Look to the West (Thande's first proper timeline, and it's about time!)
- Thread starter Thande
- Start date
- Status
Thande
Donor
Stars and Stripes, of course, although apparently that's just a coincidence...
Old French. The motto on the Order of the Garter, also one of the mottoes of the English monarchy (the other being Dieu Et Mon Droit). Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense means 'Woe Upon Him That Thinks Ill of It' and refers to the incident at which the Order of the Garter was founded - Edward III was in France drunkenly celebrating after a battle, tied a lady's garter around his leg and declared these words, effectively 'I'm the king, so no-one can laugh'
And it became the motto of one of the most ancient orders of chivalry in the world... In this case of course Frederick means 'Who can stand against me?'
It's still on the Royal coat of arms today - the words are on the Garter itself, encircling the coat of arms:
Fairfax is an OTL character, the only British Lord who actually chose to live in America in the 1740s. He wasn't American born.
Thande
Donor
There are hints and clues all over this if you look.
Interlude #1: The Age of Supremacy
INSTITUTE MISSION TAPE TRANSCRIPT 07/06/20: CLASSIFIED LEVEL THANDE MOST SECRET
Capt. Christopher Nuttall: Director, you may take issue with the means that this report has been constructed. I have been assured by Dr Pylos and Dr Lombardi that any other approach would be overly confusing. For clarification, I present their recommendations.
Dr Bruno Lombardi: Hello? Yes? Is this thing on? Thank you, Captain. Yes, indeed, it has been our understanding that-
Dr Thermos Pylos: -that the political and cultural landscape of the present day of TimeLine L is too alien, too different from our own world for a ready understanding, and that-
Dr Bruno Lombardi: -that incorrect snap judgements may be made if the mind is not prepared by tracing the changes in this world from their very beginning, and-
Capt. Christopher Nuttall: Gentlemen, could we get to the point?
Dr Bruno Lombardi: Of course.
Dr Thermos Pylos: Mm.
Dr Bruno Lombardi (after a pause) : Director, you may have been confused by the use of local terminology in a few cases.
Dr Thermos Pylos: To that end, we present this short excerpt from a book that I, personally, risked life and limb to get my hands on, for such works are restricted in the vicinity of-
Dr Bruno Lombardi: Yes, yes. The point is that the book is written from a different perspective to the British Whig histories we have previously drawn upon and thus may present a more balanced perspective.
Dr Thermos Pylos: I wouldn't say that - more imbalanced in a different direction...
Capt. Christopher Nuttall: Gentlemen?
Dr Bruno Lombardi (muttering) : Roll the tape.
~~
History is written by the victors.
- George Spencer-Churchill V, On Empire (1947, Oxford University Press)
~~
From "Historiography: Overcoming a Barrier to Societal Unity" by Paolo Rodriguez (1962, Instituto Sanchez; English translation)
Wars of Supremacy. A concept developed by the English/West Indian Whig historian Thomas Maccauley as an underlying theme for the eighteenth century. Maccauley sought to place the largely meaningless clashes of that time into an ideological context, and emphasises the idea that the eighteenth century was effectively one long war with short breaks for regrouping. He did not class every eighteenth-century conflict as a War of Supremacy, however. Most notably, although Maccauley dates the start of his Age of Supremacy to 1688 with the flight of the Stuart dynasty from England, he does not consider the War of the Grand Alliance, of which that flight was a part, to be a War of Supremacy. Some successors in the same tradition, notably George Spencer-Churchill, have retroactively dubbed that conflict the 'Zeroth War of Supremacy'.
Maccauley and his successors defined a War of Supremacy as a global conflict, in which significant fighting occurred in at least three widely separated theatres. These are usually considered to be "Europe, the Americas, and India", although the latter is more negotiable. Supposedly the War of the Grand Alliance did not count, as while it had European and North American theatres, there was no conflict in India or another third area.
