But the Islamic Federation was under Saudi hegemony, not Turkish, so names
should be Arabic, not Turkish. Okay, maybe a few Turks in there, but mostly
not.
A few turks? Maybe not in the ruling class - but it kinda depends on
who ended up being incorporated into the IF. Arabs, per se, are a minority
among Islamic folk - there's way more Iranians, Turks and Egyptians than
Saudis, Jordanians, Iraqis, Palastinians and Syrians (and of the last 4 only a
certain percentage are actual "arabs"). Compared to the older states of
Turkey, Egypt, Iran, the Arab states are alot less densely populated. That's
one reason why early 80's revolutionary Iran was seen as such a menace and led
to things like US support for Saddam Hussein. Iran outnumbered all its arab
neighbors combined (45 mil to 15 mil in the case of
Iran/Iraq). The modern IF may be sort of like Egypt through most of the
middle ages, the ruling class may be Arabs, but the commonfolk are anything
but homogenous.
-M
> But the Islamic Federation was under Saudi hegemony, not
I didn't say "a few Turkish people", I said "names"...which would be picked
out by the rulers....who are Saudi.
The Indonesions have a Muslim majority in their 200 million (at the moment)
too.
Buck
Excerpts from mail: 14-Oct-99 Re: The GZG Digest V1 #507 by "Geoffery
R"@hotmail.com
> The Indonesions have a Muslim majority in their 200 million (at the
Sure; but then again, in the future history, they've absorbed a LOT of
non-Muslim territory. Maybe they've converted people, maybe not. Jon?
What are your intentions (if any) for the religious makeup of the Indonesians?
The other nations' religions should be pretty straightforward extrapolations
of current and past trends. I assume the ESU are "officially" atheist? And the
Romanovs are a mix of Orthodox (Ukraine, etc.) and Muslim (central Asia)? NAC
mixed (mostly Protestant), FSE
mostly Catholic, NSL mixed, LLAR Catholic, OAU ? (sorry - I don't know
anything about the religious distribution in that area), PAU? (Christian and
native?)
> The other nations' religions should be pretty straightforward
I don't see the RH spreading into central Asia, rather I see that region as
being disputed by the IF and the ESU.
> NAC mixed (mostly Protestant),
Mostly? As the NAC has taken over the whole of Central and South America I
wouldn't be surprised if Catholics outnumber Protestants in the NAC.
Officially there might be some successor to the Church of England or there may
be no official religeon.
Excerpts from mail: 15-Oct-99 Re: The GZG Digest V1 #507 by "Steve
Pugh"@wickedweb.c
> > The other nations' religions should be pretty straightforward
I thought the RH was composed of the ex-members of the Commonwealth Of
Independant States that had escaped being conquered by the ESU? And certainly
there are some former Soviet states that are largely Muslim. The question is,
which ones got absorbed by whom?
> > NAC mixed (mostly Protestant),
D'ohh! Forgot about the takeover of Latin America.
I would guess that there is no official religion in North America. I don't
know about our neighbors the Canucks, but I very strongly doubt we 'Murricans
would deal well with an official religion. Not because there aren't groups
that want their religion to be the official one, but because there are too
many groups for them to agree on a set of tenets.
What other social forces are there that might color the interaction of
different states? Race/racial tension? Internal nationalistic
tensions? Political structure (how communist is the ESU, really?) Old ethnic
rivalries (French vs. German, for example)?
> And the Romanovs are a mix of Orthodox (Ukraine, etc.) and
The
> question is, which ones got absorbed by whom?
> From the timeline:
"A Beijing sponsored coup in Moscow results in the return of Communist
government to Russia and several of the Commonwealth Republics. The Tsar and a
sizeable military force flee to the Ukraine, who along with Byelorussia and
the Baltic States remain free of the Communist shackle. The Communist states
then create the Eurasian Union. The remaining Commonwealth States create the
Romanov Hegemony, realising that divided they will be picked off by the
Eurasian Union in time"
Which can be taken as implying that the RH only consists of Ukraine, Belarus
and the baltic states. Maybe bits of southern Russia and Georgia and
neighbouring states (some of whom are Muslim), but I'd be surprised if the RH
spreads as far east as the big Muslim states in
central Asia (all those something-stans).
> > NAC mixed (mostly Protestant),
> the NAC. Officially there might be some successor to the Church of
Just FYI, officially Canada doesn't have a state religion, but over 50% of the
population is identified as Roman Catholic.
> I would guess that there is no official religion in North America. I
> [quoted text omitted]
I agree. The Canadians wouldn't buy into the idea of an official state
religion, at all. But the British do - so who knows. Don't a bunch of
the senior members of the Church of England have seats in the House of Lords
by virtue of their Church office? When the NAC is formed, with the Monarchy as
the official head of state, maybe there would be some kind of cerimonial
place for the Church of England in the system - but certainly there'd be
no real power held by the Church. The Americans, Canadians and South Americans
(later) wouldn't like that very much...
> On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Adrian Johnson wrote:
> >I would guess that there is no official religion in North America. I
weeell, sort of. most people in this country aren't religious, and the church
of england has no real power, so most people just ignore the fact that it's
'established' (ie part of the establishment, roughly equal to the state in
this case) and the RC church, islam, hinduism, etc are not. there is a
disestablishment movement, and, of course, an antidisestablishment movement.
antidisestablishmentarianism is, i believe, the longest word in the english
language, and thus almost certainly a bad
idea :).
> Don't a bunch of the
bishops and archbishops. there are 26 of them, it seems, out of 1289 peers in
total. they do attend the house, but much less than the active political
peers. none of them sit on committees. i got all of this from the house of
lords website:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldinfo/ldmeminf.htm
anyway, given that the CoE today has more to do with social work than it does
with god, i don't particularly object. it's only when some bishop gets morally
indignant about the depravity of modern life etc that i feel like taking a
cudgel to the lot of them:).
> When the NAC is formed, with the Monarchy
it might be that the CoE remains established in engand, but does not become
established elsewhere. i think this is fairly plausible due to the way the uk
constitution works.
tom a
> At 11:55 AM +0100 10/16/99, Tom Anderson wrote:
And don't forget to update the composition of the House of Lords as well. I
note this name
PATEL, Sir Narendra (Babubhai) The Lord Patel 31.12.98
which would not have been considered not too long ago. EMpire's sure do
change, don't they?
G'day guys,
> Don't a bunch of the
That's assuming the House of Lords survives. Don't know whether its our own
media gone mad with Republic fever, but the recent reports of the Lords having
to justify its existence in 75 words or less make it sound like they're on
shakey ground!
Cheers
Beth
> Don't a bunch of the
I had always assumed the NAC to be governed like the current UK (ie. monarchy
with parliament). And the monarch is the head of the Church of England and
defender of the faith (even if they're Catholic...). Now maybe the monarchy is
long gone by the year FT takes place, maybe not.
> On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Tom McCarthy wrote:
> >Don't a bunch of the
It's still around in FT. The timeline contains a number of references to the
NAC monarchy.
One thing never mentioned is the name of said monarch, or which family is now
the Royal Family. Is it still the House of Windsor, and who's reigning
monarch?