state which was once part of the Scandanavian united kingdom. POD can be any time after 1400. In the British Isles the independemt states would follow the divisions of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. The Channel Islands would be an independent confederation of the existing islands. The Isle of Man would be a self governing part of Ireland. Irish and Welsh would be the official dominant languages in their respective countries. In Scotland it would be Scots with official recognition for Gaelic - which is much more widely spoken. If your POD is after 1600 a portion of Northern Ireland would also be autonomous - a la the Aaland Islands. Scandanavia is dominated by the Swedes which is the official language. Other Scandanavian languages are not treated officially and some are treated as dialects of Swedish. It ahs just started experimenting with devolution for its national regions. Ian MacAninch Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries (British Isles and Scandanavia) Date: 02 Aug 2001 18:34:44 +0200 From: Thomas Martin Widmann Organization: Aarhus University Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 sc0t18nd@aol.compere (Ian MacAninch) writes: > Invert the British Isles and Scandanavia so that by the end of the > 20th century the British Isles are a collection of independent > social democratic states and Scandanavia is a united kingdom (having > just lost its worldwide empire) When did England/Great Britain start to build up its empire? But somehow I think Scandinavia is too small to support a world-wide empire. It would require the incorporation of much of northern Germany or some other bread-basket area. > with a troublesome "provinvce" claimed by a neighbouring state which > was once part of the Scandanavian united kingdom. POD can be any > time after 1400. This neighbouring state must be Finland, I guess. The troublesome "province" could be the Swedish-speaking areas in Western Finland. > In the British Isles the independemt states would follow the > divisions of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. If so, it would be very unlike Scandinavia where the countries are of approximately the same size -- England would be much too large. Perhaps this could be solved by means of a larger Scotland with its southern border south of York, and a larger Wales (e.g., including Corwall and some other areas in south-west England). > The Channel Islands would be an independent confederation of the > existing islands. The Isle of Man would be a self governing part of > Ireland. Like the Aaland Islands? > Irish and Welsh would be the official dominant languages in their > respective countries. In Scotland it would be Scots with official > recognition for Gaelic - which is much more widely spoken. This is not very Scandinavian. Either the Hebrides should be independent (like Iceland), or the speakers of Gaelic would be mostly forgotten, like the Saami in Norway, Sweden and Finland. > If your POD is after 1600 a portion of Northern Ireland would also > be autonomous - a la the Aaland Islands. > > Scandanavia is dominated by the Swedes which is the official > language. Other Scandanavian languages are not treated officially > and some are treated as dialects of Swedish. It ahs just started > experimenting with devolution for its national regions. Treating Norwegian and Danish as dialects of Swedish is no big problem (but in some TLs, it may be more realistic to call the common language Danish). There will probably be some speakers of German in the south, and of Saami (Lappish) in the north. Devolution experiments could mean making a Danish Parliament in Copenhagen and a National Assembly for Norway. /Thomas -- Thomas Martin Widmann, Universitetsparken 8, 2., -333, DK-8000 Århus C Tel.: 7028 4406 * (park) 8942 7333 * (mob.) 2167 6127 * (SDS) 8733 4465 MA stud. (ling-dat); stud.prog.; aktiv radikal; formand/DK-TUG; T4ONF/TK Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries (British Isles and Scandanavia) Date: 02 Aug 2001 20:22:15 GMT From: sc0t18nd@aol.compere (Ian MacAninch) Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Thomas Martin Widmann wrote: >sc0t18nd@aol.compere (Ian MacAninch) writes: > >> Invert the British Isles and Scandinavia [snip] > >When did England/Great Britain start to build up its empire? It started around the 16th century although you have the Norman and Plantagenet Kings described as imperial concerning their relations with France and within the British Isles. >But somehow I think Scandinavia is too small to support a world-wide >empire. It would require the incorporation of much of northern >Germany or some other bread-basket area. Would Pomerania help in this? One aspect I see that helps the British Isles in imperial ambitions was water - i.e. making it more difficult to invade. Scandinavia has some protection from this but Denmark is exposed as is Finland from Russia. To overcome this I thought that Russia would have to be fractured into a large number of principalities or such. Does anyone have a notion on how this could come about? With Russia weak and Scandinavia strong could they