Zagan
Donor
Yes, Question (5) includes all territory and population controlled from Michaelia Iulia / Constantinople in one form or another.
Besides, otherwise it would be rather pointless to guess something like rank #23.
"Io Mihailŭ, Împĕratul Românilor" - A Michael the Brave Romania Wank
- Thread starter Zagan
- Start date
Besides, otherwise it would be rather pointless to guess something like rank #23.
I'm thinking 3rd rank. I think Spain and Germany will be higher up though, Spain for its existing empire and associated power, though I suppose they might decline because of efficiency and so on, and Germany because they're a massive and densely populated, with a existing middle class.
Zagan
Donor
Well, if you try to answer all the questions, I will file your entry just as I did with fluttersky's.
A map is not necessary.
Eh, I'll try my hand at this too. It'll be disrespectful not to.
Ignore (please!) the low quality of the map. It's more for orientation than a factual map. (As you can probably see, map-making is not one of my talents). It's a modified version of one of TTL maps, and most of the modifications are of the Romanian borders and some of the borders of the neighboring countries (those borders that interest Romania). Simply assume that that the other ones evolved organically in concordance with the geostrategical situation. Also, ITTL the nations are much more ruthless than IOTL and acted as appropriate.
Gold for Romania Proper - lands inhabited by a majority of recognized ethnic Romanians or Romanianized populations (basically the Romanian cultural group).
Pink for the Territories
Rose for colonies (Somalia and Madagascar)
Also, Greece is a "Protectorate". Notice the "".
That pretty much answers 1 & 2, but it needs a more detailed explanation. So, to take it piece by piece:
Turkey - I think it's a matter of time until another war starts, probably instigated by Greece (because that's what they are like ITTL). Turkey is soundly defeated, and the aftermath is brutal. The Turkish state is partitioned between Romania and Greece, it's population forcefully assimilated, displaced inside Romania or deported towards Syria and Persia.
Greece - The best way to describe their relation to Romania would be OTL GB and N. Ireland. The Greeks overreached themselves sometimes after the last war against the Turks and tried to push for a bigger piece of Anatolia (Constantinopole included) at a time when Romania was recovering from a different war - more aggressive policies and terrorism than true military actions, but eventually Romania is enraged enough to send the military. As a result the whole of Anatolia will pass into Romanian possession, a large part of the Greek population deported to Greece, and Crete occupied and under Romanian Military command.
Syria, Egypt and Arabia- the OTL Poland treatment. Due to multiple attacks against Romanian held territories in the Middle East (real or fabricated) and a very real grudge and dislike for Muslims in general, Romania simply invaded and occupied those states and ravaged the population with forced assimilations, deportations and sometimes even ethnic clensing. Egypt in particular was triple teamed by Romania, who took most of IOTL Egypt, Italy (minimal involvement) who took the Western part and Ethiopia who recieved the southern, south of Lake Nasser and East all the way to the Red Sea (modern day Eritrea).
The Ethiopians were basically Romania's cronies and acted for them as hangmen and butchers (having their own scores to settle with Egypt and even less restraint than the Europeans). The Ethiopians were seen as a prototypical noble savage - an island of Christianity into a Muslim/Pagan sea, with customs reminiscent of feudal Europe, a sort of African little brother, friendly and eager to please, even if a bit barbarous and savage.
Generally Romania had little reason to expand further into Africa, letting Ethiopia to guard their Far South flank, with two exceptions:
Somalia, and its diamonds. Somalia (and the Somalian people) aren't of interest to Romania, except as a workforce to mine diamonds, and some secondary ports at the Pacific Ocean. So it's simply a colony to be exploited, as hard or as light as the Romanian Crown pleases.
Madagascar was acquired later end was used exclusively as Penal Colony, many of Romania's undesirables ending down there. Let's just say its most common religion is Islam.
