1906: Alternative Divergence [AH][OOC-CLOSED]

[Pyrghium]

Full Nation Name : Gallic Empire
Majority/Official Culture : Latin
Territorial Core : France, Spain
Territorial Claim : [[OPTIONAL]]
Capital City : Paris
Population : 20 million

Government Type : Absolute Monarchy
Government Ideology/Policies : [[OPTIONAL]] [[Militant, Imperialist, Expansionist, etc.]]
Government Focus : Economy
Head of State : Emperor Galien (Galen) (ruled: 1857 AD - Present)
Head of Government : Emperor Galien, Co-Emperor Theodosius VIII (ruled: 1896 AD - Present)
Government Description : WIP

Majority/State Religion : Latin Chalcedonian Christianity
Religious Description : [[OPTIONAL]]

Economic Ideologies : Mercantilism
Major Production : Iron, Coal, Manufactured Goods, Olive oil, Wine
Economic Description :

Development: [Modern, Semi-Industrialized, or Primitive]
Development Description : [Explain further why your nation is in one of the above categories]

Army Description : [[Describe your nation's army in as much detail as you can]]
Army Weakness :
Naval Description : [[Describe your nation's navy in as much detail as you can]]
Naval Weakness :
Further Military Description : [[OPTIONAL]]

National Goals :
National Issues : [[what needs to be fixed in order for your nation to achieve its true potential]]
National Figures of Interest : [[OPTIONAL]] [[Are there any Mother Teresas or Moses that we need to know about?]]
National Ambition/Aspirations : [[OPTIONAL]] [[Not really a set objective, but rather the big picture that your nation is drawing towards]]

History :

In 476 AD, Syagrius, the Roman Dux of Gaul, proclaimed himself Emperor after hearing of the deposition of Romulus Augustulus at the hands of the Ostrogothic King Odoacre. However, this declaration was not well-received by either the Ostrogoths, or the Eastern Roman Emperor Zeno, in Constantinople; however, due to the geographical distance, the only confrontation between Sygrianus and the others, was a war of words and letter-writing.

From his capital at Lutetia (Paris), Emperor Syagrius I (ruled: 476 AD - 513 AD) had other more pressing problems: the Germanic kingdoms who had set themselves up in what was formerly Roman Gaul - these being the Franks, Visigoths, and Burgundians, respectively. In 486 AD, Clovis, King of the Franks met Syagrius on the field of battle, seeking to destroy Syagrius and his Roman State and seeking to expunge the last bastion of Romanity in the West. However, it seems God had other plans, for Clovis was slain on the field of battle, and the Romans won a decisive victory over the Franks. Emperor Syagrius followed this up by conquering the Franks, and adding them to his realm. This so intimidated the Visigoths, that the Visigoth King Alaric II recognized Syagrius as “Western Roman Emperor”, and gave his daughter, Aelina in marriage to Syagrius. In 491, Syagrius and his Empress had a son and heir, Valentinian. With there being peace for the time being, Emperor Syagrius turned to the organization of his Empire. He decided to integrate the barbarian (especially Frankish) chieftains in his domains, and so he named them all Senators and invited them to have their sons educated in Classical Roman learning, to that end, he sent for teachers from Italy and Constantinople, so that the chieftains’ sons might learn Latin and become more Romanized. In 507 AD, King Alaric II of the Visigoths died, and his sons began to squabble for the throne. Empress Aelina was able to win over some of the Visigoth nobles, especially those in Aquitaine to proclaim her son, Valentinian as “King of the Visigoths”. In return for this, they too, were named Senators, and as a result of this, Aquitaine would also be added to the Roman realm, when Valentinian would succeed his father. Emperor Syagrius also entered into alliance with Gundobad, King of the Burgundians, and arranged a marriage with the Burgundian King’s daughter, Blanche (Bianca), in 506 AD. In 513 AD, Syagrius passed away after having ruled for 37 years.

After this, Valentinian became Emperor (ruled: 513 AD - 556 AD). Almost immediately after this, Valentinian and his wife, Blanche had their first son, Augustine, in 514 AD. Wanting her son to also rule over Burgundy, after her father’s death, Blanche arranged the assassination of her elder brother, Sigismund on a hunting trip. This was followed by the mysterious death of her other brother, Godomar, and finally, the natural death of her father, King Gundobad, in 516 AD. After this, Blanche saw to it, that her son Augustine was named King of the Burgundians. Valentinian continued the Latinization policies of his fathers among the Franks, and began to apply the same policies among the Visigoths. This did not sit well with some of the chieftains/Senators, who, in 521, wrote letters to Alamaric King of the Visigoths in Spain to come into Aquitaine and “free his people from the Roman Yoke”. However, these letters did not ever reach Alamaric, as Empress Blanche’s spies intercepted these dispatches and killed the messengers before they even reached the Pyrenees. Meanwhile, the Empress invited the treacherous Visigoth chieftains/Senators to her villa in Soissons for a dinner, and there, poisoned them all.

