|
Ofaloaf posted:Brandenburg-Prussia has the weirdest thing with that half-in-half-out HRE deal. Legally, only three kingly titles were allowed in the HRE- King of the Germans, King of the Romans and King of Bohemia- but the electors of Brandenburg, a subject of the HRE, had inherited the Duchy of Prussia, which lay outside the HRE, back in the early 17th century. Royal titles became something of a fad in the HRE in the late 17th century. The electors of Saxony, Brandenburg and Hanover all managed to become kings of something or other between 1697 and 1714. As far as I know (not very, I'll admit), they're all unrelated, but the timing has always made me think that they weren't really coincidences.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
The date for Switzerland (1815/Austria) is also weird, since the in the congress of Vienna we got some parts which used to belong to Austria, but this doesn't mean that Switzerland itself was part of Austria prior to that. He'll, we also got some stuff from Prussia / Sardegna, but we sure as hell weren't part of them either. We were conquered by France / Napoleon, but afaik we were then never part of France. Officially we split from the HRE in 1648, but de facto we weren't part of that either for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Thus, from 1701 to 1772, Prussian kings were called the "king in Prussia" just to get around HRE laws with a technicality. Another part of the reason for "in" Prussia rather than "of" Prussia was because parts of the region Prussia were still controlled by Poland, and using the title King of Prussia would've been claiming the right to that territory. 1772 was the first partition of Poland, and Prussia actually got the rest of Prussia (except Gdansk/Danzig) so there was no issue with using King of Prussia anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Brandenburg-Prussia has the weirdest thing with that half-in-half-out HRE deal. Legally, only three kingly titles were allowed in the HRE- King of the Germans, King of the Romans and King of Bohemia- but the electors of Brandenburg, a subject of the HRE, had inherited the Duchy of Prussia, which lay outside the HRE, back in the early 17th century. It's even weirder: while it's correct that the prince-electors of Brandenburg could only get that sweet royal title by elevating their territories outside of the empire to a kingdom, they also had to negotiate with Poland about that as the Polish king also had some stake in the Prussian title, I forget what exactly. After some deliberation Prussia and Poland found this compromise, so that the title of a King in Prussia was created which would get Brandenburg finally that coveted status while Poland's claims to Prussia weren't contested. Another fun fact: from early medieval times on, the Emperor and the Pope claimed to be the only ones who could create new royal titles in their capacity as "universal powers". This had been meaningless for at least four centuries by that point, of course, but at least the Emperor never really dropped the claim, as did the Vatican (I don't know when the popes finally let go of their claim. Sometime in the 19th century probably). While the electors of Brandenburg even got imperial consent for the creation of their new title IIRC, the Vatican refused to recognise this new (Protestant) kingdom for at least several decades since Brandenburg hadn't bothered to ask nicely beforehand. e: ^^^ How did I not see that? At least i got to tell another fun fact  ^^^dublish posted:Royal titles became something of a fad in the HRE in the late 17th century. The electors of Saxony, Brandenburg and Hanover all managed to become kings of something or other between 1697 and 1714. As far as I know (not very, I'll admit), they're all unrelated, but the timing has always made me think that they weren't really coincidences. Well, there are certainly similarities beside the timeframe: these were all northern German, Protestant prince-electorates, i.e. the top dogs in the Empire besides the Emperor. The circumstances of each elevation were quite different, however: the electors of Saxony managed to finagle their way into Poland-Lithuania by means of copious amounts of bribe money (and a conversion to Catholicism), as Poland was an elective monarchy. Brandenburg got their royal title by elevating the title of "Duke of Prussia" which a Hohenzollern line had held since 1525 and which had fallen to the Brandenburg Hohenzollerns in 1618. The electors of Hanover finally became King of England basically by a decision of parliament (the 1701 Act of Settlement). Still, these weren't coincidences. As I said, they were all Protestant prince-electorates, and even more: they all claimed to be the pre-eminent Protestant power within the Empire and competed for the leadership of the Protestant camp against the Catholic Emperor. By that time, fifty years after the Thirty Years' War, it had become clear the the Habsburg control over the Imperial Crown was meant to stay and that no Protestant power had the means (or even the political will) to directly attack this Imperial dynasty. The Empire was a fundamentally Catholic construct, and the Habsburgs didn't see the need to change that, which again meant that the possibilities of advancement and gaining