Persia saw the writing on the wall (also, before acquiring Madagascar, Romania deported there many of its Muslims) and prepared for war. Which of course happened, was long, bloody, bitter and full of what we now call crimes against humanity (mostly done by the Romanian side). What Persia was not prepared for was to be attacked in the middle of the war from the North by Russia, who saw this as an opportunity to expand at little cost. Still Persia heroically (the Europeans say fanatically) fought for every palm of land, and eventually the exhausted nations finally negotiated a peace settlement. Russia had more irons in the fire and didn't want to overreach itself on something that already costed more than expected, Romania wanted to limit Russian gains and didn't want a direct border with an aggressive neighbor, and Persians wanted not to be destroyed as a nation. So the Russians gained most of modern day Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, Romania gained OTL Iraq and half of Iran, due to sleight of hand the Britons acquired Pamir, Armenia received Persian lands east of it's territory to the Caspian Sea (to serve as a buffer state for Romania) and Persia... wasn't completely destroyed like its coreligionists, yay?
Anyway, Armenia, while not de jure or de facto part of Romania in any way serves as a proxy and a buffer for it on the Russian border (the same as the Georgians do for the Russians).
The fertile, vast and now sparsely populated lands of Anatolia and the lands gained from Syria and Persia are under an concentrated effort of colonization by Romanians and Romanianized people arranged and encouraged by Michelia Iulia.
3 - I would estimate around 250.000.000 at the end of the 2nd millennium.
4 - Around 75.000.000 more (8.000.000 Greeks not included) - while not going full genocidal, Romania was quite harsh on its minorities, and occupied populations, with all its minorities in Europe (Hungarians in particular) either culturally assimilated or deported to Madagascar.
5a 5th, under Spain, Britannia, Germany and Russia (Scandinavia couldn't hold on on many of it's territories) - [not in this order]
5b 3rd, under Germany, Britannia and Spain
5c 3rd-4th, under Britannia, and Spain, about equal with Germany
5d 4th-5th, under Britannia, Spain and Germany, a little under Russia, but with better alliances and international relations.
Ignore (please!) the low quality of the map. It's more for orientation than a factual map. (As you can probably see, map-making is not one of my talents). It's a modified version of one of TTL maps, and most of the modifications are of the Romanian borders and some of the borders of the neighboring countries (those borders that interest Romania). Simply assume that that the other ones evolved organically in concordance with the geostrategical situation. Also, ITTL the nations are much more ruthless than IOTL and acted as appropriate.
Gold for Romania Proper - lands inhabited by a majority of recognized ethnic Romanians or Romanianized populations (basically the Romanian cultural group).
Pink for the Territories
Rose for colonies (Somalia and Madagascar)
Also, Greece is a "Protectorate". Notice the "".
That pretty much answers 1 & 2, but it needs a more detailed explanation. So, to take it piece by piece:
Turkey - I think it's a matter of time until another war starts, probably instigated by Greece (because that's what they are like ITTL). Turkey is soundly defeated, and the aftermath is brutal. The Turkish state is partitioned between Romania and Greece, it's population forcefully assimilated, displaced inside Romania or deported towards Syria and Persia.
Greece - The best way to describe their relation to Romania would be OTL GB and N. Ireland. The Greeks overreached themselves sometimes after the last war against the Turks and tried to push for a bigger piece of Anatolia (Constantinopole included) at a time when Romania was recovering from a different war - more aggressive policies and terrorism than true military actions, but eventually Romania is enraged enough to send the military. As a result the whole of Anatolia will pass into Romanian possession, a large part of the Greek population deported to Greece, and Crete occupied and under Romanian Military command.
Syria, Egypt and Arabia- the OTL Poland treatment. Due to multiple attacks against Romanian held territories in the Middle East (real or fabricated) and a very real grudge and dislike for Muslims in general, Romania simply invaded and occupied those states and ravaged the population with forced assimilations, deportations and sometimes even ethnic clensing. Egypt in particular was triple teamed by Romania, who took most of IOTL Egypt, Italy (minimal involvement) who took the Western part and Ethiopia who recieved the southern, south of Lake Nasser and East all the way to the Red Sea (modern day Eritrea).
The Ethiopians were basically Romania's cronies and acted for them as hangmen and butchers (having their own scores to settle with Egypt and even less restraint than the Europeans). The Ethiopians were seen as a prototypical noble savage - an island of Christianity into a Muslim/Pagan sea, with customs reminiscent of feudal Europe, a sort of African little brother, friendly and eager to please, even if a bit barbarous and savage.