The term is often misunderstood. The "Supremacy" does not refer to military but cultural domination. It was a central thesis of Maccauley's that purely European conflicts usually had no long-standing impact, although his own narrow cultural background prevented him from following this through to its logical conclusion that the only solution was a correct Societal Unity.[1] Maccauley argued that only wider, colonial, Wars of Supremacy had long-term consequences. Many colonies trading around the world, their inhabitants speaking the language of their mother country and following their practices, would result in a very slow but sure cultural domination of the world by that country - in Maccauley's conception, which was contrary to the principles of Sanchez.
Similarly, the term 'Age of Supremacy' is misleading, as it refers to not a period in which one culture dominates the world, but a period in which the various cultures are contesting that domination. Age of War would be a more appropriate term.
Engaging in Wars of Supremacy might not bring gains in the short term, but looked at from the perspective of a historian, the victors in such wars would define not just what the future would look like, but how the inhabitants of that future would look back on their own history. Spencer-Churchill characterised this by the phrase "He who controls the present, controls the past."
From Maccauley's point of view, the victors of the Wars of Supremacy were England and to a lesser extent Spain, while the losers were France and Austria. Of course, any short-term impact of such wars will be negated in the long-run by the procedures of Unity.
Maccauley's definitions of the Wars of Supremacy and accompanying conflicts follow, with annotations for changes made by his successors.
1688-1697: The War of the Grand Alliance.
England, United Provinces of the Netherlands[2], the German Empire[3], Spain, Sweden and the Duchy of Savoy versus the First Kingdom of France and allied Scottish and Irish Jacobites. Indecisive result. Failed attempt by English colonists in North America to take French Quebec. Not considered to be a War of Supremacy by Maccauley but dubbed the 'Zeroth' by Spencer-Churchill.
1701-1714: The War of the Spanish Succession: The First War of Supremacy.
(Incorporating the Great Northern War between Sweden and the Ottoman Empire versus Russia, Saxony, Denmark-Norway and the Commonwealth, plus other German allies. )
Portugal, England/Great Britain, the German Empire, the United Provinces of the Netherlands and Spanish and Catalan Austriacistes versus Spain, the First Kingdom of France, and Wittelsbach Bavaria. Indecisive result in Europe, but Britain was ceded several parts of French Canada. It is this that appears to cause Mccauley to consider this a War of Supremacy, as there was no significant Indian theatre.
1733-1738: The War of the Polish Succession. Not a War of Supremacy, although it might well have been if George II's Britain had entered.
1740-1748: The War of the Austrian Succession: The Second War of Supremacy
Kingdom of Great Britain and Kingdom of Ireland, German Empire or Austria, United Provinces of the Netherlands, Saxony, Sardinia and Russia versus First Kingdom of France, Spain, Prussia, Wittelsbach Bavaria and the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily.
This is indisputably a War of Supremacy as it incorporated both a North American theatre (Britain occupied, among other places, Fort Louisbourg) and an Indian one (French East India Company took Fort St George). According to Mccauley's notions, this resulted in a supremacist cultural victory of Britain in part of North America, and France in the Carnatic region of India. However, as with most other Wars of Supremacy, the European result was indecisive.
1748-51: The War of the British Succession. Not a War of Supremacy.
Britons were divided between the claims of claimant Kings William IV, Frederick IV and James III. No other powers officially entered the conflict, although there was some unofficial French support of the Jacobites.
1755-1759: The War of the Diplomatic Revolution: The Third War of Supremacy.
Great Britain, Ireland, the Empire of North America, Hanover, Prussia and minor German states versus the First Kingdom of France, Austria, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Saxony, Sardinia, Naples and Sicily.
Note that these are the dates used by Mccauley, and in Europe the war is usually considered to end in 1761.
Result: Decisive British cultural supremacist victory in North America, indecisive result in India, dismemberment of Prussia and Poland in Europe.
1760-63: The War of the Eastern Bank Not a War of Supremacy, but set the stage for one.
Spain fought Portugal and Britain. Result: Spanish victory in South America but defeat in Europe.