In 522, the Franks rose up against Emperor Valentinian, who marched against them with his own armies, plus those allied forces of the Visigoths and Burgundians; he was able to quash the revolt in 4 years, and resume his reign over them. After this, Valentinian began to centralize his realm in Aquitaine and Salian Francia, creating a centralized bureaucracy and army, and bypassing the local chiefs more and more. This centralization process produced several more revolts between 530 - 545 AD, but the Emperor was able to crush almost all of them. In 536 AD, Eastern Roman general Belisarius conquered Rome and was named Caesar of the West by Emperor Justinian. Emperor Valentinian sent a delegation to Constantinople congratulating Justinian on his victory, sending him gifts and money, and requesting that he be recognized as Western Roman Emperor. Justinian refused this, and insisted that Valentinian was at best “Emperor of Gaul, and King of the Goths”. This infuriated Valentinian who vowed to someday have his vengeance, when the time was right. Alas, Valentinian was forced to put aside this for awhile, by several more revolts from the Franks, and a botched invasion by the Alamanni. In 556, some 20 years after Belisarius took Rome, Emperor Valentinian invaded Italy with his army intent on taking Rome. Alas, while besieging Turin, Valentinian suddenly and unexpectedly died (some say he was poisoned by an Eastern Roman spy who infiltrated the camp as a servant), after having reigned 43 years.

After this, Valentinian was succeeded by his son Augustine (ruled: 556 AD - 601 AD), who was named Emperor by the Senators (chieftains) and commanders in the camp outside Turin. Augustine unlike his father, had no desire to fight Belisarius and the Eastern Romans, so he sent a delegation to them, asking for peace, he paid them off, and promptly returned to Lutetia (Paris). In 558, he married Irene, a niece of Belisarius, so as to have good relations with the Caesar of the West. Augustine was at this time, King of the Visigoths (in Aquitaine) and King of the Burgundians. In 559, he officially abolished these titles, and instead administered the lands of the Visigoths and Burgundians as direct territories of the Empire. In 560, he and his wife, Irene gave birth to a son, Sergius. Augustine was interested in opening up trade with the East, and as, at this time, there was relative peace in Gaul, this was possible, and the local economy began to boom. This was good for Augustine’s desired policy of civilizing the Visigoth, Frankish, and Burgundian peoples, to make them more “Roman”. The Emperor also built churches and schools, throughout his realm, and his reign was generally remembered as a small “Golden Age”. In 601, Augustine reposed, after a 45 year reign.

After this, Sergius succeeded his father as Emperor (ruled: 601 AD), however, his reign was very short, for he was murdered by a conspiracy of Senators, and replaced by his mentally handicapped son, Syagrius, who reigned as Syagrius II (ruled: 601 AD - 624 AD).

This ushered in the period known as the “Rule of the Senators” (601 AD - 713 AD) wherein the Senate, comprised of the landed aristocracy (the descendants of the chieftains), and powerful bureaucrats and the military handled the affairs of state, while the Emperors were mere figure heads. This period was characterized by a lot of civil war and infighting between the various senators and a great deal of corruption. However, after the fall of the Visigoth Kingdom in Spain to the Islamic forces, this pushed for a particular faction of the military to once again desire for strong central leadership. In 713, a commander Argoboald, seized control of the capital, Lutetia, and deposed the Regency of Empress Claudine (ruled: 699 AD - 713 AD), which served as a puppet regime for the senatorial elites, elevating Emperor Syagrius VII (ruled: 699 AD - 729 AD) to his proper powers. Argoboald was named as his Chief Minister, and he spent the next 15 years, quashing the senatorial oligarchs, and recentralizing power in the Emperor’s hands.

After this, there was a period of relative peace and strength in the Empire. Emperor Honorian (ruled: 729 AD - 775 AD) defeated an attempted Arab invasion of Gaul at the Battle of Tours, in 732, and conquered the weakening Alamanni Kingdom once and for all. Emperor Valentinian III (ruled: 775 AD - 789 AD) managed to establish an official alliance with the Western and Eastern Roman Empires (with the Empire in Gaul agreeing to be henceforth called “the Roman Empire in Gaul” or shorthand, the Gallic Empire), and Emperor Claude (ruled: 805 AD - 851 AD) presided over a period of profound peace and economic prosperity. However, this was followed by the Viking invasions, beginning in the 880s.

