(I have no problem with the above, though I am not sure there would have to be a mass exodus. Was there some violence against the Jews of Ethiopia at that time? PB)
As far as I can immediately tell from Wikipedia, there waws, or there would've had to be. I'll review and pul the pertinent data across. ;) BoArthur
Well I made a history section in attempt to explain that Abdul-aziz 07:12, 8 Oct 2005 (PDT)
Am I to understand that the expansion of Ethipoia into Sudan in the the 19th century would push the Senussi leadership in the Fezzan further into the desert, towards Tamanghasset?
Fezzan is southern Lybia, not Sudan, so as I understand no. By "Southern Sudan" I meant territories which Ethiopia controls even now in Ill Bethisad, south of Cordofania in map of Africa, which are part of Sudan in real world. The rest of real world Sudan is Nubia and Cordofania in Ill Bethisad. Abdul-aziz 11:25, 8 October 2005 (PDT)
The Sanusiya movement *here* controlled western Sudan for a time. *There*, it seems that the power of Ethiopia would prevent such domination. What I am suggesting is that the Senussi *there* tried to control western Sudan, but Ethiopian forces drove the invasion out. As a result, the Senussi expanded westward.Theophilus88 10:23, 10 October 2005 (PDT)
Yes, I guess you are right. There might have been some wars between Senussiya and Ethiopia too. This article is still in proposal state. Abdul-aziz 10:33, 10 October 2005 (PDT)
Here's the source of my confusion. The Mahdi who spearheaded the the Mahdist revolt *here* is not the same person as Semnussi al-Mahdi, even though there were Senussi establishment in the area dominated by the Mahdi of the Mahdist revolt. Clear as mud.Theophilus88 09:38, 14 October 2005 (PDT)
Found this at the bottom of the Ethiopia page, and have a small problem with it: "Currently, Ethiopia is very disintegrated; some of its regions are in civil war." It has been decided that Ethiopia *there* is not in the messy state it is *here*. It is a powerful state, and the empire is certainly the powerhouse of the region. A couple regions might be (dis)gruntled -- but I think "civil war" is unlikely given what is known! [PB]
- Prior to my edits, there were just various ideas written in page about Ethiopia, including one of it being a powerful empire, one of it being a confederation, and one of it being "etternally locked in a civil war", one of seccessionist movements in Eritrea and such. I tried to combine all the suggestions by making it so that Ethiopia indeed was an empire once, and later confederation, and also some disturbances happens/happened. I now written a new politics section where I try to explain some more; according to this suggestion, Somalia would be the only actually break away region currently (in similar fashion as Somaliland is de facto independent from Somalia in the real world), while western Ethiopian states would now have formed a kind of federation with closer ties. Abdul-aziz 23:07, 10 October 2005 (PDT)
- All right. I'm really not sure exactly where that came from. A while back, perhaps earlier this Summer, we did some work on solidifying the borders of Africa and decided that Ethiopia is an empire and is not the weakened mess it is *here*. It's place is one of regional power rather than basket case. "Eternally locked in civil war" was not part of it that I recall; nor are actual "break-away regions". That rather defeats the whole idea of a more firmly founded Ethiopia! Any history written about IB's Ethiopia has to take these QSS facts into account. [PB]
This was written in the article Ethiopia prior to my edits:
"Nation of Northeastern Africa. Formerly largely populated with Jews, a mass exodus in the mid to latter end of last millenium to Yemen aided in the support of the Kingdom of Himyar, the second Jewish kingdom of modern times.
- A Christian kingdom of northeastern Africa. Christian since the 3rd or 4th century.
- If the proposed changes to CEA take effect, an enlarged Ethiopian Empire might be an interesting idea... PB
- Indeed, Ethiopia is bigger than *there*; it includes Eritrea, Somaliland and bits of Uganda and Sudan.
- Ah, yes! I have seen commercials on television advertising Ethiopia's "Red Sea Riviera"!
- Coo. Ethiopia could be a country to be reckoned with...
- Ethiopia could be locked in a near-eternal civil war. Though *there*'s Ethiopia is much more modernised and powerful, it seems. They might have been able to reduce the opposition much more effectively than *here*'s Ethiopia could hope to do.
