| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| One question. Is England on the very furthermost edge? Last time I looked it was a little behind that edge. |
Good...that's why England was only in the second tranche of nation-states. You're really picking up the idea now.
| The repulsed, larger country has learnt from first-hand experience the advantages that a unified state has over disorganised, hotch-potch invasion attempts. Now, in its turn, it.... |
Good...emulation, highly important and contains a system feature (one fixed boundary leads to another). But you still haven't really got a complete grasp of the way everything works yet. You throw out so many ideas between you that you can always claim that something you said was vaguely like what turns out to be a decisive factor. So now let's return to Harperium and try to predict exactly where the first nation-states will break out. You should be able to come up with half a dozen specific features (that's more than I can but you are supposed to come up with stuff I haven't thought of....like Portugal for instance.) Really try to be specific. Really try to think what Japan, Korea, Portugal, Scotland, England have in common.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
AJMorton
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Really try to think what Japan, Korea, Portugal, Scotland, England have in common. |
The are all situated on the ultimate extremes of the greatest land mass on the planet. The Far, Far West and the Far, Far East.
They are as far away from each other as the planet will allow. In fact, on opposite sides of the globe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Try not the completely obvious.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AJMorton
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it was a bit.
All their rears face out onto 'nothingness'. Nothingness being the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans - two huge and almost untraversable bodies of water.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AJMorton
|
|
|
|
Due to the vast distances involved, they were not very well aware of the existence of the other.
Even when regular communication opened up (by foot, horse) with the far east it was primarily operated for the use of trade rather than the spread of national culture, politics or religion.
Systems of government or religion were unable to surpass such distances and so the make-up of society at each Most of the time the countries at both extremes of the land mass simply carried on as if the other didn't exist. So vast was the distance that the extremity-nations were able to take lead in their own sector of the planet without interfering with the affairs of the other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AJMorton
|
|
|
|
The great difference in Eastern and Western culture today suggests that political, religious and militaristic networks always had a tough time traversing the mind-bogglingly enormous and very strange (the interior must always be a bit of a mystery to extremity-nations) middle zones of the known world. Is it any wonder that the greatest and most prevalent modern religions hold the 'centre of the world' to be their holiest land?
The key to the wealth of old India may lay in the fact that she was/is smack in the middle of things trade wise. Even things as intangible as ideas would have an easier time moving to a halfway point (India) than they would if they tried to make it to Surrey.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| So now let's return to Harperium and try to predict exactly where the first nation-states will break out. You should be able to come up with half a dozen specific features |
They will break out on the periphery of the land mass as we've discussed as a result of their geographical position, salient features...
1. They will have a contiguous border with a more powerful neighbour, i.e. they're relatively isolated but not unaware of the land mass and its potential;
2. They will have a sense of their national identity, a purpose (independence from neighbour);
3. They will be exempt from participating militarily in the wars of larger nations;
4. Their influence will increase exponentially as other nation-states arise, a two-way exchange from which both countries benefit commercially and culturally.
Have to think about other features.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| All their rears face out onto 'nothingness'. Nothingness being the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans - two huge and almost untraversable bodies of water. |
OK, now that's a really big factor. There seems to be some psychological factor about being at the end of the line, maybe it concentrates the mind, maybe it promotes homogeneity. But technically, it gives these places an absolutely unique advantage: they don't have to watch their backs. Or if you prefer, they reap truly stupendous dividends from agreeing a firm border in the other direction. This is quite different from just being a coastal enclave or a peninsula or an island.
But also remember nation-states are hyper modern contrivances...which means these 'peripheral places' as Hatty calls them must be firmly plugged in to the mainstream.
| They will break out on the periphery of the land mass as we've discussed as a result of their geographical position, salient features... |
Not discussed by me. Both Japan and Korea were Hermit Kngdoms, Portugal definitely tended to mind its own business. Even Scotland, the most assertive of the first nation-states, did not use Scotland as much more than a base for cattle raiding.
| 1. They will have a contiguous border with a more powerful neighbour, i.e. they're relatively isolated but not unaware of the land mass and its potential; |
Don't start assuming anything about 'powerful neighbours' unless you can stand it up (Japan and Korea?). But allow me to stand it up for you. If you didn't have a powerful neighbour, what would you do once you became a nascent nation-state? Would either England or Japan have been nation-states if France and China had not been strong enough?