At first, the Emperors were able to buy off the Vikings to leave them alone, but by 930, it was clear the Norsemen were not going anywhere, as they had established the Duchy of Normandy in the north of France. The Emperors gradually warmed up to this by buying the loyalty of the Norman Dukes, and intermarrying with them, such that by the 1000s, the Norman Duchy had been effectively integrated into the Empire.

WIP

RP Sample: [[Either a link to a past post, or an example written right here.]]

#AltDiv (do not delete this, it's for keeping track of the apps)

WIP

Working on the history to make it interesting, let me know what you think of it so far?

[Oscalantine]

It wasn't a big thing there, yeah. It still could have reached it, but without the same level of thread, it probably never managed to gain the position it had IRL.

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh.

This is SUCH a #see.Novacom moment. I am 90%% sure Islam not being a major influence is because of his Babylon concept, right?

That rewrites ENTIRE history of Southeast Asia. For one, I am glad that it is me that needs to think about this, since I don't want to give this brain aneurysm to anyone else.

I'll figure out how the fudge lack of existence of Sultanate of Malacca would have transformed Southeast Asia. Most likely Majapahit would have maintained some semblance of power until Koreans fully colonized everything. I am thinking of reviving the old empire of Srivijaya to give a better perspective, since it would be incredibly unlikely that Majapahit with its internal disputes maintain full tributary/vassalship of its former glory when it Ming's Treasury Fleet was moving around.

You know what, Trace? Cancel my acceptance for a bit. I need to rewrite my colonization period since #see.Novacom moment happened. If Islam wasn't a thing, then Sultanate of Malacca didn't happen. And if that didn't happen, then Ming Chinese influence would have led to other force maintaining power where waning Majapahit Empire failed to keep its vassals in line... or Majapahit maintains its power, however small, since acceptance of Islam allowed vassals to feel more free to simply stop paying tribute to the Empire. So much to research and think about.

Oh and I also need to change Cheondoism. Most likely it would have Catholic origin, then, since Hinduism and Buddhism wasn't necessarily a "trade religion" and provides FAR more tolerance than Catholicism, so Koreans would have accepted a different form of trade religion to keep its presence in the Southeast. Since Malacca wasn't a thing, the next worse thing would have been the Portuguese.

[Plzen]

Oh and I also need to change Cheondoism. Most likely it would have Catholic origin, then, since Hinduism and Buddhism wasn't necessarily a "trade religion" and provides FAR more tolerance than Catholicism, so Koreans would have accepted a different form of trade religion to keep its presence in the Southeast. Since Malacca wasn't a thing, the next worse thing would have been the Portuguese.

It looks like you're looking for a foreign religion to make a branch of for the benefits of trade. Would you like some help with that?

The late 1500s and 1600s was very much the golden era of my Scandinavian history, and having a vaguely Norse-inspired maritime religion for Korean merchants would be... a very unique concept indeed. Also it would be nice if I had something to show for the centuries of glory other than small footnotes in dusty history tomes.

[Oscalantine]

Oh and I also need to change Cheondoism. Most likely it would have Catholic origin, then, since Hinduism and Buddhism wasn't necessarily a "trade religion" and provides FAR more tolerance than Catholicism, so Koreans would have accepted a different form of trade religion to keep its presence in the Southeast. Since Malacca wasn't a thing, the next worse thing would have been the Portuguese.

It looks like you're looking for a foreign religion to make a branch of for the benefits of trade. Would you like some help with that?

The late 1500s and 1600s was very much the golden era of my Scandinavian history, and having a vaguely Norse-inspired maritime religion for Korean merchants would be... a very unique concept indeed. Also it would be nice if I had something to show for the centuries of glory other than small footnotes in dusty history tomes.

Probably unlikely, unfortunately. The reason why Koreans needed to change religion was because of monotheists not accepting any god but their own, not because they didn't have a pantheon. In a polytheist religion, it is highly likely that they would simply see other's deity as either another god of the region or simply a misunderstood version of the same god. I believe that is the reason why so many similarities were drawn between Christian God and Odin, as it made Nordic people become more familiarized with the concept before making it official that God was the "one and only."

For monotheists, there is no "other god," and thus any other "god" becomes something of a cultural rift. It makes logical sense therefore for merchants to think about converting or at least understanding the religious customs to prevent issues with trade.

If Nordic people ... err... somehow made the harrowing journey all the way around the Cape of Good Hope and around the Indian Ocean and directly into the Southeast Asia, Koreans would have considered Norse pantheons as just another pantheon of a set of gods that were different, but ultimately from a different region of land far from there. They would have "translated" some parts of their own pantheon (or lack thereof, since Koreans were superstitious, but not necessarily a religious fellows) into Nordic counterparts, but not necessarily convert.

