AMW Big Discussion Thread

[Chrinthanium]

And while there were many of religiously inclined nations (Byzantium, Acadzia, France, Arabia), there were those who were so Holier-than-Thou, using their religion to blind the people from reality, that the Imperial Federation saw as mere specks splayed across the windshield of the world (Looking at you, Areopagitican).

I feel better now.

[Chemaki]

Well, a 270 million-high population is, I guess, a bit LOT too high for my nations, and, obviously, is pretty unacceptable, even in AMWs standards. So, I'm thinking, instead of controlling Nigeria and Cameroon (Which have 150 million) I only control the sparsely-populated half of Northern Nigeria, keep Chad, and add on Guinea, Senegal, Mauritania, West Africa, and the little Southern bit of Algeria around the Ahaggar mountains.

This will give the distinctly Saharan and Sub-Saharan feel back to my nation, consolidate an area of land that probably nobody is going to take (the Sahara) and also knock my population back down to about 150 million.

[Maxen von Bismarck]

And while there were many of religiously inclined nations (Byzantium, Acadzia, France, Arabia), there were those who were so Holier-than-Thou, using their religion to blind the people from reality, that the Imperial Federation saw as mere specks splayed across the windshield of the world (Looking at you, Areopagitican).

I feel better now.

Well played. I was asking for it.

Well, a 270 million-high population is, I guess, a bit LOT too high for my nations, and, obviously, is pretty unacceptable, even in AMWs standards. So, I'm thinking, instead of controlling Nigeria and Cameroon (Which have 150 million) I only control the sparsely-populated half of Northern Nigeria, keep Chad, and add on Guinea, Senegal, Mauritania, West Africa, and the little Southern bit of Algeria around the Ahaggar mountains.

This will give the distinctly Saharan and Sub-Saharan feel back to my nation, consolidate an area of land that probably nobody is going to take (the Sahara) and also knock my population back down to about 150 million.

Hmm, I'm guessing that claiming "West Africa" is just an oversight? I think if you claimed all of West Africa you'd be going the wrong way population wise.

I'm excited to have you claim move distinctly north/north-eastwards and start rubbing shoulders up against the Exarchate. I'm smelling a good RP hereabouts.

[Chemaki]

And while there were many of religiously inclined nations (Byzantium, Acadzia, France, Arabia), there were those who were so Holier-than-Thou, using their religion to blind the people from reality, that the Imperial Federation saw as mere specks splayed across the windshield of the world (Looking at you, Areopagitican).

I feel better now.

Well played. I was asking for it.

Well, a 270 million-high population is, I guess, a bit LOT too high for my nations, and, obviously, is pretty unacceptable, even in AMWs standards. So, I'm thinking, instead of controlling Nigeria and Cameroon (Which have 150 million) I only control the sparsely-populated half of Northern Nigeria, keep Chad, and add on Guinea, Senegal, Mauritania, West Africa, and the little Southern bit of Algeria around the Ahaggar mountains.

This will give the distinctly Saharan and Sub-Saharan feel back to my nation, consolidate an area of land that probably nobody is going to take (the Sahara) and also knock my population back down to about 150 million.

Hmm, I'm guessing that claiming "West Africa" is just an oversight? I think if you claimed all of West Africa you'd be going the wrong way population wise.

I'm excited to have you claim move distinctly north/north-eastwards and start rubbing shoulders up against the Exarchate. I'm smelling a good RP hereabouts.

Indeed, I'm speaking with Moorington as we speak.


And by West Africa, I mean that little bit of unowned land below Morocco- Oh, that's Western SAHARA! :3

[Maxen von Bismarck]

Well played. I was asking for it.



Hmm, I'm guessing that claiming "West Africa" is just an oversight? I think if you claimed all of West Africa you'd be going the wrong way population wise.

I'm excited to have you claim move distinctly north/north-eastwards and start rubbing shoulders up against the Exarchate. I'm smelling a good RP hereabouts.

Indeed, I'm speaking with Moorington as we speak.


And by West Africa, I mean that little bit of unowned land below Morocco- Oh, that's Western SAHARA! :3

/me is Moorington

And no problem.

[Chemaki]

I didn't recognize you by your flag, Moor xD

[Maxen von Bismarck]

I didn't recognize you by your flag, Moor xD

Completely understandable and thank you for reminding me! I have been meaning to change my flag to a proper Tyrian for a while now.

[The Austrian Federacy]

Has it already been four years? Damn, I'm getting old.

