Without a nation with the financial clout to pressure the Federated Kingdoms out of the Suez Canal the FK and France are likely control the Canal until concerted international pressure forces them out, or the Canal is internationalised. andrew.
hadn't thought of that. it makes sense, though. I second the motion. BoArthur
Dos Nasser and his Pan-Arabism have an analog *there*? Qaddafi *here* was inspired by Nasserism to engage in revolutionary activity. Since I would be loath to lose Qadhdhafi *there*, if the majority think Nasser would exist, I need to find a new inspiration for Q.
- Nasser (or his equivalent) could easily have come to power in Egypt following GW2, imo. In this case, his emnity might be directed more south towards Ethiopia.
- Excellent. Ehtiopia and Libya would not have a good historical relationship.
I suppose my major knowledge is about the subject of Egyptology. It was really an accidental combination of events that led to the discovery of Tutankhamon's tomb. Might that discovery--along with perhaps the tomb of Rameses the Great's sons--have happened in living memory? Say, within the last quarter century? In which case, Egypt might be undergoing a boom in terms of tourism while fads of things "Egyptian" could well be going on strong elsewhere (like Russia, the FK, the NAL, Louisianne, etc.)? Zahir 21:58, 19 October 2005 (PDT)
I would really like to see the commentary turned into article, and the original commentary moved here to the discussion page, if possible. BoArthur
Some references from John Cowan
The original Scots of Egypt came to Egypt from Ireland in the 5th century or thereabouts, according to their own records, about the same time their relatives were settling Scotland. They mixed with the Coptic population and imposed a creolized form of Old Irish on them. The name "Scot(s)" and the language have been adopted by the entire population. However, the invaders adopted in turn most of the local cultural traits including the Alexandrian version of Christianity (not surprising, as they made that city their capital).
Egypt resisted military conquest by the Arabs under the successors of Muhammad, but many Scots adopted the new religion over time. Whatever other groups there are in Egypt (Jews, surely), I don't know anything about them. There are no political connections with Ireland, though there are probably sentimental ones.
> Maybe the Scots of Egypt were only able to keep the newborn Islamic
> Empire out of their major cities; the Arab Muslim armies swept across
> the countryside and into North Africa, etc. After a while, the
> Egyptians eventually reconquered the rest of their country, splitting
> the Islamic Empire into pieces (and inspiring the revolt that leads to
> the Third Commonwealth in Judea).
I have no idea why the Irish went to Egypt in the first place, except that it was definitely a colonizing effort as in Scotland, not just Green Martyrdom.
I don't know anything about Egypt's history in the 20th C., so feel free to invent. Just as a reminder: the people are called Scots, or Scots of Egypt if there is an ambiguity; they are not Arabs in culture or language; they speak Coptic Creole Irish; they are about 80% Muslim, 20% Oriental Orthodox; the capital city is Alexandria; their traditional posture is armed neutrality.
I don't know if this means that the other nations of North Africa are less Arabized than *here* as well.
Consequently, I think, North Africa is also not Arabicized and remains basically Berber.
(to which Jefferson responded:)
I don't know about this. What about Arab sea power in the Mediterranean? Also, what about the Arab slave trade in Africa? Anyway, until someone actually takes responsibility for North Africa, I'd take this as a possibility, not a fact.
Also, I pointed out that there needs to be Arabic influence in Iberia in order for the Ibero-Romance languages to get all their Arabic loanwords.
About the Suez Canal:
A possibility is that it runs from the Gulf to the Nile, as the Hellenistic canal did, rather than through the Peninsula. In any case, it's the Scots of Egypt that control it, though there may be foreign investors.
As a militarily strong nation with a European tradition, while still being 90% Islamic, they are traditionally neutral, allowing free passage to all nations not actually at war with them.
Egypt has always been a bit of a troublespot in IB. Personally, I think we cannot discard John's original ideas about the Scots of Egypt, even though I have to say they complicate matters highly. Granted, the whole idea is pretty whimsical, but as its belongs to the oldest bits of QSS in IB, it has to be incorporated somehow. Even if we do it for sentimental reasons only!
What we know is that Egypt is still predominantly Muslim. And that it is significantly less Arabicised then *here*. And that - probably along with Arabic - an important second language of Egypt is the Irish-Coptic creole that John refers to. If you ask me, those facts can be incorporated easily, without changing much in the text. --IJzeren Jan 16:08, 15 November 2005 (PST)
- Personally, I think the whole idea weird and wonderful and agree we should keep it (and really, is it any weirder than the Celtic Mummies of China *here*??). I'd volunteer to incorporate the information about them, if someone can simply point me to the text of same. Or is the above "it?" Zahir 16:24, 15 November 2005 (PST)
- I fear that the above is "it". But I can see a way to extract a good amount of article out of that, and if you're not sure of it, my good Dr., I'll step up to the plate. BoArthur
- Okay, I've added something based on the above, but modifying it slightly. Seems to me it couldn't be too large a population of Scots who invaded Egypt, and their period of rule could not have been long or solid. This turns them into a minority, albeit a large one, and most likely anything-but-pleased with the whole idea of the United Arab Republic which would make them less than second-class citizens. I do sooooo hope someone can come up with a better name for the language than "Irish-Coptic Creole." Zahir 19:02, 15 November 2005 (PST)
I was thinking about this last night and realize having Egypt a monarchy gives a completely different shape to the political landscape of that nation. *Here* Egypt barely qualifies as a democracy, and tensions run high between its overtly secular government--represented by Hosni Mubarak's party--and The Brotherhood, which wants major reform along the ideals of an Islamic State.