That and I have no plans to completely change the Cheondoism as a religious idea. While it would have started with whatever origins, it remains the same that it is a heretical faith of the Orthodox Christianity now. I don't think the evolution from Norse to Orthodox makes much sense... let along the rituals of strife and blood of Nordic pantheons would have appealed to ethnic group such as Koreans which were pretty much sick of both since the dawn of times.

[Plzen]

-snip-

All fair enough points. It was a bit out-there idea to start with but, well, that's why it would have been interesting. :lol:

I will have to look elsewhere to establish my colonialist legacies, then...

[The Ik Ka Ek Akai]

It looks like you're looking for a foreign religion to make a branch of for the benefits of trade. Would you like some help with that?

The late 1500s and 1600s was very much the golden era of my Scandinavian history, and having a vaguely Norse-inspired maritime religion for Korean merchants would be... a very unique concept indeed. Also it would be nice if I had something to show for the centuries of glory other than small footnotes in dusty history tomes.

Probably unlikely, unfortunately. The reason why Koreans needed to change religion was because of monotheists not accepting any god but their own, not because they didn't have a pantheon. In a polytheist religion, it is highly likely that they would simply see other's deity as either another god of the region or simply a misunderstood version of the same god. I believe that is the reason why so many similarities were drawn between Christian God and Odin, as it made Nordic people become more familiarized with the concept before making it official that God was the "one and only."

For monotheists, there is no "other god," and thus any other "god" becomes something of a cultural rift. It makes logical sense therefore for merchants to think about converting or at least understanding the religious customs to prevent issues with trade.

If Nordic people ... err... somehow made the harrowing journey all the way around the Cape of Good Hope and around the Indian Ocean and directly into the Southeast Asia, Koreans would have considered Norse pantheons as just another pantheon of a set of gods that were different, but ultimately from a different region of land far from there. They would have "translated" some parts of their own pantheon (or lack thereof, since Koreans were superstitious, but not necessarily a religious fellows) into Nordic counterparts, but not necessarily convert.

That and I have no plans to completely change the Cheondoism as a religious idea. While it would have started with whatever origins, it remains the same that it is a heretical faith of the Orthodox Christianity now. I don't think the evolution from Norse to Orthodox makes much sense... let along the rituals of strife and blood of Nordic pantheons would have appealed to ethnic group such as Koreans which were pretty much sick of both since the dawn of times.

Just for the record, I think you may be... overstating the importance of Islam particularly as a regional driving force for Malay politics. The Malacca Sultanate was founded by a Hindu, and near-contemporary records indicate it was only his son who converted in 1416, and even then some contend it was not until the third king, taking the throne in 1424, that there was a truly Muslim king ruling. The only time from which Islam can be considered firmly established until the 1440s. Malacca had already grown to be important by essentially the earliest years of the 15th century, enough that it received a delegation from China in 1405, and became an integral part of the Chinese trade network by 1407-1408. By 1414, still two years from the earliest possible Muslim kingship date, it had become a well-established international trade hub with firm Chinese backing and a close relationship with the emperor, enough that the second king traveled to visit him personally to inform him of the first king's death. Malacca would be mostly Islamicized in the 1430s, by which point it had already established itself as a viable regional power fully capable of providing for its own military needs.

Ultimately, if you want things to go the way they kinda did irl, the realpolitik of the time can be just as good a driving factor as anything. China didn't like that Majapahit was being a big bad navy boi, and wowzo here's a rival trading kingdom that, despite being rather new, is very prosperous with a force of pirates at its disposal to redirect trade in its direction. You don't really need Islam for any of this to be the case, especially seeing as the driving force behind Malacca's founding in the first place were raids from Majapahit against Srivijaya and Singapura, both religiously similar to Majapahit itself. And if you do want Islam, there's really nothing stopping you from saying it took off in this particular corner of the world anyway. It's not like it spread to the Malays by the sword, it was mostly mass conversions from the odd wandering imam following trade lanes - and Arabia is still quite likely to be both Muslim and an important Silk Road stop, just like in real life.

They would have "translated" some parts of their own pantheon (or lack thereof, since Koreans were superstitious, but not necessarily a religious fellows)

I do, however, find this particular quote to be highly objectionable. I do not lie when I say this sounds like it's taken straight out of a 17th century book justifying colonialism, because I have read the exact phrase "Superstitious, but not religious", and many variants thereof claiming a total lack of "native religion", in reading the journals of early colonial explorers. It is almost always patently false, and the only reason it was said in history at one point was because the definition of "religion" was highly eurocentric revolving around a very specific set of criteria, while "superstition" largely bore resemblance to European folklore and traditions which were carry-overs from paganism.