influence by traditional, "Imperial" means were limited for ambitious Protestant princes. Additionally, the ruler in France by that time was none other than the "Sun King", Louis XIV, who made all of Europe jealous of his court in Versailles. Throughout the late 17th and most of the 18th century, princes all over Europe tried to emulate the pomp of the French court; a ruler who didn't spend massive amounts of money for maintaining a "proper court" risked being seen as weak or even unworthy of his title. By making themselves kings, those ambitious electors could at least in theory get on even footing with Europe's most prominent ruler at the time. And finally, they also influenced each other: By 1701 it became increasingly clear that the Hanoverians would eventually get the English throne. In the same year, Brandenburg managed to create the Kingdom in Prussia. If Saxony wanted to maintain its claim of being the pre-eminent Protestant power, it had to follow suite, and what better way was there than bribing their way onto the Polish throne? Duke August even converted to Catholicism for that - he believed that by limiting the conversion to his family only while Saxony remaining staunchly Protestant, he could manage the difficult balancing act of being both the leader of Protestant Germany and the King of mostly Catholic Poland at the same time (Spoiler: he didn't, and Saxony lost its role of Protestant leader to Brandenburg-Prussia soon after that). System Metternich fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:
Maybe the best (worst) part of this map is that all Africa seems to have gone the way of Atlantis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
dublish posted:Royal titles became something of a fad in the HRE in the late 17th century. The electors of Saxony, Brandenburg and Hanover all managed to become kings of something or other between 1697 and 1714. As far as I know (not very, I'll admit), they're all unrelated, but the timing has always made me think that they weren't really coincidences. Extend your timeframe to 1720 and you get the Duchy of Savoy becoming the Kingdom of Sardinia, as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:
It would be even better with Brazil in it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Disco Infiva posted:It would be even better with Brazil in it. It's obviously from long after Brazil's independence...
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:It's obviously from long after Brazil's independence... A true patriot would not be bothered by such technicalities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Portugal did less to develop its colonies than any other European colonial power. The hinterlands of Angola and Moçambique were only nominally under Lisbon's control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Portugal did less to develop its colonies than any other European colonial power. The hinterlands of Angola and Moçambique were only nominally under Lisbon's control. At least some of the former Portuguese colonies still use the Portuguese language, which is more than can be said for the former Italian colonies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Mu Cow posted:At least some of the former Portuguese colonies still use the Portuguese language, which is more than can be said for the former Italian colonies. Portuguese presence at the mouth of the Congo, Angola and Guinea stretches to like the 1400s, centuries before any noteworthy colonial actions by the other European powers in West Africa. That's why, say, most Angolan politicians have totally Portuguese names and why Portuguese dominates among the Luanda-based elite.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Mu Cow posted:At least some of the former Portuguese colonies still use the Portuguese language, which is more than can be said for the former Italian colonies. Up until recently, university courses in Somalia were in Italian, although primary education wasn't. Italians left cool architecture and coffee culture in Libya and Eritrea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:
I'm curious as to why they marked Lithuania as being occupied by Nazi Germany before Poland was occupied. Based on the size of Germany the map was likely made in the late 1930s, so whoever was making the map (I'm assuming a European due to the actual subject matter) shouldn't have gotten the Baltic region so screwed up. At least in this pro-Portugal map where they kindly hand pick elements of the medieval greater-German realm for their revanchist Nazi friends, we can at least rest assured that Ireland is a whole island under one government. Last thing we want is a repeat of The Troubles. Lord knows how much of a dick Churchill was about that. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Backweb posted:I'm curious as to why they marked Lithuania as being occupied by Nazi Germany before Poland was occupied. Based on the size of Germany the map was likely made in the late 1930s, so whoever was making the map (I'm assuming a European due to the actual subject matter) shouldn't have gotten the Baltic region so screwed up. Maybe they mislabeled East Prussia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Weembles posted:Maybe they mislabeled East Prussia.  