[Silver Beach]

I applied!

[Chemaki]

I applied!

Here, have this!

[Mekaria]

Awww, I want a big shiny badge!

[Iansisle]

Max: what did the Shield do to get considered "heathens"? =(

[Maxen von Bismarck]

Max: what did the Shield do to get considered "heathens"? =(

I thought that the Shield was nominally Roman Catholic but in actuality populated by some sort of organic religious pantheon? Maybe I'm thinking of BG in the 80s...

[Iansisle]

Well, we CLAIM to be 99%+ Roman Catholic...although the number in reality is like probably more like 60-65%. Most of the rest are mostly Muslim colonial subjects, a few protestants, and a small community (>2%) of Shieldo-Geletians mostly in Wyclyfe following druidic rites. So, we're not as Catholic as we want the world to believe, but we're hardly non-Christian!

Part of the problem might be that I've only written up two of the seven kingdoms so far and one of them (Wyclyfe) does in many ways have a Catholic facade layered over a pagan structure. But Wyclyfe is far and away the smallest and least-influential of the seven and most of the others are far more solidly Christian.

[Maxen von Bismarck]

Well, we CLAIM to be 99%+ Roman Catholic...although the number in reality is like probably more like 60-65%. Most of the rest are mostly Muslim colonial subjects, a few protestants, and a small community (>2%) of Shieldo-Geletians mostly in Wyclyfe following druidic rites. So, we're not as Catholic as we want the world to believe, but we're hardly non-Christian!

Part of the problem might be that I've only written up two of the seven kingdoms so far and one of them (Wyclyfe) does in many ways have a Catholic facade layered over a pagan structure. But Wyclyfe is far and away the smallest and least-influential of the seven and most of the others are far more solidly Christian.

Oh! Okay, my fault. Thank you for pointing that out, I should have asked you before writing it but it never occurred to me I could be wrong. My post has been edited to better reflect the unaffected (if somewhat misguided!) faith of the Shield. The dismissive assumption that your stout peasantry are heathens, when in fact they are brothers and sisters of the faith, has been removed.

[Chrinthanium]

Max, yes you were asking for it... though, it would be outside of my character not to give the people what they wanted, right?

[Maxen von Bismarck]

Max, yes you were asking for it... though, it would be outside of my character not to give the people what they wanted, right?

Hah! Atheist swine!

[Chemaki]

Maxen, I'm on Mibbit :3

[Chrinthanium]

Max, yes you were asking for it... though, it would be outside of my character not to give the people what they wanted, right?

Hah! Atheist swine!

Never met an athiest swine, though I met a Methodist alligator, a Baptist Jay Bird. An an agnostic sea turtle

[Mekaria]

I had a Mormon gerbil one time. He was a good pet, except he kept trying to evangelize me. "Squeak squeak the lord will save you squeak." Stuff like that.

[Chrinthanium]

Mexatopia has CTE'd.. give him a week before we eliminate?

[Walmington on Sea]

Yes, I think so, Chrin. He never got around to settling some questions over his claim, in any case.

Now, to my North American neighbours, and perhaps European enemies!..

I'm working on my factbook's history section to take account of changes in the rest of the world, and in particular the appearance of the Zuma people. Expanding on what's been said so far about Walmo-Zuma relations, would it be acceptable/desirable for me to suppose that the 1570s -when Walmington was experimenting with settlement and further exploration of mainland North America and also privateering against Catholic pioneers- saw the growth of early links between us?

I have imagined that Walmington's need for manpower and trade to reinforce it against Catholic European enemies fitted with a Zuma need for knowledge of those same Europeans who were now appearing in the Americas with less than honourable intentions. The Walmingtonians would have established a few trading missions on the Zuma coast -all disappeared or consumed by expanding Zuma cities by the modern day- and helped to prepare port facilities, importing gunpowder and steelworking if they were not previously known to the natives, enabling the Zuma to effectively oppose European incursions. This would of course have come along with plenty of Godfreyite-Protestant propaganda and tales of Catholic slave raids on aboriginal communities to the north and Walmington's alliances with the Beothuk and Míkmaq against the likes of the French, Acadzians, and others.