Korean Shamanism is a religion, inasmuch as any religion is a religion, as much as Norse religion is, as much as Greek religion is, and as much as Chinese Folk or Shinto is. Apart from the more basic ancestor worship, which is a religious practice of its own that, barring all else, would constitute a form of religion, the native Korean religion does also have an actual pantheon of distinct and recognizable deities. Examples include Haneulnim, who is similar to Tengri or the "Jade Emperor", essentially Haneulnim is the king of Heaven and the lord of creation; Sungmo, a goddess of motherhood associated with shamans; Yeomra, the god of death and the underworld; Samsin Halmoni, the goddess(es) of childbirth and weaver(s) of fate; Jungsegyeong, the goddess of agriculture; Jowangshin, goddess of the hearth; accompanying this pantheon (and other unnamed deities) is a host of rites and rituals conducted by shamans to sacrifice and pray to them, for the benefit of the common people.

By all means, this is more than mere superstition. I would appreciate abstaining from this sort of rhetoric in the future.

[Tracian Empire]

Maybe, but it could have led to the other barbarian states forming a coalition against him, and even then, it would hardly explain why the Franks would continue the claim. This was after all, just a century or so after the Franks had rebelled against the Romans, I don't think that the Frankish population would have ever adopted the Roman identity in that context.

If he would have escaped to Constantinople, Zeno would have most certainly not supported his claim - Zeno's initial intention was to support Julius Nepos to begin with, and only agreed to the request of the Senate and Odoacer as a fait accompli.

But Romulus at the time was a 16 year old boy who had only ruled as a puppet of his father. It's a bit difficult to believe that he could have returned to Constantinople and then went back to Gallia.

And he could have maybe went to the Burgundians, but the issue is the same. I don't think that adopting the title would have been accepted by the tribes, and even then - this title would be devoid of legitimacy. Romulus was mercilessly mocked as Augustulus in real life too, and abandoning Rome would have probably ruined his reputation just as much as surrendering to Odoacer did. And even if we assume that he would have been welcomed by Clovis, that just opens a lot of questions. How would his children have become the heirs to the Frankish realm too? Even if we assume that Clovis would have given one of his daughters for him to marry, the Franks had their very weird system of inheritance which divided the kingdom between the sons of the last King - the children of Romulus would be born on the martilineal line. And even if we assume that Romulus would have been granted a territory, who would have paid heed to that imperial title? Simple descendence from an Emperor was never enough in terms of legitimacy. This realm would have never controlled Rome, and would have never had the acceptance of either of the ERE or the WRE. Which would make it the black sheep, but would also render its imperial title kinda useless.

A more realistic point of divergence would be to work on from Syagrius, but even then, like i said - we already have two Roman Empires, so your idea would have to be pretty unique and well made.

Could Syagrius have conceivably defeated the Franks, and could he have crowned himself Emperor of the Western Roman Empire after 476?

That is of course, another question entirely. Historians fiercely debate whether he ever claimed the title of Rex Romanorum. I can't write your concept for you, you'd have to answer why he would have claimed the imperial title and how the imperial title would have survived. Syagrius succeeded his father as the ruler, but since Roman offices are not transmissible, one could even attack his title of magister militum per Gallias.

[Tracian Empire]

Full Nation Name : Gallic Empire

I mean, you still haven't fixed the two issues that I pointed in the first place - that it couldn't be Latin in culture and that it couldn't have both Spain and France.

As for the history, Syagrius conquering the Franks is perhaps understandable, but just marrying and taking over barbarian kingdoms isn't that realistic of a tactic. I'm also a bit confused as to how Valentinian was named King of the Visigoths and somehow received Aquitaine, but at the same time someone was named the King of the Visigoths in Spain.

Historically, it's also very unlikely that Justinian would have recognized Valentinian as emperor of anything - the Romans were very particular with their use and recognition of titles. Constantinople would certainly have no intention to potentially justify the rule of someone they saw as a barbarian usurper, and also no particular interest to maintain friendly relations - Justinian's reconquests were focused around the Mediterranean, and any sort of plans to ever return Gaul under imperial influence had long been abandoned, which is why I don't think that Belisarius would have given any of his relatives for marriage.

But the issue that I told you at the very beginning still remains. So far, you're simply putting Roman elements in Gaul. You're using Latin names and Latin titles, a Roman organization, it's like you transplanted the Roman Empire into Gaul. It's not a specific concept yet. Look at the WRE app - it's a survival of the Roman Empire, but it isn't just a copy paste of Roman elements of old. It has its own culture that has developed in time. It has its own form of government that is more inspired by that of an Exarchate than how the old empire was ruled because that's how the situation demanded it. It's imperial title has some particularities that it gained in time.