then rely on the steppes as a vassal bread basket? >> with a troublesome "province" claimed by a neighbouring state which >> was once part of the Scandinavian united kingdom. > >This neighbouring state must be Finland, I guess. The troublesome >"province" could be the Swedish-speaking areas in Western Finland. I was thinking that. If it goes through the Irish experience I was looking at the possibility of most Finns being Swedophonic but Orthodox like a number of Karelians. Am I correct in saying that Karelians could be classed as Finns? If so it could be included as part of Finland. Finnish or Suomi having suffered the same fate as Irish Gaelic - a badge of national identity but little understood. Western Finland could have been settled mainly by Norwegians. >> In the British Isles the independent states would follow the >> divisions of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. > >If so, it would be very unlike Scandinavia where the countries are of >approximately the same size -- England would be much too large. >Perhaps this could be solved by means of a larger Scotland with its >southern border south of York, and a larger Wales (e.g., including >Cornwall and some other areas in south-west England). May have to take a POD back beyond 1400 to achieve a larger Wales and Scotland. Two possibilities. One is Harold doesn't get one in the eye and resistance continues against the Normans. Result is a protracted war that sees Wales and Scotland forget their internal differences and take advantage of England's weakness. Second is maybe having the Danes hold on for longer in the north of England or forming a fifth nation in the British Isles. >> The Channel Islands would be an independent confederation of the >> existing islands. The Isle of Man would be a self governing part of >> Ireland. > >Like the Aaland Islands? Yes. >> Irish and Welsh would be the official dominant languages in their >> respective countries. In Scotland it would be Scots with official >> recognition for Gaelic - which is much more widely spoken. >This is not very Scandinavian. Either the Hebrides should be >independent (like Iceland), or the speakers of Gaelic would be mostly >forgotten, like the Saami in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Yes I was thinking that after - the Gaels ending up like the Saami. However if the POD goes back as above we may be left with a Gaelic speaking Scotland now. >> Scandinavia is dominated by the Swedes which is the official >> language. Other Scandinavian languages are not treated officially >> and some are treated as dialects of Swedish. It ahs just started >> experimenting with devolution for its national regions. > >Treating Norwegian and Danish as dialects of Swedish is no big problem >(but in some TLs, it may be more realistic to call the common language >Danish). There will probably be some speakers of German in the south, >and of Saami (Lappish) in the north. That's the way I saw it with Suomi as above. I settled on Sweden because of Gustav Adolphus and thought he could be the instigator of a Scandinavian Empire - however my strong point is not Gus in history. In tandem the British Isles could fracture with Parliament being less than successful in the ECW. But since you mention Danish being possible pre-eminent is there anyway they could be the instigators? > >Devolution experiments could mean making a Danish Parliament in >Copenhagen and a National Assembly for Norway. With protracted peace talks around suspended assembly of Western Finland - or Absent Suomi as the SRA call it. I thought Iceland and the Faeroes could be in the position of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man. Ian MacAninch Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries (British Isles and Scandanavia) Date: 04 Aug 2001 16:03:42 +0200 From: Thomas Martin Widmann Organization: Aarhus University Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 sc0t18nd@aol.compere (Ian MacAninch) writes: > Thomas Martin Widmann wrote: > > >sc0t18nd@aol.compere (Ian MacAninch) writes: > > > >> Invert the British Isles and Scandinavia [snip] > > > >When did England/Great Britain start to build up its empire? > > It started around the 16th century although you have the Norman and > Plantagenet Kings described as imperial concerning their relations > with France and within the British Isles. So you have to get a strong and united Scandinavia at that time. I guess the major problem will be the Hansa. If somehow they would work together with Scandinavia, then the resulting Hansa-Scandinavia will be in a good position to build up a sea-faring empire. > >But somehow I think Scandinavia is too small to support a world-wide > >empire. It would require the incorporation of much of northern > >Germany or some other bread-basket area. > > Would Pomerania help in this? One aspect I see that helps the > British Isles in imperial ambitions was water - i.e. making it more > difficult to invade. Scandinavia has some protection from this but > Denmark is exposed as is Finland from Russia. To overcome this I > thought that Russia would have to be fractured into a large