- Perhaps it is just a loose federation between its components. Perhaps there is a strong secessionist force in Eritrea. Perhaps even a civil war. Perhaps the Eritreans and the Ethiopians are all friends. Who knows?
- Ethiopia is (probably) one of the two countries that govern the Condominium of Nubia. The other one's Egypt."
Everything related to it seem to have had proposal status, therefore, not QSS. According to the current suggestion of mine, it (Ethiopian Federation) is a regional power and was such in past; however, rebuilding after second great war took time due to the estabilishment of confederation, but now when the federation was established it is more centralised, more calm and had experienced over a decade of growth. I would also like to note that the fact that country has troubles with seccessionists or even de facto independent entities does not means that the country cannot be a power; a good exampe for that is Russian Federation in real world, which has such troubles; e.g. Chechnya was de facto independent in 1996-1999 and up until now the war continues (and situation in nearby areas such as Dagestan also was/is troubling for the federal government, attacks continues to happen). There are also various local leaders who in some case builds a kind of personality cult among themselves (e.g. the president of Kalmykia). However, probably nobody would dispute that Russia (real world) is a major power. In my offer, although Somalia is a larger portion of Ethiopia than is northern Caucassus of Russia, all Ethiopian heartland with its richest lands are anyways under control of the government of Ethiopian Federation. Abdul-aziz 21:45, 11 October 2005 (PDT)
- I think it can not be stressed enough that Ethiopia is (and has always been) a Christian monarchy: the Solomonic Empire of Ethiopia. The present Emperor is Amha Selassie I (sucessor to Heile Selassie I). Frankly, I'm not so worried over minor details of history and what-not, and I leave that work to others, but it was decided that Ethiopia should be a modern and powerful country (not at all the basket case it is *here*), and monarchial in nature, there having been no Communist revolution. Indeed it should be a power to be reckoned with in northern and eastern Africa. An equal of the European and Asian powers that came to Africa -- not their pawn!
- I don't understand where the "democratisation" comes from. This is vèry strange indeed, since the European powers themselves are all imperial and monarchic! - though parlimentary to be sure. Why it is that Europe is meddling in the first place? They should have no business there. This is a pretty radical departure from what little QSS there is on Ethiopia. I don't mean to be disrespectful at all of the work you've done, but will be blunt: Ethiopia seems to be an entirely different country from how we left it a few months back! I admit freely that the description was sketchy, but it should be respected! [PB]
- Yes, you are right about democratisation. Probably that will be changed to giving power not to democratic governments, but to some powerful local leaders, who were trusted to control their lands and thus made kings (similar development as was e.g. in Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan after British retreat from there in real world). Then the new dictatorships could be those who removed these kings, and instead of democratization there would be union of these kings who would want to protect monarchy in Ethiopian lands. After such time of instability, it might be so when the new Federation is created, to guarantee stability the heir of emperors would be crowned as leader of whole Ethiopia. The names can be changed from the Abedes to original Ethiopian royal family also if that is needed (though I did not seen said anywhere that emperors of Ethiopia should be the same as were Negus'es in real world).
- Indeed I have no problem with the present emperor NOT being Haile Selassie's heir. Ethiopia's royal family is big enough for the present emperor to be from any of many lines. I have no problem if there was a slight interruption in the imperial governance (such as there presently is *here* -- the Emperor never abdicated his throne or renounced his title). The important point of fact, for me, is that there IS an emperor of the royal line of Solomon (hence "Solomonic Empire"). Since you are interested in working on Ethiopia's details, I leave to thee all the details! In other words, there is room for some amount of civil war, unrest and dictators, and I leave you the task of describing them as you please. I only ask that a couple facts (QSS) about Ethiopia be respected.
- The Jewish rule thing was introduced to explain the Jewish expultion, which was in QSS too as I understand, and as well explain *why* Ethiopia could be powerful and strong, because it couldn't have arised on itself being far away and unable to contact other "centers of civilization".
- I don't think this should preclude Ethiopia from being powerful or civilised. Isolation from the rest of Christendom could become a problem -- but Christendom is quite different *there*. It includes lands in east Asia that could provide contact with "centres of civilisation" -- just not European centres of civilisation!
