Forum:Ingerland/History and human geography
Before we discuss modern issues, we need a solid historical and cultural coherency for the nation. Some things are clear, while some need to be discussed.
Certain things that are already established:
|
What to discuss:
It is worth noting that since history is not always perfectly defined in our world, these should be subtle references, events and consensuses that are still notable enough for the development of the nation. |
User proposals
Discussion
All my territories have some sort of history with Ingerland, but all that's particularly important toponymically is the existence of a King Earnest at some point in the 1560s or 1570s. Otherwise, I've assumed that Ingerland would have established a sizable trade/colonial empire (perhaps including trade companies), beginning to branch into the Asperic and Lyc by the early 1500s. I don't have anything else to add at the moment, but maybe I'll come up with a history proposal at some point... --Lithium-Ion (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to update: I am making a history proposal, hopefully I'll be ready to post it on here with nice graphics and everything in a few days, but if anyone wants to see it as I go it's on my sandbox. --Lithium-Ion (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Your proposal looks good so far. I'm not too knowledgeable pre-modern stuff, but I look forwards to contributing some input on 19th/20th/21st century affairs. Yuanls (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what comes into the category of 'modern issues' (modern as in contemporary 2023, or modern as in the 'modern era' of history). I should add that if users are basing their mapping on the state of the UK as it exists, with only a limited understanding of the trends behind urban development, we are implying that the modern history of Ingerland is roughly analogous to the UK in real life, down to very specific events which we'd either have to replicate, or find alternative explanations for. For example, WWII and the Blitz had signficant ramifications for British society, urban planning and the economy for decades to come. Other events are implicitly established in the 'OGF canon', i.e. the industrial revolution, the development of canals, railways, the proliferation of international trade - and can be pinned down by geology (discussed in the previous section) and geography (which already exists). I'm quite aware my approach might be a bit too detailed for this early stage, so please put this thread on hold if this is so. Yuanls (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- You bring up absolutely valid points, and ones that will need to be worked out. Fortunately, there are generally some pretty good ways of retconning things to make them fit. I would state that as far as more modern lore is concerned, I see no reason that something akin to the Blitz happened during the Great War (1940s to early 1950s). Since there has been movement toward viewing that as a series of concurrent, loosely intertwined flashpoints, there is no reason Ingerland could not have encountered such an experience. The details of the war don't need to be ironed out yet, and I wouldn't necessarily assume Kalm as the enemy or any potential ideological alignment. Simply encountering the war in the way allows for a reasonable explanation until further details can be pinned down. — Alessa (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
That sounds sensible - I think we can keep it this vague for now. Yuanls (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Just raising a question - will current Ingerland be a monarchy or a republic?--Zhenkang (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'd very much like to see republicanism play a larger role in Ingerish history, whether that be a historical period, or the modern state of the country. I feel it would be an interesting yet obvious deviation from the modern state of the UK. Yet again, this is probably a discussion for later on. Yuanls (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Ingerland should be significantly influenced by either or both Kalm or Nordurland as it borders them directly or at least by the small bodies of water that separates it from Kalm to the south. Territories across the sea in the east (UL 10-98 and UL 10-99) could have been a kingdom/kingdoms that pledge alliance to Ingerland and would eventually be part of the nation. Sheeps, Fur, blubber, and marine resources could be traded in the region in early times, and played part in traditional clothing and food culture. The eastern part of the country could have developed earlier when trading was still concentrated with the countries in West Uletha, and later with the age of discovery and colonization made the western parts of the country more populous and industrial than the ones in the east. Senju (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm going to strongly disagree with your first point as an admin helping to oversee the launching of this project. Ingerland is, by necessity, a powerful cultural influencer in its own right. If anything, it would have exuded influence more than being influenced in its core territories. Now, does that mean there are no Kalmish influences in the south? Of course not. Borderlands are typically messy for a ton of reasons. That will be up to whomever takes those border regions to implement. Alternatively, and not necessarily the best option, would be to assume that Ingerland *lost* that strip of land from the narrow strait to its present Kalmish border at some point, which would require Kalm to adapt far more. These are the types of discussions that are pertinent to whomever decides to map those regions. — Alessa (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
An issue that has been raised a few times and will need to be ironed out before establishing Ingerland's historical and cultural basis is the geographic separation between Ingerland and Franqueterre. English culture has so many fundamental links to French culture (particularly in its language), it doesn't make much sense to suggest OGF's version of England and France had much less interaction than IRL's version. However, I think this suspension of disbelief (just say Ingerland and Franqueterre didn't interact much) is the best way to approach it, as no other explanation really makes sense. There exists plenty of IRL examples of languages and cultures being similar despite geographic separation (eg. Romanian).
On the origin of the nation, this can't be fully determined until the situation of OGF's Roman empire has been confirmed. As far as I'm aware, whether a "Roman Empire" even existed is undecided, let alone whether Ingerland would've been part of it. For now, I think any mention of an ancient empire should be avoided.
Noting this, here is my proposal for the origin of the nation: The island was settled by many pre-Celtic tribes. These tribes could be considered somewhat more advanced than IRL pre-Roman Britain, capable of building large bridges and roads that are the foundations of some settlements. Mass migrations of early Germanic peoples during the 1st millennium set up more formalized societal structures, eventually evolving into kingdoms. During this period, "Viking" raids would also greatly impact Ingerland. At some specific point in time at around 1100, an event in the Kalmish region caused a mass exodus of Franquese people from the Kalmish region to Ingerland. These Franquese people went on to lead the upper echelons of society. Perhaps early colonization by Ingerland was motivated by the Franquese desire to find a route to Franqueterre that avoids Kalm (the colonization patterns of Ingerland will never make sense, but this at least attempts to explain the strange colonization South-eastwards). Gubble (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I have a particular interest in UL10 98 and 99 because they are next door to my country of Tircambry. I don't know quite what is in the admins' minds when they say 98 and 99 are of Celtic origin, but I'm thinking that they, like Tircambry, are Brythonic Celtic (Welsh/Cornish/Breton), which I've called Brethanic in OGF, as opposed to Goidelic/Gaelic Celtic (Irish/Scottish-Gaelic/Manx), which was called Goidalig in our previous OGF history. I would envisage that the Brethanic peninsula consisted of perhaps four kingdoms until Ingerland invaded somewhere between the 14th and 17th centuries. Ingerland succeeded in conquering the two western kingdoms (98 and 99) but failed in the east. Perhaps the invasion was part of a wider conflict with Kalm, which helped the eastern kingdoms fight off the Ingerish. The conflict was the catalyst for the unification of the eastern kingdoms into Tircambry.
This leaves the question of Irish and Scottish-like countries. UL10x? UL11a? Just my thoughts! Pawl (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Also some interest in UL10-98 & 99 here, because they’re of Brythonic Celtic culture, and my own country (UL11i) was planned for the Breton language (given how (not) advanced my mapping is, that’s still something I could change, but I don’t intend to). So, your suggestion that these territories were independent and then colonised by Ingerland makes sense but is also possibly interesting for me to know. I guess it depends whether we expect 98-99 to have brought Celtic culture a bit southward through colonisation, or the other way round, or they are two distinct branches of Brythonic cultures, in addition to Goidelic cultures, etc. All of these options would be fine by me, and might be worth discussing at some point. Portier (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)