Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As for Germany the maker of this map was quite ignorant. There are many more areas where people feel less German and more regional, linguistically, culturally and historically, just as the other non-brown areas. As if the Pfalz or the two or rather three very distinctive parts of Baden, for example, were more pan 'German' than Swabia or Bavaria.
There are also other problems.
Why is Switzerland one single nation (I'd split it in three for this discussion) whereas Romania and Moldova are separate?
What you said here is pretty senseless. Too many Quebecois nationalist roots in you makes you think that any other region with a separate language is a nation?
There isn't any single nation in Iberia except for Spain and Portugal (obviously) and maybe the Basques who had a really different culture and totally different language (although Navarre is NOT Basque, so the Greater Euskal Herria is false and a cr4p nationalist fake history invented by the ultranationalist Sabino Arana in the early 20th century). Navarra was a kingdom while the Basques weren't, but the Basques really were different than the rest of Iberia. Nowadays most of Basques are not even able to speak Basque and the vast majority are mixed with other Spaniards but anyways that's off topic.
According to you, then all of those are nations, right? Check this:
This map is funny for Spain at least. I understand putting regions which were kingdoms. But what about Cantabria? Rioja? Valencia? Balearic Islands? Murcia?? lol
Who's to say that the number of countries currently in Europe (50) is optimal? Maybe 150 would be better. Or a dozen? Or one?
Anyway it would never get to 150 of course because there is always assimilation, conquests, mergers, etc.
But the status quo is never immutable. In a few hundreds many of the countries we are living in today will no longer exist. Maybe even the concept of a country will no longer exist.
Who's to say that the number of countries currently in Europe (50) is optimal? Maybe 150 would be better. Or a dozen? Or one?
Anyway it would never get to 150 of course because there is always assimilation, conquests, mergers, etc.
But the status quo is never immutable. In a few hundreds many of the countries we are living in today will no longer exist. Maybe even the concept of a country will no longer exist.
This is not bad, plus Norway should merge with Sweden, Denmark with Germany, Belgium with France, Netherlands with Germany, Portugal with Spain. Perfect. Ideally no country should have fewer than 50 million people.
This is not bad, plus Norway should merge with Sweden, Denmark with Germany, Belgium with France, Netherlands with Germany, Portugal with Spain. Perfect. Ideally no country should have fewer than 50 million people.
Yes, of course. That led to great things over the next four years (and 25 years later), did it not?
I don't see the sheer number of independent countries as the issue, as much as the stability of those states, and also the robustness of the international systems and linkages that exist between them.
A 500-country world could be more stable than a 2-country world.
Nobody ever thought that Catalan independency was possible, nobody. It was a bluff, a bargaining chip to scare Madrid.
But as Madrid, and Rajoy, don't budge as they know all the antics, here they must increase the affrontery levels.
We'll see what happens on Thursday.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.