I wanna be irrationally upset about this map.... but yeah you likely nailed it. Kind of strange seeing how a neutral country totally went along with the occupation of Czechoslovakia like "oh, well... Guess we'll just label it as Germany!" Appeasement is one hell of a policy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Portugal was neutral but fascist at the time, I could see them having German sympathies beyond simple appeasement. Does anyone know how the Portugese Estado Novo government felt about Germany, Italy, Franco, Japan?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Backweb posted:I'm curious as to why they marked Lithuania as being occupied by Nazi Germany before Poland was occupied. Based on the size of Germany the map was likely made in the late 1930s, so whoever was making the map (I'm assuming a European due to the actual subject matter) shouldn't have gotten the Baltic region so screwed up. It's an official propaganda map, I don't from when exactly. I found the original Portuguese version (couldn't find a larger version):  and a  reverse map:
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Europe looks weird without Africa to the south. So a few months back, the issue of how to deal with contentious annexations came up again with the question of how Crimea would be represented on world maps. On the subject of Nazi Germany, it's interesting to see how the National Geographic Society dealt with it (source): October 1939: All German annexations are presented without dispute, although Bohemia, Moravia, and Slovakia* at least get their own internal divisions. Austria only gets a regional label, same as Bavaria or Prussia. The invasion and annexation of Poland is literally taking place while this map is being published, but apparently not in time to be acknowledged. *As far as I know, Slovakia wasn't annexed by Germany and remained a puppet state, so it's possible this is just a bad color issue.  May 1940: Poland is split between Germany and the Soviet Union in terms of borders and colors, but the "Poland" label remains over its former territory. Former Polish territories are divided on the map into "Germany" (the part considered to be an integral part of the Reich) and "Government General of Poland" (the part considered to be a separate colonial territory of Germany), acknowledging Germany's administrative divisions of the conquered half of Poland.  June 1943: The US has declared war on Germany, and what do you know, turns out the occupation of Poland isn't legitimate at all! Poland gets its entire territory back on the map, although everything else in Germany remains as it was just before the war, including Bohemia and Moravia's separate internal divisions. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
fermun posted:Portugal was neutral but fascist at the time, I could see them having German sympathies beyond simple appeasement. Does anyone know how the Portugese Estado Novo government felt about Germany, Italy, Franco, Japan? Salazar's undesirables were different from Hitler's and the feeling was "yo 'Dolf, why you gotta be all racist" when it came to dinner-table chats on purges. His was more of a super-catholic traditionalist version of fascism, not the industrial modernized version Hitler had going. Salazar probably saw that industrial thing as a perversion brought forth by labor (  ) influence. Portugal was indeed neutral but not in the way, say, Ireland was. They basically sold materials to both sides.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
I can't quite figure out what's going on with Slovakia here in the 1943 map. Did they also decide the annexation of Slovakia was illegal and made it its own independent state again while leaving the Czech region part of the Reich? All of those colors are horrible.FAUXTON posted:Portugal was indeed neutral but not in the way, say, Ireland was. They basically sold materials to both sides. Goes back to my question about Ireland on that map... did they just completely forget that the island of Ireland is divided between two governments at that point? I'm partially willing to concede that if the map was printed in 1939 (based on the size of Germany), Ireland would have been its own republic for less than a decade, and the oversight could be chalked up as that. But they did such a good job at the borders in central Europe which had changed even more recently, that I'm wondering if there was some pro-Ireland/solidarity-in-neutrality sentiment in Portugal at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Backweb posted:I can't quite figure out what's going on with Slovakia here in the 1943 map. Did they also decide the annexation of Slovakia was illegal and made it its own independent state again while leaving the Czech region part of the Reich? All of those colors are horrible. The Czech portions were officially annexed as the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, a Nazi-administered "autonomous" state within the Greater German Reich. Meanwhile, southern Slovakia was given by Germany to Hungary; compare Slovakia's southern border there to the modern country. Here's Wikipedia's map illustrating the situation: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Backweb posted:I can't quite figure out what's going on with