Generally Romania had little reason to expand further into Africa, letting Ethiopia to guard their Far South flank, with two exceptions:
Somalia, and its diamonds. Somalia (and the Somalian people) aren't of interest to Romania, except as a workforce to mine diamonds, and some secondary ports at the Pacific Ocean. So it's simply a colony to be exploited, as hard or as light as the Romanian Crown pleases.
Madagascar was acquired later end was used exclusively as Penal Colony, many of Romania's undesirables ending down there. Let's just say its most common religion is Islam.
Persia saw the writing on the wall (also, before acquiring Madagascar, Romania deported there many of its Muslims) and prepared for war. Which of course happened, was long, bloody, bitter and full of what we now call crimes against humanity (mostly done by the Romanian side). What Persia was not prepared for was to be attacked in the middle of the war from the North by Russia, who saw this as an opportunity to expand at little cost. Still Persia heroically (the Europeans say fanatically) fought for every palm of land, and eventually the exhausted nations finally negotiated a peace settlement. Russia had more irons in the fire and didn't want to overreach itself on something that already costed more than expected, Romania wanted to limit Russian gains and didn't want a direct border with an aggressive neighbor, and Persians wanted not to be destroyed as a nation. So the Russians gained most of modern day Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, Romania gained OTL Iraq and half of Iran, due to sleight of hand the Britons acquired Pamir, Armenia received Persian lands east of it's territory to the Caspian Sea (to serve as a buffer state for Romania) and Persia... wasn't completely destroyed like its coreligionists, yay?
Anyway, Armenia, while not de jure or de facto part of Romania in any way serves as a proxy and a buffer for it on the Russian border (the same as the Georgians do for the Russians).
The fertile, vast and now sparsely populated lands of Anatolia and the lands gained from Syria and Persia are under an concentrated effort of colonization by Romanians and Romanianized people arranged and encouraged by Michelia Iulia.
3 - I would estimate around 250.000.000 at the end of the 2nd millennium.
4 - Around 75.000.000 more (8.000.000 Greeks not included) - while not going full genocidal, Romania was quite harsh on its minorities, and occupied populations, with all its minorities in Europe (Hungarians in particular) either culturally assimilated or deported to Madagascar.
5a 5th, under Spain, Britannia, Germany and Russia (Scandinavia couldn't hold on on many of it's territories) - [not in this order]
5b 3rd, under Germany, Britannia and Spain
5c 3rd-4th, under Britannia, and Spain, about equal with Germany
5d 4th-5th, under Britannia, Spain and Germany, a little under Russia, but with better alliances and international relations.
Last edited:
Zagan
Donor
Competition entry valid and registered. Thank you.
Participants so far:
1. @fluttersky;
2. @Sir Omega.
The results of the competition will be available in the 19th century TTL / ~20 chapters from now / sometime this year OTL real time.
Participants so far:
1. @fluttersky;
2. @Sir Omega.
The results of the competition will be available in the 19th century TTL / ~20 chapters from now / sometime this year OTL real time.
1. 10,000,000 km2
2. 510,100,000 km2 (148,300,000 km2 land area), no map necessary
3. 300,000,000
4. 5,000,000,000
5. 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, and so on
How is that?
Zagan
Donor
Well, well, well... Quite ambitious, isn't it? Anyway,2. 510,100,000 km2 (148,300,000 km2 land area), no map necessary
Competition entry valid and registered. Thank you.
Participants so far:
1. @fluttersky;
2. @Sir Omega;
3. @Amber.
The results of the competition will be available in the 19th century TTL / ~20 chapters from now / sometime this year OTL real time.
I just had a thought about TTL. What are the chances of Scandinavia and Russia mutually deciding to arrange a territory swap, as shown in this map?
Such a thing would be clearly advantageous for both parties. Scandinavia could now begin colonization of its Siberian territories as it would have a land connection to them; Russia would now have a Baltic port.
Such a thing would be clearly advantageous for both parties. Scandinavia could now begin colonization of its Siberian territories as it would have a land connection to them; Russia would now have a Baltic port.