| Have to think about other features. |
What about climate....for instance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
These relatively small nation-states that emerge have to emphasize their different-ness because they are in fact noticeably similar to the nation blocking their ingress to the land mass
| There seems to be some psychological factor about being at the end of the line, maybe it concentrates the mind, maybe it promotes homogeneity. But technically, it gives these places an absolutely unique advantage: they don't have to watch their backs. Or if you prefer, they reap truly stupendous dividends from agreeing a firm border in the other direction. This is quite different from just being a coastal enclave or a peninsula or an island. |
But we've already agreed on this point. Or so I thought.
| Portugal definitely tended to mind its own business |
Not really. It was engaged in ousting the Moors, like Spain, but got there earlier - and the reason it was successful in defeating the Moors was due to outside help, European crusaders.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| If you didn't have a powerful neighbour, what would you do once you became a nascent nation-state? |
You would expand, take over the neighbour.
| Would either England or Japan have been nation-states if France and China had not been strong enough? |
Were France and China strong - or just large?
| What about climate....for instance |
Plenty of countries have a maritime climate, not sure it's a common factor though. Japan/Korea have a very different climate from Scotland/England.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AJMorton
|
|
|
|
The Lords of the Sea were certainly nosey. I almost used the term periphery-nation instead of extremity-nation but changed my mind due to other connotations.
The extremity-nations, divided by a shocking amount of land, see little of each other. Those nations sitting (or milling around a bit) at one extremity are able to bicker amongst themselves (on a grand scale of course) without coming into contact with the land or peoples of the other.
Trade routes are all very well, but to actually set foot in the opposite extremity was practically unheard of.* Planting an army at such a distance would be well near impossible. If managed, the communication would be fantastically slow and inefficient for long distance warfare.
The opposite extremity-nations hardly effect each other but the chance of warfare between the two is almost nil. A logistical and tactical nightmare. So even the idea remained unthunk.
A monarch, chief, emperor or other authority figure would soon rule each region. The first to establish power and fixed borders would potentially influence the borders of all or some of the others.
This last part was just a thought I caught as it flew by.
* I have little doubt that there was always wanderings to and fro from the east and west. But none were of such world changing consequence to make a mark in history. Even the claims of rare individuals like Marco Polo have been recently thrown into doubt.
Lawrence too but that's a different matter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| These relatively small nation-states that emerge have to emphasize their different-ness because they are in fact noticeably similar to the nation blocking their ingress to the land mass |
A good point that had escaped me (though it doesn't apply to Japan and Korea). Perhaps Iberia and Britain are too big to be nation-states....mmm...some thought required there.
| Were France and China strong - or just large? |
The point is that both were stronger than England/Japan. But as we've seen, France was obliged to become a nation-state in order to resist England. However China has never become a nation-state (Tibet, 1950 being the most recent large boundary change) and we shall discover the interesting reasons why later.
| Plenty of countries have a maritime climate, not sure it's a common factor though. Japan/Korea have a very different climate from Scotland/England. |
Two points here. The fact that they have highly variable climates points to the fact that climate doesn't matter per se. However since they are all temperate climates we may conclude that (for example) northern Eurasia, which contains quite a few ends-of-the-lines. never grew nation-states for climatic reasons.
| The extremity-nations, divided by a shocking amount of land, see little of each other. Those nations sitting (or milling around a bit) at one extremity are able to bicker amongst themselves (on a grand scale of course) without coming into contact with the land or peoples of the other. |
This seems quite wrong. Portugal our oldest ally and all that. The sea is not at all an insulating factor in itself.
| Trade routes are all very well, but to actually set foot in the opposite extremity was practically unheard of.* Planting an army at such a distance would be well near impossible. If managed, the communication would be fantastically slow and inefficient for long distance warfare. |
This is misconceived. As you will learn later, countries only go to war with their neighbours...however the sea makes for more neighbours than does the land.
| France isn't that big, Hatty!! It's pretty wee. |
France was easily Europe's greatest power, and by some margin, in the period with which we are dealing. England invading her was a shock to everyone. A shock to the system as it were.
| The interior of Harperlantis, which has a wild twisting range of snow camped mountains (the Harper-Himalaya) and wild forests full of monsters, is by the way a freakish and mysterious entity to the periphextremitis nations. In early days it marked the edge of the known world. The far east arrived late on our maps. |
This is so much rhubarb. Scotland is a really crap country by any standards. Nevertheless when the System called, the glens were alive with the sound of nation-state building. Do you really suppose anybody in them days would have given a plugged nickel for the survival prospects of Scotland or Portugal? And yet they have done better than all three Roman Empires.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Your posts are too wordy to be dealt with at any degree of concentration and yet when pressed I find you are even wronger than I thought. I will pick out a few things since you specifically ask me to.