number > of principalities or such. Does anyone have a notion on how this > could come about? With Russia weak and Scandinavia strong could they > then rely on the steppes as a vassal bread basket? I'm not sure Russia is the major problem. But there certainly is no easy way to defend Scandinavia, so a strong army will be needed. > >> with a troublesome "province" claimed by a neighbouring state which > >> was once part of the Scandinavian united kingdom. > > > >This neighbouring state must be Finland, I guess. The troublesome > >"province" could be the Swedish-speaking areas in Western Finland. > > I was thinking that. If it goes through the Irish experience I was > looking at the possibility of most Finns being Swedophonic but > Orthodox like a number of Karelians. Am I correct in saying that > Karelians could be classed as Finns? If so it could be included as > part of Finland. Finnish or Suomi having suffered the same fate as > Irish Gaelic - a badge of national identity but little > understood. Western Finland could have been settled mainly by > Norwegians. That is a possibility, but it requires a more drastic WI. If Finland except some western provinces (with only slightly more than 50% speakers of Swedish) becomes independent and makes Finnish the only official language (unlike OTL Finland where Swedish is co-official), then I think it's quite likely that the Swedish-speaking population in Western Finland will do anything the can to avoid unification with Finland, while the speakers of Finnish will fight just as hard to return home to Suomi. > >> In the British Isles the independent states would follow the > >> divisions of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. > > > >If so, it would be very unlike Scandinavia where the countries are of > >approximately the same size -- England would be much too large. > >Perhaps this could be solved by means of a larger Scotland with its > >southern border south of York, and a larger Wales (e.g., including > >Cornwall and some other areas in south-west England). > > May have to take a POD back beyond 1400 to achieve a larger Wales > and Scotland. Two possibilities. One is Harold doesn't get one in > the eye and resistance continues against the Normans. Result is a > protracted war that sees Wales and Scotland forget their internal > differences and take advantage of England's weakness. Second is > maybe having the Danes hold on for longer in the north of England or > forming a fifth nation in the British Isles. A fifth nation could be a nice possibility. But if this Britain should look as much as possible as OTL Scandinavia, its history could go very roughly like this: In the late 14th century a Union is formed, uniting Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. In the early 16th century England + Wales leave the union because the nobility think it's unduly dominated by the Common King in Edinburgh. The Kingdom of Scotland and Ireland lasts until the Congress of Vienna, when Ireland handed over to England (whose new king is a former general of Napoleon) because Scotland/ Ireland supported the French and England didn't. In return England has to give Wales to Scandinavia (I know this is improbable -- can anyone come up with a better Finland/Russia equivalent?). Ireland is very dissatisfied and obtains independence in 1905. Wales get independence in 1917. > >> Irish and Welsh would be the official dominant languages in their > >> respective countries. In Scotland it would be Scots with official > >> recognition for Gaelic - which is much more widely spoken. > > >This is not very Scandinavian. Either the Hebrides should be > >independent (like Iceland), or the speakers of Gaelic would be mostly > >forgotten, like the Saami in Norway, Sweden and Finland. > > Yes I was thinking that after - the Gaels ending up like the > Saami. However if the POD goes back as above we may be left with a > Gaelic speaking Scotland now. Not if the border lies further to the south. > I settled on Sweden because of Gustav Adolphus and thought he could > be the instigator of a Scandinavian Empire - however my strong point > is not Gus in history. In tandem the British Isles could fracture > with Parliament being less than successful in the ECW. But since you > mention Danish being possible pre-eminent is there anyway they could > be the instigators? The easy way is to let the Danish-dominated Union of Kalmar live on. > >Devolution experiments could mean making a Danish Parliament in > >Copenhagen and a National Assembly for Norway. > > With protracted peace talks around suspended assembly of Western > Finland - or Absent Suomi as the SRA call it. I thought Iceland and > the Faeroes could be in the position of the Channel Islands and Isle > of Man. If not, Denmark consists of a lot of islands that could be used for this purpose. /Thomas -- Thomas Martin Widmann, Universitetsparken 8, 2., -333, DK-8000 Århus C Tel.: 7028 4406 * (park) 8942 7333 * (mob.) 2167 6127 * (SDS) 8733 4465 MA stud. (ling-dat); stud.prog.; aktiv radikal; formand/DK-TUG; T4ONF/TK Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries (British Isles and