1778-1785: The War of Freedom: The Fourth War of Supremacy: Britain, Portugal and the UPSA fought Spain and France. UPSA victory in South America. Indecisive results in Europe. British victory in India.
1790-96 and 1801-07: The Fifth and Sixth Wars of Supremacy. Maccauley did not consider the Jacobin Wars to be Wars of Supremacy; these have been added by later historians due to the revisionism of the period by the British government in order to justify the return of hostilities, and which merely typifies their futile struggle to delay the inevitable march of Unity with the false promises of nationalism.
~~
Dr Bruno Lombardi: Now that the stage has been set, we can move on. We have established how things begun to change in TimeLine L.
Dr Thermos Pulos: The start was in North America, and in Britain. The ends...the ends would affect everything and everyone.
[1]You can't spot the ideology of the writer at all, can you?
[2] There is a historiographical reason why a twentieth century Societalista writer does not refer to the seventeenth century version as the Dutch Republic.
[3] i.e. the Holy Roman Empire.
~~
Comments?
Thande
Interlude #1: The Age of Supremacy
INSTITUTE MISSION TAPE TRANSCRIPT 07/06/20: CLASSIFIED LEVEL THANDE MOST SECRET
Capt. Christopher Nuttall: Director, you may take issue with the means that this report has been constructed. I have been assured by Dr Pylos and Dr Lombardi that any other approach would be overly confusing. For clarification, I present their recommendations.
Dr Bruno Lombardi: Hello? Yes? Is this thing on? Thank you, Captain. Yes, indeed, it has been our understanding that-
Dr Thermos Pylos: -that the political and cultural landscape of the present day of TimeLine L is too alien, too different from our own world for a ready understanding, and that-
Dr Bruno Lombardi: -that incorrect snap judgements may be made if the mind is not prepared by tracing the changes in this world from their very beginning, and-
Capt. Christopher Nuttall: Gentlemen, could we get to the point?
Dr Bruno Lombardi: Of course.
Dr Thermos Pylos: Mm.
Dr Bruno Lombardi (after a pause) : Director, you may have been confused by the use of local terminology in a few cases.
Dr Thermos Pylos: To that end, we present this short excerpt from a book that I, personally, risked life and limb to get my hands on, for such works are restricted in the vicinity of-
Dr Bruno Lombardi: Yes, yes. The point is that the book is written from a different perspective to the British Whig histories we have previously drawn upon and thus may present a more balanced perspective.
Dr Thermos Pylos: I wouldn't say that - more imbalanced in a different direction...
Capt. Christopher Nuttall: Gentlemen?
Dr Bruno Lombardi (muttering) : Roll the tape.
~~
History is written by the victors.
- George Spencer-Churchill V, On Empire (1947, Oxford University Press)
~~
From "Historiography: Overcoming a Barrier to Societal Unity" by Paolo Rodriguez (1962, Instituto Sanchez; English translation)
Wars of Supremacy. A concept developed by the English/West Indian Whig historian Thomas Maccauley as an underlying theme for the eighteenth century. Maccauley sought to place the largely meaningless clashes of that time into an ideological context, and emphasises the idea that the eighteenth century was effectively one long war with short breaks for regrouping. He did not class every eighteenth-century conflict as a War of Supremacy, however. Most notably, although Maccauley dates the start of his Age of Supremacy to 1688 with the flight of the Stuart dynasty from England, he does not consider the War of the Grand Alliance, of which that flight was a part, to be a War of Supremacy. Some successors in the same tradition, notably George Spencer-Churchill, have retroactively dubbed that conflict the 'Zeroth War of Supremacy'.
Maccauley and his successors defined a War of Supremacy as a global conflict, in which significant fighting occurred in at least three widely separated theatres. These are usually considered to be "Europe, the Americas, and India", although the latter is more negotiable. Supposedly the War of the Grand Alliance did not count, as while it had European and North American theatres, there was no conflict in India or another third area.