Slovakia here in the 1943 map. Did they also decide the annexation of Slovakia was illegal and made it its own independent state again while leaving the Czech region part of the Reich? All of those colors are horrible. I have a theory that all cartographers were colorblind before 1970 or so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:I have a theory that all cartographers were colorblind before 1970 or so. A lot of the colors on maps and printed materials have probably degraded a lot over time, and color printing is kind of hard to do anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:I don't think Slovakia ever was annexed by Germany (notice it's also a different color in the 1940 map). Based on the font, it looks like Slovakia is supposed to be its own country in 1939, it's just got a very similar color to Germany (the same one, in fact, as Belgium and Italy). Ah, you're right. It had become independent and then declared itself an ally of Germany under threat of partition. I had assumed that since Slovakia was a puppet state, it was as good as being annexed. I thought it was a similar situation to the Baltic states being part of the Reich's Ostland/Baltenland Reichskommissariat. Nazi Germany had some really weird methods of carving up their conquered territories. Farecoal posted:I have a theory that all cartographers were colorblind before 1970 or so. ErIog posted:A lot of the colors on maps and printed materials have probably degraded a lot over time, and color printing is kind of hard to do anyway. You guys have no idea how relieved I am from these two posts. I was seriously worried that my vision had deteriorated significantly. Whoever thought using purple, orange-brown, brown-orange, and three similar shades of yellow for borders was a complete idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
How did Poland end up getting that little Czech strip?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Mu Cow posted:At least some of the former Portuguese colonies still use the Portuguese language, which is more than can be said for the former Italian colonies. It's sad that Portuguese is pretty much gone from Macau. You still see it written all over the damned place but almost no one can speak it. It's kinda like Irish where you study it if you want to go into the civil service, otherwise they just learn English.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
quote:Meanwhile, southern Slovakia was given by Germany to Hungary More like the Hungarians saw a good moment to get some territory back and just took it. Lycus posted:How did Poland end up getting that little Czech strip? Allied to Germany. They just moved in and took it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Lycus posted:How did Poland end up getting that little Czech strip? That's Zaolzie, and Poland basically saw the Munich Agreement and thought "Yeah that sounds p. reasonable this little bit of Czecheslovakia's got a Polish minority let's grab it." There was also a railway center there in, I believe, Bohumin, which the Poles considered strategically very important, but the Germans thought was fairly irrelevant so they were happy enough to let Poland grab it due to the propaganda benefits it would bring. Apparently the Czech general who handed the region over went unheeded when he remarked the Poles would be giving it to the Germans soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Signatories of the ban of cluster bombs (in light of recent bombing attack in Eastern Ukraine)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
Cluster bombs are awesome.       
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Cluster bombs are awesome. I love the way this list has been alphabetized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
EricBauman posted:I love the way this list has been alphabetized. First letter is the only one that counts! I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 11:34
|
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:First letter is the only one that counts! I guess. Unless you're a korea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 11:37
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Unless you're a korea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
It's only like three countries that are in the wrong place, isn't it? Anything under 5% is excellent.reignonyourparade posted:Unless you're a korea. Doctor Spaceman posted:Or the Republic of China.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
Taiwan doesn't come between Turkey and Turkmenistan, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
XMNN posted:Taiwan doesn't come between Turkey and Turkmenistan, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It's only like three countries that are in the wrong place, isn't it? Anything under 5% is excellent. Slovenia should directly follow Slovakia. And Taiwan shouldn't be between Turkey and Turkmenistan, even if it's not the ROC. Beaten. Well, if they only use first letters, they're not even really trying. Doesn't wikipedia have some standard table to sort these by name by default?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
EricBauman posted:Slovenia should directly follow Slovakia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 13:34
|
|