So once again, I really do appreciate your efforts, and I also do really understand your desire to play as a Roman Empire - but like I said, having three surviving Roman Empires is a bit too much, it starts to nullify the point of the empire falling in the first place when we have yet another part of the western provinces surviving under Roman rule, and your concept for it just doesn't take the situation it was in with al the Germanic barbarians enough. So I do think that you should perhaps try to work on a different idea.

[Nouveau Quebecois]

Any updates on the status of the UK?

[Oscalantine]

-snip-

Thanks for getting mad at my culture for me XDDD. It is always warming to see how serious some consider Korean culture.

But in all seriousness, Korea was for a long time without it's own religion. Korean Shamanism was, to an extent a derivative of shamanism from the steppes, as it shares a lot of similar pantheon and traditions. However, as Koreans started to accept Confucianism, the monarchy strictly forbid such practices from actually turning into a legitimate religious institutions, creating a sort of a religious limbo in the country. And even before, as Zen Buddhism came to Korea, Korean Shamanism naturally melded with Buddhist elements and ceased to be it's own religion by definition.

So while the idea of Korean Shamanism exists even to this day in such ways as Gut-rituals and so forth... and the pantheon to an extent exists, it has naturally melded with the entire culture of the people and stopped being actual religious institutions. Even during Joseon era rituals with Shamanist ideas existed even in courts alongside ancestor worship of Confucianian religious ethos. However, an outright practice and worship of such religion... if it can even be called that at 1800 period onwards... has become so fringe that it has become somewhat strange to every day Koreans, or so would scholars in Korea say.

That's why I said we were superstitious but not religious. The rituals and belief of the past Shamanism essentially became part of our very culture insomuch that outsiders would consider superstition. Even now, in 21st century, Koreans ask advice from mystics and pay to have one of those rituals done when they clearly identify themselves as Christian of the most devout degree. And it is to an extent accepted by all but the most zealous of religious bunch. To us, these practices are not religion, but a way of life, our culture so to say.

Tbh, I think this word explains it the best: 하나님. It is our word for God. Like monotheist GOD. But the word is actually from the origin of 하느님, or "Venerable Sky" in the most literal definition. In the mythos of 환웅 that you mentioned, 환웅 is the son of 환인 (Hwan-in I believe), who was the Lord of Heaven that translates into that exact word (하느님). To us, shamanism isnt necessarily a religion, but just a way of life and culture above the discern of religion. And in the most literal way, that is superstition.

[Pyrghium]

Full Nation Name : Gallic Empire

I mean, you still haven't fixed the two issues that I pointed in the first place - that it couldn't be Latin in culture and that it couldn't have both Spain and France.

As for the history, Syagrius conquering the Franks is perhaps understandable, but just marrying and taking over barbarian kingdoms isn't that realistic of a tactic. I'm also a bit confused as to how Valentinian was named King of the Visigoths and somehow received Aquitaine, but at the same time someone was named the King of the Visigoths in Spain.

Historically, it's also very unlikely that Justinian would have recognized Valentinian as emperor of anything - the Romans were very particular with their use and recognition of titles. Constantinople would certainly have no intention to potentially justify the rule of someone they saw as a barbarian usurper, and also no particular interest to maintain friendly relations - Justinian's reconquests were focused around the Mediterranean, and any sort of plans to ever return Gaul under imperial influence had long been abandoned, which is why I don't think that Belisarius would have given any of his relatives for marriage.

But the issue that I told you at the very beginning still remains. So far, you're simply putting Roman elements in Gaul. You're using Latin names and Latin titles, a Roman organization, it's like you transplanted the Roman Empire into Gaul. It's not a specific concept yet. Look at the WRE app - it's a survival of the Roman Empire, but it isn't just a copy paste of Roman elements of old. It has its own culture that has developed in time. It has its own form of government that is more inspired by that of an Exarchate than how the old empire was ruled because that's how the situation demanded it. It's imperial title has some particularities that it gained in time.

So once again, I really do appreciate your efforts, and I also do really understand your desire to play as a Roman Empire - but like I said, having three surviving Roman Empires is a bit too much, it starts to nullify the point of the empire falling in the first place when we have yet another part of the western provinces surviving under Roman rule, and your concept for it just doesn't take the situation it was in with al the Germanic barbarians enough. So I do think that you should perhaps try to work on a different idea.

Maybe it’s best then if I just go with a Frankish Carolingian Empire trying to ape as a Roman Empire? Just a straight up Frankish Empire?

[Tracian Empire]

I mean, you still haven't fixed the two issues that I pointed in the first place - that it couldn't be Latin in culture and that it couldn't have both Spain and France.

As for the history, Syagrius conquering the Franks is perhaps understandable, but just marrying and taking over barbarian kingdoms isn't that realistic of a tactic. I'm also a bit confused as to how Valentinian was named King of the Visigoths and somehow received Aquitaine, but at the same time someone was named the King of the Visigoths in Spain.