AJ: "The extremity-nations, divided by a shocking amount of land, see little of each other. Those nations sitting (or milling around a bit) at one extremity are able to bicker amongst themselves (on a grand scale of course) without coming into contact with the land or peoples of the other."
Mick: "This seems quite wrong. Portugal our oldest ally and all that. The sea is not at all an insulating factor in itself."
I was talking about all nations at the extremity or near it. |
You're still talking bollocks. Extremity nations go to war with each other just as much as any neighbours (the sea making extremity nations neighbours). I can't tell whether you are making this point or the opposite (a frequent problem I find with your posts). The systems point, which you don't seem to accept, is that extremity nations are just like anybody else save for being guaranteed not to have neighbours in one direction. This and only this makes them Special Cases. Now please let this rest.
AJ: "The extremity-nations, divided by a shocking amount of land, see little of each other. Those nations sitting (or milling around a bit) at one extremity are able to bicker amongst themselves (on a grand scale of course) without coming into contact with the land or peoples of the other."
Mick: "This seems quite wrong. Portugal our oldest ally and all that. The sea is not at all an insulating factor in itself."
I was talking about all nations at the extremity or near it. We go to war, occupy each others countries and generally argue over borders. England v. Scotland. Britain v. Ireland. Northmen v. France. France v. England etc. My point was that not one of these affairs effected the political or religious climate in the far periphextremities in the east. And Vice Versa. |
You never at any point said you were dealing with countries at the opposite extremities -- a point hardly worth making since it was a technical impossiblity for any of them to relate directly with one another. This particular imaginary bee seems to feature largely in your bonnet.
I was talking about the Himalayan Range of mountains which, along with Siberia and the harsh climate of the equatorial regions, prevented the far east Temperate zone periphextremity nations from ever associating with those at the extreme west.
Think about it. The two extremities never really came in contact (not contact that mattered) until much later. |
Well, I thought your point (even you would have to admit that Lewis Carroll would be hard-pressed to follow your prose into logical discourse) was that harsh places didn't give rise to nation-states. But the point you are making (thanks for the prompting) is even dafter. Distance is perfectly acceptable in itself to make your argument but since you mention all these allegedly awful barriers perhaps you will consider the fact that, systemically, the far east and the far west have always been conjoined.
Long, long before nation-states were ever thought of there have been extensive intercourse between neighbours (which you have agreed is all that counts in international relations) and I know of no barrier that has isolated any part of Eurasia from any other part. Himalayan mountains...what rot, you just go round them. But since you mention them I might as well tell you now that Genghis Kahn's incursion into Europe had a very profound effect on the upwelling of nation-states.
| then tell me why in terms that relate to the post. |
Leave the fine writing and the humour to me. You will find that if it is forbidden its traditional indulgences your brain will expand in new directions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| This was all I was trying to say. You may say it is unimportant but you prompted it yourself with asking us to explore climate. |
Your grasp of system principles is woeful. One groups the countries together in order to say meaningful things they have in common (or not) for certain things eg climate. One doesn't group them together when they can't be grouped together, eg war.
| And I notice you failed to admit your error with that Scottish shite you spouted. |
If you tell me what the shite I spouted was I will try but please don't blame me for your own constant opacity.
| I won't post of this thread again I think |
Much the best thing. Your overventillated competitiveness is just not very useful in a quasi-Treasure Hunt where the Huntmaster knows (mostly) where he or she is going.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TelMiles
In: London
|
|
|
|
Mick, I just thought I'd throw this into the mix, feel free to tell me if I am massively wrong.
Wouldn't the Germanic tribes have had to have a powerful state mechanism to continuously withstand the Roman Empire?
If this is so, wouldn't they be termed the first nation state? A nation state they themselves then ruined by expanding outwards in all directions.
I'm probably wrong. But hey.
Actually I think I am wrong, a state mechanism doesn't make a nation state. oh well.
_________________
Against all Gods.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