- I don't think European influence in general is a departure from QSS, as I understand it was said that Ethiopia was not colonised, and it was not according to what I written (Ethiopians threw away French and such, thus showing that Ethiopia was on par with European powers as you said and lost world wars does not make it a pawn in similar fashion as Germany is not just a pawn of other powers historically);
- Agreed. One thing to keep in mind is that the whole concept of colonisation is different in IB. It isn't a matter of "colonial power" sucking the life-blood out of "colonial slaves" like *here*. It really is more of a meeting of equal parterns in trade, economic, military/police and cultural activities. All the great maritime powers have colonies somewhere: Britain, Scandinavia, Batavia, France, Spain, even China. China, for example, has colonies in Britain, for example! I don't think Ethiopia was ever a maritime power, but the idea of Nubia being Christian could count towards Ethiopia's colonial efforts.
- its territory varied over the time, sometimes expanded, sometimes shrunk somewhat, but it was never controlled directly by Europeans;
- Also agreed. I have no problem with the territorial extent varying. We just have to mindful of its present extent, which is given on the Map. See: http://www.geocities.com/elemtilas/ill_bethisad/maps.htm
- the situation in coastal cities was similar to e.g. Chinese coastal cities in real world, where they were rented, or to e.g. situation of Guantanamo base in Cuba.
- Ah, you understand much of IB's colonialism! -- except that more than just being "rented", they are often "exchanged". For example, if a country wanted a trade colony with Ethiopia, they would offer an extraterritorial enclave in the home country in exchange.
- These cities were on the coast of muslim Somalia rather than Christian Ethiopia, a land which was at times controlled by Ethiopia and (e.g. during XIX age) and sometimes it wasn't (according to this proposal). It was never said that Ethiopia was of this size *all the time*, and in fact that would have been impossible as all empires must be founded at some time and be expanding until they conquers or otherwise unify the lands. As well, all empires and countries have passed their periods of 'golden age' and bad periods too; this includes every European or Asian power in real world also.
- Quite agreed.
- There are no empires that have been constantly powerful; therefore, according to this proposal, Ethiopian golden age was in XIX age (and before that too at times), when it won war against France and such, later the start of XX age was unsuccessful and now Ethiopia is rising again and already is powerful. Some historical facts might be altered though. Abdul-aziz 10:53, 4 November 2005 (PST)
- By in large, this should not be a problem. I also don't have much of a problem with Moslem population centres in the coastal towns of the Somalia region, but massive religious wars could be problematic and destabilising. Alteration of historical facts is largely up to you as Ethiopia's new caretaker, so long as you take into account what (admittedly little) is known. I don't think we'll have any continued difficulties at all! Hope you don't mind if I tweak the article a little.
I edited some of the modern Ethiopian history Abdul-aziz 12:54, 13 November 2005 (PST)
Whoa... what's with all this Jewish Ethiopian-Israeli Empire stuff? Last i heard, the Ethiopian Jews were kicked out of Ethiopia in the middle ages, moving en masse to Himyar in Yemen. Boroparkpyro 19:59, 16 November 2005 (PST) Steg.
- I've read a small enclave lasted in the Gondar/Gonder area. Anyway, here's what else it says:
- In 1270 the Axum dynasty returned to the throne of Ethiopia once again, ushering in 400 years of tribal warfare and bloodshed. The end of that war in 1624 marked the end of Jewish freedom in Ethiopia. Jewish forces were defeated in a final battle by the Portuguese-backed Ethiopians and a long period of oppression began. Jewish captives were sold into slavery or forcibly baptized. Their lands were confiscated, their writings and religious books were burned and the practice of any form of Jewish religion was forbidden in Ethiopia.
- Over the next couple of hundred years, despite some encounters with explorers and missionaries, the Jewish community remained fairly isolated. For centuries the world's Jewish community remained unaware of the existence of Jews in the northern Ethiopian province of Gonder. Slowly however, recognition of Jews living in persecution in Ethiopia came to their attention. Doobieous 22:09, 16 November 2005 (PST)
- I'm not sure! I will have to read the updated article to see what's going on. It should be stressed that Ethopia is Christian. I am not sure how Israel got mixed up in it, Steg, but I'm glad you've found the discussion! Let's see... Elemtilas
I was thinking for the GRE, with Somalia rebelling and all, they'd be the source of the colony. By that I mean...