Historically, it's also very unlikely that Justinian would have recognized Valentinian as emperor of anything - the Romans were very particular with their use and recognition of titles. Constantinople would certainly have no intention to potentially justify the rule of someone they saw as a barbarian usurper, and also no particular interest to maintain friendly relations - Justinian's reconquests were focused around the Mediterranean, and any sort of plans to ever return Gaul under imperial influence had long been abandoned, which is why I don't think that Belisarius would have given any of his relatives for marriage.

But the issue that I told you at the very beginning still remains. So far, you're simply putting Roman elements in Gaul. You're using Latin names and Latin titles, a Roman organization, it's like you transplanted the Roman Empire into Gaul. It's not a specific concept yet. Look at the WRE app - it's a survival of the Roman Empire, but it isn't just a copy paste of Roman elements of old. It has its own culture that has developed in time. It has its own form of government that is more inspired by that of an Exarchate than how the old empire was ruled because that's how the situation demanded it. It's imperial title has some particularities that it gained in time.

So once again, I really do appreciate your efforts, and I also do really understand your desire to play as a Roman Empire - but like I said, having three surviving Roman Empires is a bit too much, it starts to nullify the point of the empire falling in the first place when we have yet another part of the western provinces surviving under Roman rule, and your concept for it just doesn't take the situation it was in with al the Germanic barbarians enough. So I do think that you should perhaps try to work on a different idea.

Maybe it’s best then if I just go with a Frankish Carolingian Empire trying to ape as a Roman Empire? Just a straight up Frankish Empire?

How would the Franks have remained Franks and not become the French? And why would this realm claim to be the Roman Empire? Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope and Rome was under his protection.

[Pasong Tirad]

Work is keeping me busy. I've been slowly finishing my app but it's taking a little more time than I thought.

[Kazarogkai]

Work is keeping me busy. I've been slowly finishing my app but it's taking a little more time than I thought.

Same on my front.

[Tracian Empire]

Any updates on the status of the UK?

Well, the player hasn't said anything else, so I will remove the claim latter tonight

[Tracian Empire]

Work is keeping me busy. I've been slowly finishing my app but it's taking a little more time than I thought.

Work is keeping me busy. I've been slowly finishing my app but it's taking a little more time than I thought.

Same on my front.

Don't worry about it, you both have interesting concepts so we can wait a little bit more for you

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Any updates on the status of the UK?

Well, the player hasn't said anything else, so I will remove the claim latter tonight

Rip.

[The Ik Ka Ek Akai]

-snip-

I know you didn't have bad intentions when you said it, and sorry if I came off a bit blunt. It's just that I believe, based on my experiences, that 'superstition' is a poor choice of words and carries a lot of baggage towards the delegitimization of a belief system. Especially with how Shamanism has been persecuted until fairly recent times, I think it just sends off worse vibes than you might've been intending.

I get how a belief system like that can be so ingrained in a culture. It's kinda the case for me too, and I've got Korean family, I just think there's a better way to put it than that - and I think that, especially in a historical context, Shamanism should be considered a distinct religious practice of its own. The way it's ingrained within culture, just saying 'culture' is probably a better phrasing, or 'folklore' or 'tradition' or 'folk belief' or something like that.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

I have to finish off the religion, and history portion of the roleplay application, and I will be just about done.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

-snip-

I know you didn't have bad intentions when you said it, and sorry if I came off a bit blunt. It's just that I believe, based on my experiences, that 'superstition' is a poor choice of words and carries a lot of baggage towards the delegitimization of a belief system. Especially with how Shamanism has been persecuted until fairly recent times, I think it just sends off worse vibes than you might've been intending.

I get how a belief system like that can be so ingrained in a culture. It's kinda the case for me too, and I've got Korean family, I just think there's a better way to put it than that - and I think that, especially in a historical context, Shamanism should be considered a distinct religious practice of its own. The way it's ingrained within culture, just saying 'culture' is probably a better phrasing, or 'folklore' or 'tradition' or 'folk belief' or something like that.

Yeah, the borderline between superstition, and faith is a very well defined border, but can often cross. In New Orleans, the city is an enigma it has ardent Catholics who will pray at mass every day, but can be some of the most superstitious people ever, and even dabble in Hoodoo. In Charleston where I am living, we often have a lot of superstitions mixed in the whole community that were brought over from West Africa. It's not uncommon for devout Protestants to have a broom in their beds to scare away boo hags (spirits that possess you in your sleep, and use you for their own deeds) or paint blue near their windows because spirits known as haint are scared of the ocean. Yet at the end of the day calling religion superstition in any way either it being from another religion or purely secular viewpoint is an incredibly touchy issue.