Zagan
Donor
While it may be indeed advantageous for both sides, there are a few issues:
1. Russia has never recognized the Scandinavian Claims in Siberia (in fact Russia has not recognized any Colonial Claims established at the Great Powers Conference because it had not been a participant);
2. Russia has never even recognized Scandinavian ownership of Eastern Karelia, Kola and Whiteland;
3. There is a lot of tension on the Russian borders with both Scandinavia and Sarmatia;
4. Germany, which is the most important supporter of Sarmatia and Scandinavia against a possible Russian aggression, does not want a Russian presence on the Baltic Sea and German opinion does matter;
5. For Russia, the Barents Sea may be more important than the Baltic Sea because a Baltic Navy can be easily bottled up and because the Sankt Petersburg area freezes in the winter.
In conclusion, the status quo is fragile, the whole area is a potential flashpoint and nobody wants to risk a new war (for the time being).
I finally made it to the end of the existing content for this story. Well done Zagan! I think you put more time and effort into the little details than anyone I've seen here, with all the charts, maps, and statistics. I also enjoyed the ASB part with the ghosts of Mihai and Iulia.
Very much looking forward to more!
Very much looking forward to more!
Zagan
Donor
Thank you.I finally made it to the end of the existing content for this story. Well done Zagan! I think you put more time and effort into the little details than anyone I've seen here, with all the charts, maps, and statistics. I also enjoyed the ASB part with the ghosts of Mihai and Iulia.
Very much looking forward to more!
The next chapter is on its way, but I have discovered some errors and I will have to correct them before posting.
Zagan
Donor
This is probably a joke but if you decide to answer questions 1, 3, 4 and 5, I will include your entry in the competition. (the map only answers question 2: 148,300,000 km2)
II.4. Romanian Democracy
Zagan
Donor
The Century of Peace
Romanian Democracy
Romanian Democracy
Excerpts from "Democrația orĭ potența poporului" ("Democracy or the Power of the People"), by Bogdan Ifrim, Alba Iulia, 1881
Fourth Edition Note: In the Century of Peace, the word Democracy had not yet been irredeemably tainted and it still had its original Greek-derived meaning of power of the people.
The concept of Democracy had been alien to the Romanian People for most of its history, the only minor exceptions being the mountain villages where the free peasants used to elect their Elders.
At the beginning of the 17th century, all over the Civilized World, the common people had virtually no rights and little legal protection as they lived under oppressive systems ranging from Monarchical Absolutism to Aristocratic Despotism.
In the Romanian Lands, the Voivode shared his power not with the People but only with his Boyars, the old Romanian Nobility. That political system was ill-suited for a strong unified country for multiple reasons, the most obvious being the Army. Neither the serfs nor the impoverished and exploited remaining free peasants had any incentive to join the Great Army and fight for a Country and Ruler impervious to their tribulations.
The Voivodes were either unable or unwilling to change the status quo. As members of the Boyar Class themselves, most of them were opportunists, prioritizing their personal wealth and group interests to the well-being of the Country and its People. Those few who happened to be real patriots failed to enact long-lasting reforms because they were opposed by the Boyars, who would depose or assassinate them, and the surrounding Great Powers, who would invade in order to reassert their influence.
Before the Unification of Romania, Emperor Mihai I, then Voivode of Wallachia, was no exception. From a Boyar family himself, Voivode Mihai sided with his fellow Boyars and oppressed the very peasants that he would later free and empower.
Why did the Romanian Voivode change his mind so radically? Some people like to believe that God Himself had instructed him to do so in his Prophetic Dream. We, as historians, prefer to analyze the whole internal and international military and geopolitical situation and come to a different conclusion, that future Emperor Mihai I was a so far unmatched political and military genius who realized that the Romanians had a chance to achieve greatness, perhaps the only one in their entire history.
Emperor Mihai I's Dream did play a very important role though. The Emperor was sincere, he believed that the Dream was genuine, that God had entrusted him with a holy mission and that God would, presumably, look after him and deter any would be plotters or assassins. So he took a massive gamble and won! [...]