Somali rebels can take it no longer. Rioting in Ethiopian cities spread like wildfire. Innocents killed. More animosity then ever seen before. Ethiopia sends ambassadors to the LoN Head Quarters pleeing for help. With most countries too busy or deciding to stay neutral, no one accepts, but one person. The Greek ambassador to the LoN lends Greece to help quell the uprising. So Greece sends its troops to Ethiopia and the war begins. It doesn't have to be a war, maybe a battle, skirmish, or even a peaceful & diplomatic agreement.
In the end, Ethiopia wins. Overjoyed, Ethiopia offers Greece a tract of land for being so generous as to help in their struggle. Greece gets the go ahead from the LoN, and the agreement is signed, thus creating the Greek Republic of Ethiopia.
I was thinking maybe it would be here's Eritrea & Djibouti. Maybe it could be one or the other or even smaller. Maybe it could be here's Italian or British Somaliland. I could draw up a map. Misterxeight 00:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe even Lithuanian & Chinese refugees or just regular people move there. I mean Greece doesn't really have enemies in Lithuania or China and it's not to far from their old colonies. Misterxeight 01:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'd think smaller. Colonies in IB tend to be smaller anyway, and this is a new colony for a small country acquired in an unusual way. Even small colonies can have very interesting cultural communities; for good examples check out Meidji-Do (Japanese colony in California) and Gadangmeland (Scandinavian colony in W. Africa). Benkarnell 03:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well then, let's work on the size of Eritrea or Djbouti for now then.
Misterxeight 04:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Here, I'd have to side with Mr. Xeight: the size of the colony in Ethiopia is not really determined by how big or small other colonies in the world are. It depends entirely on the generosity of the Emperor and the government. I think they wouldn't hand over all the yellow territories; but something larger than a port city might not be far off either.
- As for Greece being alone in this action, if the LoN gets involved, then Greece won't be working on the problem all by itself. The whole point of the League is for regions of the world to sort out their problems together. Elemtilas 06:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Well then how about all except Greece deem Ethiopia's war hopeless and pack up and leave. Misterxeight 06:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The whole yellow section wasn't meant to be handed over. I broke it into sections based on Somaliland's history *here*. Misterxeight 06:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean by GRE? Do you mean Great War 2 period? One of Somali Revolt or one of the Somalian War in the end? Abdul-aziz 12:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Silly me, I didn't click on the image and read the little labels. Benkarnell 14:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I shortened the Greek Republic of Ethiopia to "The GRE". Misterxeight 16:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
In general the existance of Greek colonies at the present time seems to be unlikely as Greece is a small country and what is more important it was on the losing side of the Second Great War, which would mean it would have lost colonial possesions if it had them. However, I think historically there may have been such Greek colonies, similarly to Colonies of Lithuania and there may be Greek minorities, etc. remaining. One idea I think would be plausible is that Greece acquired a colony in Ethiopia as a leased area in XIX century or, because it fought on the winning side in the First Great War which Ethiopia had lost, after this war - when other European countries turned their leased areas into permanent colonies. Then during the Second Great War when Ethiopia reoccupied these coastal colonies. Because Greece, unlike other European countries that had these colonies, sided with Ethiopia, Greece and Ethiopia agreed that Greece would cede the colony to Ethiopia in return for Ethiopian support in Libya, which was at the time disputed between Greece and Two Sicilies (and Greece and Two Sicilies fought on different sides of war, so I presume a kind of civil war happened there and therefore Greece would have needed Ethiopian support in this larger and more important colony). Such events would seem plasuible IMO given existing history.
By the way, as I see you have many suggestions for various areas and this is nice, but in general the concensus was previously that it is better to develop one area/idea well than to write several sentences on many things - because time passes on and in future other people will want to join Ill Bethisad and have places to expand on as well based on theri ideas which would be harder if we would write some ideas about each country; another decision I remember was that the creation of new modern (i.e. existing currently) countries should be avoided as map of IB is quite crowded already. Therefore I'd suggest concentrating on one issue and when it is developed more to move on. By the way, there are a couple of Greek influenced areas already - Libya (which you have mistakenly called Algeria in one place) and Nea Illenicia, which is under Argentian occupation since the Second Patagonian War - you may want to add some ideas for those areas as well because especially the idea of Nea Illenicia seems to be not expanded well enough. Abdul-aziz 21:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Nea Illenicia we talked about. What if we used your idea about the lease which it lost in GW II, then rebought after an economic boom?