[Pyrghium]

Maybe it’s best then if I just go with a Frankish Carolingian Empire trying to ape as a Roman Empire? Just a straight up Frankish Empire?

How would the Franks have remained Franks and not become the French? And why would this realm claim to be the Roman Empire? Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope and Rome was under his protection.

Simple. I have Syagrius and his descendants rule as “Emperors” (Caesar) of Gaul, until they get overthrown by Charles Martel in 730s. After that, the Carolingians assume the Imperial office. So basically, it’s the French only no Feudalism, no more Kings of the Franks, and instead the Emperor (Caesar), and a Senate (which serves as an Assembly of the aristocrats); so it’s France but with a Roman veneer. Would that make sense?

[Tracian Empire]

How would the Franks have remained Franks and not become the French? And why would this realm claim to be the Roman Empire? Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope and Rome was under his protection.

Simple. I have Syagrius and his descendants rule as “Emperors” (Caesar) of Gaul, until they get overthrown by Charles Martel in 730s. After that, the Carolingians assume the Imperial office. So basically, it’s the French only no Feudalism, no more Kings of the Franks, and instead the Emperor (Caesar), and a Senate (which serves as an Assembly of the aristocrats); so it’s France but with a Roman veneer. Would that make sense?

You're completely ignoring my issue. Why would the Franks have taken over the title? Charlemagne taking the title happened under certain specific circumstances, circumstances that would not be repeated in this particular case. You would as such have two issues - the Syagrian line holding a title that would be lacking legitimacy, only focused on the notion that Syagrius remained the only Roman ruler in a specific area, and the second is why would a Frankish leader claim the Roman imperial title - and why would anyone acknowledge a random barbarian group as holding the office.

And you're also not fully adressing my issue in regards to the rest of the nation. Why would the Franks themselves have adopted a Roman system, with a Senate? Why would they have tried to take over the Roman identity - which never took hold for either the Franks or the Germans in real life.

[Pyrghium]

Simple. I have Syagrius and his descendants rule as “Emperors” (Caesar) of Gaul, until they get overthrown by Charles Martel in 730s. After that, the Carolingians assume the Imperial office. So basically, it’s the French only no Feudalism, no more Kings of the Franks, and instead the Emperor (Caesar), and a Senate (which serves as an Assembly of the aristocrats); so it’s France but with a Roman veneer. Would that make sense?

You're completely ignoring my issue. Why would the Franks have taken over the title? Charlemagne taking the title happened under certain specific circumstances, circumstances that would not be repeated in this particular case. You would as such have two issues - the Syagrian line holding a title that would be lacking legitimacy, only focused on the notion that Syagrius remained the only Roman ruler in a specific area, and the second is why would a Frankish leader claim the Roman imperial title - and why would anyone acknowledge a random barbarian group as holding the office.

And you're also not fully adressing my issue in regards to the rest of the nation. Why would the Franks themselves have adopted a Roman system, with a Senate? Why would they have tried to take over the Roman identity - which never took hold for either the Franks or the Germans in real life.

Ok, I see what you’re saying. Could the Germans and Franks somehow have been kept out of Gaul in the first place? That way the Gallo-Roman identity could’ve been maintained.

[Tracian Empire]

You're completely ignoring my issue. Why would the Franks have taken over the title? Charlemagne taking the title happened under certain specific circumstances, circumstances that would not be repeated in this particular case. You would as such have two issues - the Syagrian line holding a title that would be lacking legitimacy, only focused on the notion that Syagrius remained the only Roman ruler in a specific area, and the second is why would a Frankish leader claim the Roman imperial title - and why would anyone acknowledge a random barbarian group as holding the office.

And you're also not fully adressing my issue in regards to the rest of the nation. Why would the Franks themselves have adopted a Roman system, with a Senate? Why would they have tried to take over the Roman identity - which never took hold for either the Franks or the Germans in real life.

Ok, I see what you’re saying. Could the Germans and Franks somehow have been kept out of Gaul in the first place? That way the Gallo-Roman identity could’ve been maintained.

That would be messing with too many things for a simple divergence. You'd be potentially messing with the history of Italy and the Iberian Peninsula and Africa, and even that of Germany, since those tribes had to go somewhere.

[Pyrghium]

Ok, I see what you’re saying. Could the Germans and Franks somehow have been kept out of Gaul in the first place? That way the Gallo-Roman identity could’ve been maintained.

That would be messing with too many things for a simple divergence. You'd be potentially messing with the history of Italy and the Iberian Peninsula and Africa, and even that of Germany, since those tribes had to go somewhere.

Fair point. What if I said screw Gaul, and instead tried the same thing, but in Hispania and North Africa. Would that be more plausible?