The term is often misunderstood. The "Supremacy" does not refer to military but cultural domination. It was a central thesis of Maccauley's that purely European conflicts usually had no long-standing impact, although his own narrow cultural background prevented him from following this through to its logical conclusion that the only solution was a correct Societal Unity.[1] Maccauley argued that only wider, colonial, Wars of Supremacy had long-term consequences. Many colonies trading around the world, their inhabitants speaking the language of their mother country and following their practices, would result in a very slow but sure cultural domination of the world by that country - in Maccauley's conception, which was contrary to the principles of Sanchez.
Similarly, the term 'Age of Supremacy' is misleading, as it refers to not a period in which one culture dominates the world, but a period in which the various cultures are contesting that domination. Age of War would be a more appropriate term.
Engaging in Wars of Supremacy might not bring gains in the short term, but looked at from the perspective of a historian, the victors in such wars would define not just what the future would look like, but how the inhabitants of that future would look back on their own history. Spencer-Churchill characterised this by the phrase "He who controls the present, controls the past."
From Maccauley's point of view, the victors of the Wars of Supremacy were England and to a lesser extent Spain, while the losers were France and Austria. Of course, any short-term impact of such wars will be negated in the long-run by the procedures of Unity.
Maccauley's definitions of the Wars of Supremacy and accompanying conflicts follow, with annotations for changes made by his successors.
1688-1697: The War of the Grand Alliance.
England, United Provinces of the Netherlands[2], the German Empire[3], Spain, Sweden and the Duchy of Savoy versus the First Kingdom of France and allied Scottish and Irish Jacobites. Indecisive result. Failed attempt by English colonists in North America to take French Quebec. Not considered to be a War of Supremacy by Maccauley but dubbed the 'Zeroth' by Spencer-Churchill.
1701-1714: The War of the Spanish Succession: The First War of Supremacy.
(Incorporating the Great Northern War between Sweden and the Ottoman Empire versus Russia, Saxony, Denmark-Norway and the Commonwealth, plus other German allies. )
Portugal, England/Great Britain, the German Empire, the United Provinces of the Netherlands and Spanish and Catalan Austriacistes versus Spain, the First Kingdom of France, and Wittelsbach Bavaria. Indecisive result in Europe, but Britain was ceded several parts of French Canada. It is this that appears to cause Mccauley to consider this a War of Supremacy, as there was no significant Indian theatre.
1733-1738: The War of the Polish Succession. Not a War of Supremacy, although it might well have been if George II's Britain had entered.
1740-1748: The War of the Austrian Succession: The Second War of Supremacy
Kingdom of Great Britain and Kingdom of Ireland, German Empire or Austria, United Provinces of the Netherlands, Saxony, Sardinia and Russia versus First Kingdom of France, Spain, Prussia, Wittelsbach Bavaria and the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily.
This is indisputably a War of Supremacy as it incorporated both a North American theatre (Britain occupied, among other places, Fort Louisbourg) and an Indian one (French East India Company took Fort St George). According to Mccauley's notions, this resulted in a supremacist cultural victory of Britain in part of North America, and France in the Carnatic region of India. However, as with most other Wars of Supremacy, the European result was indecisive.
1748-51: The War of the British Succession. Not a War of Supremacy.
Britons were divided between the claims of claimant Kings William IV, Frederick IV and James III. No other powers officially entered the conflict, although there was some unofficial French support of the Jacobites.
1755-1759: The War of the Diplomatic Revolution: The Third War of Supremacy.
Great Britain, Ireland, the Empire of North America, Hanover, Prussia and minor German states versus the First Kingdom of France, Austria, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Saxony, Sardinia, Naples and Sicily.
Note that these are the dates used by Mccauley, and in Europe the war is usually considered to end in 1761.
Result: Decisive British cultural supremacist victory in North America, indecisive result in India, dismemberment of Prussia and Poland in Europe.
1760-63: The War of the Eastern Bank Not a War of Supremacy, but set the stage for one.