Scandanavia) Date: 05 Aug 2001 03:38:21 +0200 From: Thomas Martin Widmann Organization: Aarhus University Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Thomas Martin Widmann writes: > But if this Britain should look as much as possible as OTL > Scandinavia, its history could go very roughly like this: > > In the late 14th century a Union is formed, uniting Ireland, Scotland, > England and Wales. In the early 16th century England + Wales leave > the union because the nobility think it's unduly dominated by the > Common King in Edinburgh. The Kingdom of Scotland and Ireland lasts > until the Congress of Vienna, when Ireland handed over to England > (whose new king is a former general of Napoleon) because Scotland/ > Ireland supported the French and England didn't. In return England > has to give Wales to Scandinavia (I know this is improbable -- can > anyone come up with a better Finland/Russia equivalent?). Ireland is > very dissatisfied and obtains independence in 1905. Wales get > independence in 1917. I was thinking some more about this, and some external great power is needed. What about the following instead (with some role switching): In the late 14th century a Union is formed, uniting Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, partly as a response to the threat from the French who have established a stronghold in south-eastern England. (England is thus smaller, but not because of a larger Scotland or Wales.) In the early 16th century England + Wales leave the union because the nobility think it's unduly dominated by the Union King in Dublin. The Kingdom of Ireland and Scotland is quite succesful, and Irish becomes the dominant language in both countries. It lasts until the Congress of Vienna, when Scotland is handed over to England (whose new king is a former general of Napoleon) because Ireland/Scotland supported the French and England didn't. In return England has to give Wales to France (which borders on Wales already). Scotland is very dissatisfied with the union with England and obtains independence in 1905. Wales get independence from France in 1917 as a bilingual state (Welsh/English). In Scotland, meanwhile, the language has been split into two: One, virtually identical to Irish ("Book Gaelic"), is almost universal (and is very close to the speech of the captial, Glaschu), while another form of Irish, using a lot of special Scottish (especially eastern) forms ("New Gaelic") is popular is the rural parts of the South-East. England fought some more wars with France (and a large bit was lost in 1864), but the border was finally settled on after a referendum in 1920. So now, in 2001, we have: England, consisting of OTL England north of the rivers Severn and Welland. The language is English (although there is a small French-speaking minority in the south). It joined the EEC in 1973 together with Scandinavia and Finland. Scotland, consisting more or less of OTL Scotland, is very rich because of its oil. It uses two written languages, both based on Irish. The population has twice rejected joining the EEC/EU. Ireland consists of OTL Ireland and North Ireland. The language is Irish (Gaelic). It joined the EU in 1995. Wales consists of OTL Wales. Around the capital and in the west there are some speakers of English, and the country is officially bilingual. It joined the EU together with Ireland in 1995. The Federal Republic of France, whose northern-most province consists of OTL England south of the Severn and the Welland. Its official language is French, but there is a small English-speaking minority in the north. It was a founder member of the EEC/EU. /Thomas -- Thomas Martin Widmann, Universitetsparken 8, 2., -333, DK-8000 Århus C Tel.: 7028 4406 * (park) 8942 7333 * (mob.) 2167 6127 * (SDS) 8733 4465 MA stud. (ling-dat); stud.prog.; aktiv radikal; formand/DK-TUG; T4ONF/TK Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries (British Isles and Scandanavia) Date: 5 Aug 2001 05:06:02 -0700 From: lavos@3xl.net (Son Gohan) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Thomas Martin Widmann wrote in message news:... > Thomas Martin Widmann writes: > > > But if this Britain should look as much as possible as OTL > > Scandinavia, its history could go very roughly like this: > > > > In the late 14th century a Union is formed, uniting Ireland, Scotland, > > England and Wales. In the early 16th century England + Wales leave > > the union because the nobility think it's unduly dominated by the > > Common King in Edinburgh. The Kingdom of Scotland and Ireland lasts > > until the Congress of Vienna, when Ireland handed over to England > > (whose new king is a former general of Napoleon) because Scotland/ > > Ireland supported the French and England didn't. In return England > > has to give Wales to Scandinavia (I know this is improbable -- can > > anyone come up with a better Finland/Russia equivalent?). Ireland is > > very dissatisfied and obtains independence in 1905. Wales get > > independence in 1917. > > I was thinking some more about this, and some external great power is > needed. What about the following instead (with some role