Now, as I understand it, in IB the faith of Mehmet is not quite as pervasive and the whole Middle East is frankly more stable. One reason for this is long-term presence of Judea rather than a foreign-mandated Isreal. Another is the very different path Ethiopia took, which if I read aright is a much larger nation that has caused troubles in the recent past. Thus, everyone sees a reason not to rock the boat too far. I would also maintain that a monarchy with historical roots in Egypt would also help maintain some stability.
But that hardly means the nation or region are static. The Islamic World was once the center of culture and learning and wealth in that part of th world. From that height, they have currently sunk and reached a very low point when not even local but foreign conquerors started ordering them around. The indignation that fuelled Nasser and the UAR would be less, but still very real. And given that events in the 1960s were so different--no Six Days War for example--the tensions would take a completely different shape.
My idea is that this could really be played out between the Crown Royalists and the Republican Nationalists (to pull a couple of general names out of a hat) in Egypt. For example, the former--although politically more moderate in most ways--plays the "religion card" by openly siding with Islam and the call for adhering to Islamic Law (the Zhedive is not technically a monarch but merely an exalted governor in this view) while the Nationalists are more firmly in the secularist camp.
Comments? Suggestions? Zahir 08:01, 16 November 2005 (PST)
- I need Nasser or someone like him to exist in order to inspire Qadhdhafi. How could he fit in?Theophilus88
- Yeah, Nasser is part of the article. Zahir 11:58, 16 November 2005 (PST)
the black-white-red would be the khedive flag and the other the national ? since those colours are inherited from the united arab republic, I think the reverse would make more sense.
One thing that might help link the 2 flags more in my mind would be to do like the egyptian presidential flag *here* for the royal one *there* and have the national emblem in canton and change to shield to reflect the national colours:
Incidently, when an animal look to the side on a flag, it is generaly toward to hoist. Reason being that that way, he looks toward the battle.--Marc Pasquin 09:59, 18 November 2005 (PST)
- Thanks for the head's up!
- I see what you're saying, but it also seems to me that the red, white & black design can be justified in terms of what the Khedives were trying to do when they adopted it (which I was assuming was circa 1900). Namely, they were attempting to present themselves as peers to Europeans, who at the time dominated the region. Hence the more overtly European "look" of the flag, but with an overtly Egyptian animal.
- This dovetails into Nasser choosing a flag that was much more overtly Arab/Islamic in color scheme and look. And when the Khedives were restored in 1961, then the royal/horus hawk would be included as a charge on the national flag while the Khedives had their personal banner. Then again, we could also change slightly the Khedive's flag thus...
- Which I suspect makes it more inherently "Arabic." What do you think? Zahir 10:24, 18 November 2005 (PST)
- Actualy, it make it look more like a black-african flag: horizontaly striped black-red-green (in different orders) are *here* used on the flags of Afro-Americans ("the Garvey Flag"), Biafra, Malawi & Kenya. Flags from countries perceived as arabic tend have a white bar in the middle: Egypt, western sahara, palestine, jordania, kuwait, UAE, etc...
- As for the flag being more "european", *here* the kingdom of egypt adopted many items of european inspiration in term of symbol (the royal flag had very european looking crowns) yet the national flag was green with a white crescent and 3 moons.--Marc Pasquin 18:26, 18 November 2005 (PST)
- Good point about what the flag looks like with the green stripe.
- I still maintain the Horus Falcon with red, white and black can be justified as a royal banner, the green and green with Saladin's Falcon as the state banner under Nasser. But that is JMHO. Zahir 23:28, 18 November 2005 (PST)
Within a week the thirty days will be up. Anybody with comments, suggestions, problems, etc. please speak up... Zahir 16:34, 14 December 2005 (PST)
- I'm still feeling iffy about this... no time to go into details now, just in general i miss the old stress on the Scots of Egypt. I'll contemplate things and come back. Steg Boroparkpyro 18:19, 17 January 2006 (PST)
- I think it would be good to extend the time to 45 days, as the Scots in Egypt have been a high-profile difference between *there* and *here*. Maybe we should launch a ranging discussion of this under the banner of IBCOTF? BoArthur 18:21, 17 January 2006 (PST)
Hey, have nothing AT ALL against the Scots of Egypt. As far as I'm concerned, they warrant their own article with a fascinating history and all. And as for IBCOTF, I say--great! Zahir 18:27, 17 January 2006 (PST)
I guess the description that Egypt is in all the Nile drainaige basin and that it goes southwards to the Lake Victoria counters what was previously known about the area (see map of Africa here: http://www.bethisad.com/maps.htm ): the existance of the condominium of Nubia, Cordofania, etc. Abdul-aziz 15:12, 20 March 2006 (PST)
- Something else, the intro refer to the country as "republic" but the rest of the article calls the government a constitutional monarchy.
- I've made a clarification that I hope answers the question of republic or monarchy. Soon I'll get back to the part about the borders. Zahir 08:56, 7 May 2007 (PDT)