In the end, whether Emperor Mihai I realized that empowering his People was politically advantageous or he simply followed God's advice, the result was the same: the seeds of Romanian Democracy had been planted. [...]
It would be wrong, of course, to think that newly United Romania was anything resembling a modern Democracy! At first, the changes were only cosmetic but, even so, they were important as they paved the road to a future functioning Democracy.
Chronology
8 - 9 August 1601
- In a Prophetic Dream, Mihai received the Iron Crown of United Romania from large masses of commoners.
12 August 1601
- Mihai disolved the unrepresentative Transylvanian Diet and executed its members for treason (all of them foreign nobles).
- Mihai united the three Romanian Lands and crowned himself, "by the Grace of God and the Will of My People, Io Mihailŭ Great Voivode and Lord of the United Romanian Lands".
- Mihai declared that "the power belongs to the Romanian People and is exercised by its representatives".
- Mihai declared that "I free all the Romanians and gift Transylvania, their land, back to them, its ancient, rightful owners".
August - September 1601
- Mihai encouraged peasant uprisings in Transylvania and Moldavia against the Hungarian Nobles and Moldavian Boyars who opposed him.
- The power of the Hungarian Nobles in Transylvania was completely broken; almost all of them were either exiled or killed.
- Mihai decided upon an inheritable Monarchy, further curbing the power of the Boyars.
1602
- The peasants who fought in the Romanian-Austrian War were awarded land, mainly in Transylvania.
1602 - 1641
- A relatively free press and the ever increasing literacy contributed to the spread of democratic ideas.
- The growing importance of manufacturing and the start of industrialization made the Boyar class increasingly obsolete.
1626
- Most Romanian peasants were awarded land in the territories recently liberated from Ottoman rule; the Boyars began to sell their manors because they had no more peasants to work for them.
April 1644
- The Romanian Revolution declared, inter alia, that "the Feudal Privileges are completely abolished and all the citizens of Romania are equal under law".
- For all intents and purposes, the Boyars ceased to exist as a separate social class.
1645 - 1651
- Empress Iulia half-heartedly tried to curb the freedom of the press and other civic rights and liberties.
1652 - onwards
- In the conflict between Imperial and Senatorial Power, the Romanian People took the side of Empress Maria.
- Gradually, the power of the people became real.
Political Structure of Romania at the Accession of Empress Maria I to Thrones
Notes:
1. Maria I was Empress of Romania (Empress of the Romanians), Empress of Greece (Basileus Autokrator of the Hellenes) and Empress of the Orient (Orientis Imperatrix).
2. Romania and Greece were two Independent States joined in a Dynastic Union; they shared the Monarch, the Army and the Navy, the currency and the customs and economic area, but had distinct Governments and Laws.
3. The Empire of the Orient (Imperium Orientis) was a federal structure consisting of Constantinople and several Member States (Romania, Greece, Armenia, Georgia, Slovakia) and their dependencies. By Law, the Crowns of Romania and the Orient were identical.
4. This chapter deals only with the situation in Romania Proper and not in the Romanian Dependencies or in the other Member States of the Empire of the Orient.
1. The Emperor / Empress
The Emperor was the Head of State and Government, Commander in Chief of the Army, Supreme Judge and Protector of the Faith. In theory, the Emperor had vast powers:
- to nominate and to dismiss Ministers and other State officials;
- to propose laws and to assent or veto any laws voted by the Senate;
- to represent the Romanian State in its international relations;
- to declare War, to enter Alliances and to sign Peace Treaties;
- to dissolve the Senate, etc.
In practice, the power of the Emperor was restricted by the Senate, the Army, the Church, the Guilds, the Press, the Public Opinion and other less obvious factors.
2. The Senate
The Romanian Senate was the Central Legislative Authority. It had the power to propose, discuss and vote Laws and Regulations.
The Senate had the following composition:
- 90 Senators sent by the 30 Provinces (3 from each Province);
- 30 Senators named by the Emperor;
- 10 Senators named by the Romanian Orthodox Church;
- 10 Senators named by the Army;
- 10 Senators named by the Guilds;
- 10 Senators named by the Protected Nations (Germans and Szeklers, 5 from each one).