- I don't know, but I still think there's a way to make it work. The 1988 "reward" scenario was one idea, but there had also been discussion that Greece and Ethiopia had had either a lease or a Reciprocal Colony relationship in the late 19th or early 20th century. Now I know all of those little enclaves were seized during the War of Liberation, but Greece and Ethiopia were allies during that war-- or at least, they both were allies of Germany. Why couldn't a Greek enclave of some kind have survived, since the two nations were and/or are such good friends? And if it's a reciprocal colony, then Ethiopia could even have a slice of land in Europe. Benkarnell 04:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Reasons How a Colony Got There
I was thinking about how'd they make revenue. Gold crossed my mind. Maybe oil. Fisheries and hunting lodges also. Maybe even resorts. Well there is only one other thing I can think of. Libya goes mad and starts going on a rampage across North Africa. The LoN intervenes. Greece along with Ethiopia volunteer to go and stop the insanity. After a long time, finally Greece and Ethiopia win the fight, and Libya is given to Greece for a job well done. Misterxeight 00:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Misterxeight 00:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wild idea: Suppose Greece had a colony there until 1940, when it was taken away. But so many Greeks had moved there that they were given autonomy as one of the ethnic states of the Ethiopian Federation: The Greek Republic of Ethiopia. Probably it was part of the treaty that the GRE could never re-unite with Mother Greece, but Greece and the GRE could still have strong economic and cultural relations today. Even the flag can still work. Benkarnell 04:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Additional thought: If the two of you want to dabble in a controversy, given the above scenario, Greece could cause a scene by attempting to re-unite with the GRE. It could even be combined with the negotiation scenario: rather than securing outright land, Greek negotiators managed to secure permanent autonomy for the GRE, and Greece now seeking to solidify ties between itself and its former colony. Although it would be unlikely that Greece would be called to negotiate in that scenario, given the conflict of interest inherent in being a former colonial power in the region. Benkarnell 07:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Reasons How It Didn't
- It would seem highly unlikely for several reasons. After the Second Great War despite of Ethiopia loosing it the European countries did not reinstate the colonies they lost (the colonies were, after all, among main reasons of Ethiopian warmongering; it is similar to the situation after WW2 when reparations were not imposed on Germany). Instead the Ethiopia was weakened by turning it into a confederation. In addition to that, the economical value of having small colonies on Ethiopian coast became very doubtful - they were important as stopover points for shipping which are not needed when Suez channel works well and the container ships are moving the cargo. In general, there would be little reason for Greece to reestablish colony some time after WW2 and given the history it would probably be unpopular among local Ethiopians and other countries as well. Of course, Europeans, including Greeks, may have some influence in Ethiopia, espeically via relations with states inside Ethiopia. But given the current economic status of Ethiopia and lack of resources (correct me if I am wrong, but it seems there is neither oil nor diamonds or gold in this area) economical benefits for that would be doubtful. And Greece has far more important interests in Africa: Libya. Regarding Benkarnells's thoughts - Ethiopia and its allies were overran by Allies during Second Great War, given Greece's participation with the Allianz so would be the Greek colony even if it wouldn't be taken by Ethiopia in early Second Great War. In my opinion, this article should be written as an article on an entity which existed in past (perhaps 1918-1939 or some time in late 1800s - 1940), its culture, development and history, similarly to for example articles on Pakštuva or Naujojo Vilniaus apskritis. Ill Bethisad is as much (if not more) about history than about the present situation. Abdul-aziz 00:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Was he a thing *there*? It seems to me that *there* the Ethiopian royal family is very different from that *here*! Which I suppose means no Rastafarianism? (Even more so if Haile Selassie/his replacement was the one who set off Ethiopia's involvement in GWII, don't want to worship a pariah after all) Juan Martin Velez Linares 19:04, 27 August 2015
- MisterXeight or Abdul-Aziz are your best bets for this line of questioning. BoArthur 18:12, 27 August 2015 (PDT)