Then, I believe, the Acadzians come to Virginia after 1609, not long after the Gunpowder Revolution. It seems to me that they would have had a hell of a time using Protestant dissidents to colonise an area known already to the Walmingtonians, who would certainly have encouraged them to turn on the 'Catholic traitors' , so presumably the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were interesting times in the northwest Atlantic! Because of that, I have some doubts about the 'peace and agreement' mentioned in Virginia's factbook (armed Protestants of Acadzian and Celtic lineage turning up in Virginia under their own flag and urging their brothers to join them against the Catholics can't have made for harmonious living!). Walmington already being a North American safe-haven for Acadzian Protestants, I'm wondering if we could settle that by just having dissidents flee Virginia to settle in Walmington in the century and a half prior to the Virginian secession, constantly reinforcing Walmington's resolve, essentially running away rather than starting trouble?

On a related matter, Walmington outlawed slavery in the home islands in 1741, so I wonder if we could work in runaways from Virginia when it was still an Acadzian colony? And maybe freed slaves and their descendants form part of the Walmingtonian force sent to support the Virginian rebels during the revolution, possibly adding weight to the abolition movement that takes hold after independence, because hey, these guys helped us get rid of the Catholics, maybe we owe them freedom, too?

[-Lorraine-]

Ah I never really thought about that when i wrote up my history. But I think a peace agreement wouldnt be to far off. It would be similar to RL Maryland, which was actually founded to be a safe haven for English Catholics who agreed to remain loyal to the king but would not be persecuted if they were to live in Maryland. Virginia would be founded on the same bassic principle, just with protestants instead (And it actually being effective, Maryland wasnt because of debt owed and ended up being sold to many protestants anyways) So even though there would be agrivation from Walmington, the protection offered by the Acadzians in forms of troops and a navy would still make most early colonizers grateful and come to an agreement. However, after the coloony developed to where the people numbered far more and they felt they could defend themselves, this need was no longer needed from Acadzia and their rule owuld become seen as unnecissary and tyrannical. Safety first in the minds of helpless colonizers.

As for the slaves, that would be a very good idea. Though my actual abolition doesnt occur for a good time later, as they support the agricural economy with an important role. But they could play a role in beginning the gradual emancipation.

[Walmington on Sea]

Very well. I think, then, Walmington will have let it be known that able-bodied Acadzian slaves in Virginia (and anywhere else for that matter) could have their freedom (and freedom for any family they brought with them) if they would join the Royal Walmingtonian Army or Navy to fight against Acadzia, but the offer would have lasted with regards to Virginian-held slaves only until Acadzia recognised the colony's independence. Despite the early nature of Walmington's decision to outlaw slavery, its reasons for doing so were just as economic and practical in nature as were Virginia's reasons for retaining the institution, and were not sustained by any great moral or humanitarian motivation once the newly independent Virginia became an ally.

Possibly freed slaves in Walmington, after fighting for an independent Virginia, may have been disappointed that the new Commonwealth continued to support slavery, but at least they were free, and could potentially earn money enough in Walmington to buy the freedom of any family they had left in Virginia, all be it presumably through white middle men who could safely visit the Commonwealth, and some may have organised campaign groups to lobby the Commonwealth (from Walmington) to put a stop to slavery. The Walmingtonian state, meanwhile, would have offered them very little support once the Acadzian war was over, taking them on as subjects of the crown but doing nothing for their cause in Virginia for fear of damaging a valuable new alliance.

In fact, contrasting with the British position in reality, it wasn't the slave trade that Walmington outlawed, but the practice of slavery within Walmington on Sea. Thus it may even be possible that Virginia continued to buy slaves from Walmingtonian Africa (Mogador, St.Thomas and Prince's Island, the Cape Colonies (Waynesia coming later), and the Spice Islands) up until the Commonwealth finally banned slavery (where as, in reality, Britain banned the trade years before banning slavery itself).

Well, I think that's all I have to say about that!

[Mekaria]

I could definitely see Zuma-Walmy relations beginning around 1570. The Zuma would certainly have wanted a marginally more advanced ally with knowledge of the ebil Ca-tho-licks to help them out. That said, they would also probably regard the Walmys with some wariness, what with them not being "native". But that really goes for pretty much every state, everywhere, sans the Inka. I could also see the Zuma participating in the liberation of Virginia: experienced Zuma braves, hardened from many years of warfare against the Europeans, would no doubt be useful.

As for the slave thing, the Zuma could act as a sort of middleman for the slave trade. You know, Zuma ports being used as the off-loading point for Walmingtonian slave ships not wanting to a. get arrested by offloading the slaves in Walmington, and b. openly sell slaves to the Virginians. Then they could be moved south by Zuma soldiers and brought to slave markets on the border with Virginia. Anyway, just an idea.