3. The Local Power Structures
The Provinces were rules by Prefects, the Județe by Praetors and the Municipalities / Cities (Alba Iulia and Michaelia Iulia), the Towns and the Villages by Mayors.
The Prefects and the Mayors of Cities were named by the Emperor, most of the Praetors were still those who had been chosen before the Revolution by the local Boyars, the Mayors of Towns were chosen by the delegates of the local Guilds and Churches and the Mayors of Villages were usually elected by the local peasant communities.
4. Other Centres of Power
- The Romanian Army and Navy with its Generals and Admirals;
- The Romanian Secret Service;
- The Romanian Orthodox Church with its Patriarch and Holy Synod;
- The various Guilds;
- The Protected Nations (Germans and Szeklers);
- The Press (newspapers and magazines) and the Public Opinion;
- The Universities with their Professors and Students;
- The incipient Political Parties (the Conservatives, the Progressives and the Nationalists).
The Power Struggle Between the Imperial and Senatorial Powers
The unexpected death of Empress Iulia in November 1651 and the accession of the young and inexperienced Maria to the Thrones signaled the beginning of a protracted power struggle between the Senate and the Empress.
The Senate was controlled by the former Boyars and assorted conservative forces who wanted to either completely reverse the achievements of the Revolution or, at least, to use a multitude of legal loopholes in order to maintain their grip on power.
While Mihai (universally revered as the Father of the Nation) and Iulia (supported fanatically by the Army) had enjoyed de facto absolute power, Maria had neither the charisma nor the strength of will and character of her illustrious predecessors.
Even if the Empress was not a true Progressive, she had to act like one because, although she had the support of the Army and the Secret Service, her power base lay in the vast masses of disenfranchized common people.
Maria was not confident enough to simply dissolve the Senate and replace it with people loyal to her. Instead, she employed several overt and covert tactics to achieve her goals:
- used the Press to strenghten her position (and of the Progressives) and diminuish the influence of the Senate (and of the Conservatives);
- had the Secret Service discredit troublesome Senators, thus thinning the ranks of the Conservatives;
- offered publicity to the hitherto mostly unknown village elections and helped generalize the practice to the Towns and then Județe;
- created Local Assemblies in Towns, Cities and Județe with elected members;
- used the Greek Union Referendum to prove that Nation-wide elections could actually work in Romania, a Modern Country with a population both highly literate and very interested in politics.
The Romanian Franchise
The Franchise in all elections and referenda consisted of all Romanian Citizens over the majority age of 20.
Romanian Citizenship was awarded to all subjects of the Realm that:
1. Were Ethnic Romanians and
2.1. Owned property or
2.2. Could read, write and cypher or
2.3. Served in the Army or Navy.
The proportion of Citizens among the Romanian Population increased continously, from cca. 13% in 1626 to almost 25% in 1663 (cca. 32% of adults).
While about 62% of the adult Romanian males were Romanian Citizens, due to various reasons, less than 2% of the adult Romanian females enjoyed Citizenship Status. This low percentage of women in the franchise was probably a blessing in disguise because, had the proportion been higher, they might have been disenfranchised altogether. One reason for the enfranchisement of women was probably the fact that the both the current and the previous Romanian Rulers had been women with one of them (Iulia) even being an almost legendary warrior.
Electoral Power
Each Romanian Citizen had an Electoral Power, i.e. the number of votes he could cast.
The Electoral Power of a Citizen was a number between 1 and 10, could be increased or (rarely) decreased and depended on several factors such as age, marital status, number of children, wealth, studies, military service, etc. Unfortunately, the computation of the Electoral Power was cumbersome, prone to errors and susceptible to bribes.
Local Elections
Starting from 1657, local elections at Village, Town and Județ level began to be organized on an almost regular basis.