Spain fought Portugal and Britain. Result: Spanish victory in South America but defeat in Europe.
1778-1785: The War of Freedom: The Fourth War of Supremacy: Britain, Portugal and the UPSA fought Spain and France. UPSA victory in South America. Indecisive results in Europe. British victory in India.
1790-96 and 1801-07: The Fifth and Sixth Wars of Supremacy. Maccauley did not consider the Jacobin Wars to be Wars of Supremacy; these have been added by later historians due to the revisionism of the period by the British government in order to justify the return of hostilities, and which merely typifies their futile struggle to delay the inevitable march of Unity with the false promises of nationalism.
~~
Dr Bruno Lombardi: Now that the stage has been set, we can move on. We have established how things begun to change in TimeLine L.
Dr Thermos Pulos: The start was in North America, and in Britain. The ends...the ends would affect everything and everyone.
[1]You can't spot the ideology of the writer at all, can you?
[2] There is a historiographical reason why a twentieth century Societalista writer does not refer to the seventeenth century version as the Dutch Republic.
[3] i.e. the Holy Roman Empire.
~~
Comments?
Thande
A peek into the future? Verrrry interesting. It seems as though the next few decades will be fraught with war...
One question: UPSA? I'll take a shot in the dark and say United Provinces of South America?
Oh, and exactly what IS the ideology? It seems to be some sort of Anti-Nationalism...
Thande
Donor
Not really more so than OTL, though. Mccauley is an OTL Whig historian (though in this universe he won't be genetically the same person) and he could have invented this Wars of Supremacy idea in OTL as well.Thermo said:
How does Jared fend off difficult questions again? "What makes you say that?" or "Maybe, but Germany's economy is struggling, as noted in Post #234623..."Themopylae said:
Pablo Sanchez's Societal Unity, aka "Societalism", is simply this universe's Obligatory Scary IdeologyThermo said:
I was somewhat inspired by Ian's Unionism, but it incorporates parts from almost every ideology I don't like.
Details will come in time...Ooh! Dystopian British Empire?
Oh, and alternatively:
United States
Postal
Service
Army
Oh, and alternatively:
United States
Postal
Service
Army
A peek into the future? Verrrry interesting. It seems as though the next few decades will be fraught with war...
One question: UPSA? I'll take a shot in the dark and say United Provinces of South America?
Oh, and exactly what IS the ideology? It seems to be some sort of Anti-Nationalism...
My Colonial History Professor calls the Wars that took place from 1688-1763 The Great Wars for Empire and he looks at them as pretty much the same way. What happened in Europe wasn't nearly as consequential as the spread of British power, culture and language to every corner of the Globe.
Thande
Donor
Don't recall there being a Roman Empire one in Thermo's scenarios. That WOULD be more alien and outlandish. So would Otherworld War, I suppose. But the point is that the present of this world is just similar enough to OTL that the differences are all the more disturbing.
Yep, it's actually the American view of the eighteenth century wars that somewhat inspired me here. Just another round of pointless conflicts from Europe's POV, but amazingly influential in North America and India.
Thande
Donor
Who said it came from the Empire?
Now that would be a dystopia!Thermo said:United States
Postal
Service
Army
Prego?
True. Does it perchance have anything to do with that "USPA" thing?
(Given the name Sanchez, I'm really starting to thing Societalism is an Anti-Nationalistic ideology emerging from the former Spanish colonies, or at least the New World therabouts...)
Thande
Donor
Sorry, I meant to write 'Chris', not 'Thermo'Prego?
That's part of it, but there's more. I'm not giving any more details just now.Thermo said:
Ooh! Dystopian British Empire?
Oh, and alternatively:
United States
Postal
Service
Army
Just what the world needs armed posties on their rounds.
It's bad enough in Australia with them riding their motorbikes on the footpaths but add guns to the equations and there's bound to be trouble.
IIRC it was just mentioned as a timeline discovered in passing. I think the tech level as early steam engines.
- Status