switching): > > In the late 14th century a Union is formed, uniting Ireland, Scotland, > England and Wales, partly as a response to the threat from the French > who have established a stronghold in south-eastern England. (England > is thus smaller, but not because of a larger Scotland or Wales.) In > the early 16th century England + Wales leave the union because the > nobility think it's unduly dominated by the Union King in Dublin. The > Kingdom of Ireland and Scotland is quite succesful, and Irish becomes > the dominant language in both countries. It lasts until the Congress > of Vienna, when Scotland is handed over to England (whose new king is > a former general of Napoleon) because Ireland/Scotland supported the > French and England didn't. In return England has to give Wales to > France (which borders on Wales already). > > Scotland is very dissatisfied with the union with England and obtains > independence in 1905. Wales get independence from France in 1917 as a > bilingual state (Welsh/English). In Scotland, meanwhile, the language > has been split into two: One, virtually identical to Irish ("Book > Gaelic"), is almost universal (and is very close to the speech of the > captial, Glaschu), while another form of Irish, using a lot of special > Scottish (especially eastern) forms ("New Gaelic") is popular is the > rural parts of the South-East. England fought some more wars with > France (and a large bit was lost in 1864), but the border was finally > settled on after a referendum in 1920. > > So now, in 2001, we have: > > England, consisting of OTL England north of the rivers Severn and > Welland. The language is English (although there is a small > French-speaking minority in the south). It joined the EEC in 1973 > together with Scandinavia and Finland. Eurosceptic as in OTL? Is english an international language in this ATL? > Scotland, consisting more or less of OTL Scotland, is very rich > because of its oil. It uses two written languages, both based on > Irish. The population has twice rejected joining the EEC/EU. So ATL Scotland= OTL Norway > Ireland consists of OTL Ireland and North Ireland. The language is > Irish (Gaelic). It joined the EU in 1995. No Northen Ireland "Affaire"? Ireland becomes a 50/50 catholic/evangelist as in OTL Germany? ATL Ireland= OTL Austria > Wales consists of OTL Wales. Around the capital and in the west there > are some speakers of English, and the country is officially > bilingual. It joined the EU together with Ireland in 1995. ATL Wales=OTL Sweden > The Federal Republic of France, whose northern-most province consists > of OTL England south of the Severn and the Welland. Its official > language is French, but there is a small English-speaking minority > in the north. It was a founder member of the EEC/EU. > > /Thomas A federal France?... not likely. The basis of the french republic are "liberté, fraternité, egalité" (Liberty, Fraternity, Equality). By "equality", the french republic means all departments are equal in law in Paris. No autonomous, or "federal like" state. Of course, Corsica is another thing..... How is the EU in this ATL? Only a role exchange( Scotland=Norway, as in OTL?) Whom of them becomes a founding member of the euro, schengen area, and other EU stuff? Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries (British Isles and Scandanavia) Date: 05 Aug 2001 17:41:01 +0200 From: Thomas Martin Widmann Organization: Aarhus University Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 lavos@3xl.net (Son Gohan) writes: > Thomas Martin Widmann wrote in message news:... > > So now, in 2001, we have: > > > > England, consisting of OTL England north of the rivers Severn and > > Welland. The language is English (although there is a small > > French-speaking minority in the south). It joined the EEC in 1973 > > together with Scandinavia and Finland. > > Eurosceptic as in OTL? Not in the same way -- more like OTL Denmark. > Is english an international language in this ATL? Certainly not! Scandinavian is mostly used, but German is still used in some contexts. > > Scotland, consisting more or less of OTL Scotland, is very rich > > because of its oil. It uses two written languages, both based on > > Irish. The population has twice rejected joining the EEC/EU. > > So ATL Scotland= OTL Norway Indeed. > > Ireland consists of OTL Ireland and North Ireland. The language is > > Irish (Gaelic). It joined the EU in 1995. > > No Northen Ireland "Affaire"? Ireland becomes a 50/50 > catholic/evangelist as in OTL Germany? No. The PoD was so early that there never was any religious problem in Ireland. > ATL Ireland= OTL Austria No. Try again! (Hint: Austria is not a Scandinavian country.) > > Wales consists of OTL Wales. Around the capital and in the west there > > are some speakers of English, and the country is officially > > bilingual. It joined the EU together with Ireland in 1995. > > ATL Wales=OTL Sweden Nope. Try a bit farther east. > > The Federal Republic of France, whose northern-most province consists > > of OTL England south of the Severn and the Welland. Its official > > language is French, but there is a small English-speaking