Characteristic example: Local Praetorial Elections in Lăpușna Județ, 1661
Total Population: 67432
Adults: 31295
Franchise: 12287 / 39.26% (12133 males, 152 females)
Turnout: 9762 / 79.45% (9714 males / 80.06%, 48 females / 31.58%)
Votes: 29927 (medium Electoral Power: 3.066)
Conservatives: 10738 / 35.88%
Progressives: 7711 / 25.77%
Nationalists: 5802 / 19.39%
Independents: 4810 / 16.07%
Invalid: 866 / 2.89%
Local Assembly Seats: Conservatives 7, Progressives 5, Nationalists 4, Independents 4
Praetor: Independent, supported by the Progressives and the Nationalists
Vicepraetor: Conservative
The Conservatives lost power in almost all Local Elections to the Progressives, the Nationalists, Independents or various coalitions thereof.
The Greek Question
Since 1641, when Iulia was acclaimed as Empress of the Greeks, the Greek politicians had been aggitating for an upgrade of the Dynastic Union with Romania to a Real Union or even to a Full Union, i.e. the complete merger of the two States.
While in Greece the lack of a free Press and of any semblance of democracy precluded any possible public debate on the matter, in Romania the Greek Question became a widely debated and highly divisive issue:
- Pro-Union -- The Greek Government, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Romanian Orthodox Church, the Romanian Conservatives, the Romanian Senate;
- Anti-Union -- Empress Maria, the Romanian Nationalists, the Romanian Secret Service, the Romanian Army;
- Neutrals -- the Romanian Progressives.
There were plenty of reasons for both positions:
- The Greeks wanted to become equal with the Romanians in a larger country possibly with the hope of eventually attaining linguistic dominance as it had happened in the Eastern Roman Empire;
- The Orthodox Churches dreamt of a possible ecclesiastical reunification;
- The Romanian Conservatives and the Senate which they dominated wanted to increase their electoral share by the addition of highly conservative Greece;
- The Anti-Union side feared a dilution of the National character of the Romanian State, coupled with a serious Graecophobia in the case of the Nationalists.
After having vetoed several unification attempts by the Greek Government and the Romanian Senate, Maria decided to call Nation-wide plebiscites in both countries in order to settle the Greek Question once and for all.
The Greek Union Referenda of 1663
The two Greek Union Referenda represented the first Nation-wide vote in Romania and, respectively, the first vote in Greece since the days of Ancient Athens.
While in Greece the electoral campaign was limited to several Government sponsored articles calling for Union, in Romania the campaign was fierce, with innumerable articles and public orations for both sides.
Question: Should Romania and Greece unite into a single State? YES [_] NO [_]
Referendum in Greece
Total Population: around 3,310,000
Adults: around 1,840,000
Franchise: 403,296 / 21.92% (all males)
Turnout: 219,009 / 54.30%
YES: 123,777 / 56.52%
NO: 90,834 / 41.48%
Invalid: 4398 / 2.01%
Result: YES (Union with Romania), Valid
Referendum in Romania
Total Population: around 9,920,000 (Romania Proper)
Adults: around 5,050,000
Franchise: 1,626,122 / 32.20% (1,596,331 males, 29,791 females)
Turnout: 1,449,023 / 89.11% (1,444,430 males / 90.48%, 4593 females / 15.42%)
YES: 320,120 / 22.09%
NO: 1,120,855 / 77.35%
Invalid: 8048 / 0.56%
Result: NO (NO Union with Greece), Valid
Because of the Romanian rejection, the proposed of Union with Greece was permanently shelved.
It was a resounding victory for Empress Maria and a green light to her plans for the reform of the Romanian Senate.
The 1675 Reform of the Romanian Senate
It took 12 more years for Maria to gather enough power and confidence to finally dissolve the Senate and reform it.
New Senate composition:
- 90 Senators elected from the 30 Provinces (3 from each Province);
- 30 Senators named by the Emperor;
- 10 Senators named by the Romanian Orthodox Church;
- 10 Senators named by the Army;
- 10 Senators named by the Guilds;
- 10 Senators elected by the Protected Nations (Germans and Szeklers, 5 from each one).
1675 Romanian General Elections
Total Population: 11,180,500
Adults: 5,925,600
Franchise: 2,013,540 / 33.98% (1,972,332 males, 41,208 females)
Turnout: 1,456,595 / 72.34% (1,433,771 males / 72.69%, 22,824 females / 55.38%)
Votes: 4,826,078 (medium Electoral Power: 3.313)
Conservatives: 1,538,071 / 31.87%
Progressives: 1,114,371 / 23.09%
Nationalists: 1,435,999 / 29.76%
Independents: 663,957 / 13.76%
Invalid: 73,680 / 1.53%
Elected Romanian Senate Seats (90): Conservatives 33, Progressives 22, Nationalists 31, Independents 4
From then on, the Romanians were called to vote in both General and Local Elections every five years.
In 1675, a mere 74 years after its foundation, Romania was the first representative democracy in the whole World and it would remain the only one for almost a century!
Last edited:
I wonder what will make democracy become so discredited by TTL's present day.
Now for a few questions:
1) I see that Romanian citizenship is given to all ethnic Romanians who are literate. Do they have to be literate in the Romanian language to gain citizenship, or would being literate in another language (e.g. Latin) suffice?
2) This isn't completely related to the last update, but are Romani people who follow the Romanian orthodox church considered ethnic Romanians and eligible for citizenship, despite their clearly distinct appearance? If so, this would be a massive improvement on their OTL situation.
2a) Related question: would someone from one of Romania's colonies (e.g. a Muslim Arab from the Suez Canal zone) be able to convert to the Romanian Orthodox Church and apply for Romanian citizenship?
3) Why is the election turnout rate for enfranchised Romanian women so low, compared to that of enfranchised men?
4) Will the Romanian and Greek Orthodox Churches still consider merging with each other, despite the Romanian state and the Greek state remaining firmly separate?
Now for a few questions:
1) I see that Romanian citizenship is given to all ethnic Romanians who are literate. Do they have to be literate in the Romanian language to gain citizenship, or would being literate in another language (e.g. Latin) suffice?
2) This isn't completely related to the last update, but are Romani people who follow the Romanian orthodox church considered ethnic Romanians and eligible for citizenship, despite their clearly distinct appearance? If so, this would be a massive improvement on their OTL situation.
2a) Related question: would someone from one of Romania's colonies (e.g. a Muslim Arab from the Suez Canal zone) be able to convert to the Romanian Orthodox Church and apply for Romanian citizenship?
3) Why is the election turnout rate for enfranchised Romanian women so low, compared to that of enfranchised men?
4) Will the Romanian and Greek Orthodox Churches still consider merging with each other, despite the Romanian state and the Greek state remaining firmly separate?
Zagan
Donor
0) Oh, nothing. The concept of democracy will not be discredited at all! Only the word "democracy" will be discredited by an infamous case of inappropriate usage.
1) The law is not clear in this regard. The amount of Ethnic Romanians literate in another language but not in Romanian should be rather low (a few recently assimilated people). Should the question arise, a lawyer would be probably needed.
2) What we are now calling Romani people and were called Gypsies in that era both in OTL and in TTL:
- were numerically insignificant at that time (at most 10,000 people in a 10 million country);
- most of them had been transferred to the Canal Zone in order to contribute to its digging and they remained there;
- those remaining in Romania Proper (around 3000) had been freed (slavery had been made illegal in TTL in Romania Proper);
- are quickly assimilating via cultural appropriation and intermariage (yes, no widespread racism in that period);
- there will be no distinct Romani / Gypsies in TTL contemporary Romania (there will be of course some people with a darker complexion due to interbreeding not only with Gypsies but also with various other people from the Colonies)
In conclusion: YES, for those remaining in Romania Proper.
2a) Well, NO. At least for now, Romanian Law does fully apply only in Romania Proper.
If a person from outside Romania Proper (the Colonies, etc), manages to immigrate legally to Romania Proper, that person would be eligible, at least in theory.
This would probably start to become an issue only later, way later.
3) Oh, but it is a little lower in present day OTL Romania as well! The main reason is probably a lesser amount of interest in politics.
In the 17th century TTL, the lack of interest in politics for women was obviously greater.
And, maybe, some fathers / husbands could have kept them at home for various reasons (which we would call nowadays sexist).
4) Yes, they will consider it.
Zagan
Donor
It is purely a coincidence and that ethymology is wrong anyway as the Gypsies (Țigani) are not Egyptians (Egipțieni), but rather from North-Western India.