minority > > in the north. It was a founder member of the EEC/EU. > > A federal France?... not likely. The basis of the french republic are > "liberté, fraternité, egalité" (Liberty, Fraternity, Equality). By > "equality", the french republic means all departments are equal in law > in Paris. No autonomous, or "federal like" state. You're talking about OTL France. In this TL, the centralised country is Germany, and there was a revolution there ("Freiheit, Brüderlichkeit, Gleichheit"). France was not united until the 19th century, and it is now a federal republic (it was united with the former communist South France around 1990). > How is the EU in this ATL? Only a role exchange( Scotland=Norway, as > in OTL?) Whom of them becomes a founding member of the euro, > schengen area, and other EU stuff? This ATL is very simplistic, so yes, it's mainly a role exchange. The EEC was founded by North France, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Poland. The Euro? The founding members were France, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, Lithuania, Czechia, Wales, Finland and Switzerland. Now enlargement with the former communist countries in Southern Europe is underway. /Thomas -- Thomas Martin Widmann, Universitetsparken 8, 2., -333, DK-8000 Århus C Tel.: 7028 4406 * (park) 8942 7333 * (mob.) 2167 6127 * (SDS) 8733 4465 MA stud. (ling-dat); stud.prog.; aktiv radikal; formand/DK-TUG; T4ONF/TK Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries (British Isles and Scandanavia) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 18:01:55 +0100 From: Lyn David Thomas Organization: The Haunted Fishtank Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 On 05 Aug 2001 03:38:21 +0200, Thomas Martin Widmann wrote: >Wales consists of OTL Wales. Around the capital and in the west there > are some speakers of English, and the country is officially > bilingual. It joined the EU together with Ireland in 1995. I think you mean in the east? -- \/ Lyn David Thomas Webpages start at: http://www.cibwr.freeserve.co.uk Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries (British Isles and Scandanavia) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 22:38:10 +0100 From: Phil Edwards Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 18:01:55 +0100 in message <01jrmtct5nm3stbdgkh612mvcskfo3fcu2@4ax.com>, Lyn David Thomas wrote: >On 05 Aug 2001 03:38:21 +0200, Thomas Martin Widmann > wrote: > >>Wales consists of OTL Wales. Around the capital and in the west there >> are some speakers of English, and the country is officially >> bilingual. It joined the EU together with Ireland in 1995. > >I think you mean in the east? Try telling them that in Saundersfoot. Phil "Huguenot Secession, anyone?" Edwards -- Phil Edwards research@amroth.zetnet.co.uk Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries (British Isles and Scandanavia) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:47:46 +0100 From: Lyn David Thomas Organization: The Haunted Fishtank Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 22:38:10 +0100, Phil Edwards wrote: >On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 18:01:55 +0100 in message ><01jrmtct5nm3stbdgkh612mvcskfo3fcu2@4ax.com>, Lyn David Thomas > wrote: > >>On 05 Aug 2001 03:38:21 +0200, Thomas Martin Widmann >> wrote: >> >>>Wales consists of OTL Wales. Around the capital and in the west there >>> are some speakers of English, and the country is officially >>> bilingual. It joined the EU together with Ireland in 1995. >> >>I think you mean in the east? > >Try telling them that in Saundersfoot. Actually the area now has a Welsh Medium Primary school... so maybe its days as part of "little England beyond Wales" are numbered? -- \/ Lyn David Thomas Webpages start at: http://www.cibwr.freeserve.co.uk Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries (British Isles and Scandanavia) Date: 06 Aug 2001 19:05:45 +0200 From: Thomas Martin Widmann Organization: Aarhus University Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Lyn David Thomas writes: > On 05 Aug 2001 03:38:21 +0200, Thomas Martin Widmann > wrote: > > >Wales consists of OTL Wales. Around the capital and in the west there > > are some speakers of English, and the country is officially > > bilingual. It joined the EU together with Ireland in 1995. > > I think you mean in the east? Of course. Thanks for the correction! /Thomas -- Thomas Martin Widmann, Universitetsparken 8, 2., -333, DK-8000 Århus C Tel.: 7028 4406 * (park) 8942 7333 * (mob.) 2167 6127 * (SDS) 8733 4465 MA stud. (ling-dat); stud.prog.; aktiv radikal; formand/DK-TUG; T4ONF/TK Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries (British Isles and Scandanavia) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 22:26:09 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Ian MacAninch wrote: > > [deletia] > > >> Irish and Welsh would be the official dominant languages in their > >> respective countries. In Scotland it would be Scots with official > >> recognition for Gaelic - which is much more widely spoken. > > >This is not very Scandinavian. Either the Hebrides should be > >independent (like Iceland), or the speakers of Gaelic would be mostly > >forgotten, like the Saami in Norway, Sweden and Finland. > > Yes I was thinking that after - the Gaels ending up like the Saami. However if > the POD goes back as above we may be left with a Gaelic speaking Scotland now. Or, the Hebrides could constitute an autonomous Gaelic-speaking nation in the Scottish fold in the same way that the Faroe Islands constitute an autonomous Faroese-speaking nation in the Danish fold. > [deletia] > > Ian MacAninch -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PEI Canada Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries (British Isles and Scandanavia) Date: 3 Aug 2001 01:59:10 -0700 From: jussi_jalonen@my-deja.com (Jussi Jalonen) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 sc0t18nd@aol.compere (Ian MacAninch) wrote in message news:<20010802162215.18450.00002041@ng-bg1.aol.com>... > I was thinking that. If it goes through the Irish experience I was looking at > the possibility of most Finns being Swedophonic but Orthodox like a number of > Karelians. Am I correct in saying that Karelians could be classed as Finns? There exists a distinct Karelian language, closely related to Finnish, spoken in the Eastern Karelia (today's Republic of Karelia) and in the region of Tver, so there's definitely a separate ethnic/linguistic group there. However, the [Finnish-speaking] people from the Finnish Karelia are also called "Karelians". Having majority of Finns to remain as Orthodoxes under the Swedish rule is next to impossible, I'm afraid, given the violent policy of religious uniformity the Swedish Crown exercised. Getting the majority of Finns as Swedish-speakers is a bit more possible, although still quite hard... the reformation would establish the written Finnish language even in this ATL, and the native clergy was always the final guarantee of the language, which was gradually beginning to gain even official ground during the 18th century. > With protracted peace talks around suspended assembly of Western Finland - or > Absent Suomi as the SRA call it. STA/FRA, actually. Although I suppose that the fuss would be centred in the east and be religious rather than linguistic. So, instead of OTL's two national churches existing in a perfect harmony, ther'd be a continued discrimination of Orthodoxes in one form or another all through the 19th and 20th century, resulting in violent relations between the two faiths. Let's throw in some sort of a militant Evangel Lutheran brotherhood holding annual marches to celebrate the final victory in the Rupture War of 1656-1658 and there we have it all. Since the conservative Finnish ex-PM has acted as a negotiator in the Northern Ireland peace talks in OTL, would John Major be dispatched to Eastern Finland in this ATL? Hmmm...? Something more of a Challenge: invert Finland and Yugoslavia. Cheers, Jalonen Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries (British Isles and Scandanavia) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 23:04:38 +0100 From: Pete Barrett Organization: A Beeb User Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On 02 Aug 2001 18:34:44 +0200, Thomas Martin Widmann wrote: >... >If so, it would be very unlike Scandinavia where the countries are of >approximately the same size -- England would be much too large. >Perhaps this could be solved by means of a larger Scotland with its >southern border south of York, and a larger Wales (e.g., including >Corwall and some other areas in south-west England). > The Scottish/English border had stabilised by about 1200 (with only minor changes, such as Berwick-upon-Tweed); even when Edward I was hammering the Scots, he didn't mess with the border. Probably the latest obvious time to move the border south is 1157, if Henry II doesn't force Malcolm III to give back Cumbria to England (that would put the border from the Ribble to the Tweed, though with this example, there must be every reason to think it might be moved south on the east side as well, at a later date). I don't think much can be done with Wales without a much earlier POD - already just after the Norman conquest, marcher lordships had been established in South Wales. On the other hand, Llewelyn the Great did control most of Wales for a few years around 1220 - say that the weakness of the English crown continued for a bit longer, *Llewelyn is able to take advantage of it, and he and his successors establish a unified Welsh kingdom which the English, once the crown is strong again, can't touch. I think there's a bit of handwaving here, but it's not ASB territory. Another possibility might be to split England into more than one kingdom. If Harold survived Hastings, he might have been able to establish a kingdom in the north and west, leaving the Normans in control only of the south east; or the division under Stephen and Matilda might continue under their children. But neither of these looks very stable to me - one of the kingdoms will predominate in the end. Short of retaining the Pentarchy, I think England must inevitably be a single kingdom centred on London. Pete Barrett