The whole "Gulf of Mexico" kerfuffle has me again thinking about Latin America and its place in the Medieval America project. (As many people refer to the entire hemisphere as "America"). And something I often think about is if it, like the United States, would be this crazy novel thing, or more closely resemble the 1500s, within a certain amount of reason. It is always fascinating to think of the region as this sort of strange bridge between the "pre-modern" world and the modern one. And I also think, in a world reverted to Medievalism, would it again be more bustling. This is probably not super surprising to people, but New York City is not the largest city in the Western Hemisphere, probably not even close. I do actually wonder if any "American", and I mean cities in the general United States landmass, would rank in the top five. It's actually quite possible to imagie the place as something of a backwater, or at the very least, perhaps like Medieval Russia, populous and complex, but somewhat sequestered from the wider goings on. It's notable that in the Colonial Era, the continent was much less of a concern than the Caribbean Islands, and I can see Panama, (whether or not they're able to technologically maintain a canal) to be the center of gravity. This isn't to say the Caribbean would necessarily be larger, as they wouldn't have colonial overlords extracting from them, and it might actually be difficult supporting a major metropolois on an island with medieval technology (for instance, water would be a huge concern), but it's interesting to ponder.
This is a census of the ten largest cities in the U.S. by decade. I would say by 1830 the U.S. cities started to have ceilings that would be higher than a Medieval muncipality would, in all likelihood. This and this are also good resources if the biggest cites as the Colonial era came to a close, keeping in mind it's very imperfect as a litmus, but it's where the biggest cities are comparable to the largest cities in medieval society, more or less. So the largest cities in the New World, around this period seem to be, in very approximate order,
1. Mexico City, Mexico,
2. Salvador, Brazil,
3. New York City, USA,
4. Puebla, Mexico 5. Lima, Peru
6. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
7. Havana, Cuba
8. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
9. Santiago, Chile
10. Carcas, Venuezuela
Gudajalara, Guanajato, and Kingston would also be contenders. So it's very likely Mexio would possibly have a sizeable number of major cities, but I think for a good deal of Latin America and the Caribbean, which were settled earlier, and were more important in the Early Modern period, there would also be more of a "cap". That is, the earlier you settled, the less grace you have to "catch up".
As you can see, the U.S. really did not start building up these cities until the 1800s, and this is where the wild cards to pop up. This article mark every sizeable settlment in the U.S. by chronology, and it's interesting that no city build after 1867, with Vancouver, seems to in general be among the bigger cities on White's map, not even Birmingham, Alabama, so I think that's a pretty good cut-off point. This would actually cut off a great deal of inner Brazil (Which one could make a case for seeing a LOT of its urban centers collapsing), and some Southern Cone countries. The Southern Cone is one I dwell on a lot--in many ways its development has resembled that of Canada and the U.S. as it does Latin America, and even if the rest of Latin America "reverts" more than becomes something brand-spanking new, would that apply to the Cone? Although, looking at the research I was surprised to find out how old and alreayd developed some Argentinian cities were.
Saturday, March 1, 2025
Saturday, February 1, 2025
The Gothic Zone
When I first discovered the site, like many I was disappointed at it being unfinished, and moreso, how little my neck of the woods was being written about. Especially since to a large degree, I graviated towards the sight because walking through the woods and villages of my New England home could sometimes feel like I was walking through Sherwood or Hobbiton. This is actually signifigant. Most readers of the sight have pointed that, by far, the Great Plains and the cowboys have had the most most focus, with three pages directly related to them, two of the specific nations at one point being directly under their sphere of influence, and the climate page giving them a direct focus. The second biggest focus would be directed on the Deep South and Desert regions of the U.S. The most focused on the Northeast would be the pages regarding the United States of America and the Non-Denominational Church, and while a lot of that territory is in the Northeast, it's probably important to note that the Headquarters for both is beneath the Mason-Dixon Line. In fact, I would say the Mason Dixon Line, and the Eastern borders of the Mississippi are very much junction points where White leaves them a bit of a mystery. Or are they?
Something that White mentions on the Race page is how people on the Great Lakes are largely physically indistinguishable from Europeans. They might actually be at times culturally idistinguishable as well. And that may go double for New Englanders and Quebecois. The specific pages White created--Southern Secetaries, Western Empires, Cowboys Horse Archers, and of course the United States of America--they're all most destinctly not European. It's about the drift between The West as in "Western Civillization" and The West as in the Western genre of motion pictures. To some extent, the site itself is almost a twist, thinking they'll get something like castles and knights in California (something we see in the Emberverse or Shannara) series of books, and oops, it turns it is not the case at all. Or mostly not the case. Because in New England, Eastern Canada, and some of the Great Lakes region, the climate, demographics and other factors create a region that could theoretically break off an reattach to Medieval Europe and it wouldn't miss that much of a beat. (I mean, there would be differences, but differences like you might see between France and Scandinavia.) The novelty just isn't there most of the time--a Medieval New England or Quebec or even Upstate New York could be the plopped into a fantasy novel and not show the seems. This is what I call the Gothic Zone.
Now when I say "Gothic", I'm not speaking of say, vampires and Byronic dramas and the like. Well, not completely. I'm also referring to French castles. I'm also referring to the Geats of Beowulf fame. Just a general sense of Northern European classicism. Or to put it this way, the recurring works of David Eggers. Eggers, a native of New Hampshire has set two of his films in New England, one in Germany, one across the wide Viking World, with a pending film set in England. Two are set in the 19th century, one in 1600s colonial America and one, of course, the Viking Age, and aforementioned fifth film is supposed to be in Medieval England. There is of course, a recurring focus on supernatural beings, folkloric, Gothic and Lovecraftian all. (There can probably be a lot to be said on the relationship between Rhode Islander H.P. Lovecraft and Texan Robert E. Howard in the nature of fantasy Americana.) As I've talked about before, New England has the vibes of a Transylvania, or Überwald. Nosferatu has historically taken half the plot of Dracula and moved it from England to Germany without seriously disrupting things (To some degree it could be said to shave off the Victorian English racism, just a tad.) Then of course, there's the Hammer Films where a lot of the vampire fiction takes place in some undisclosed Never-Neverland, a dizzying collision of Catholic Priests, ghouls, rustic villagers and snobby aristocrats. Perhaps not unlike New England itself. So I almost want to call it "The Eggers Line". It's not so much to say all of Egger's movies could have their locations switched around--the research is simply too good. But I want to say the entire expanse, from New England to Russia, all share an almost innate commonslity where setting THE NORTHMAN in Vermomt would be a less jarring shift than setting THE VVITCH in Illinois. So what is below the Gothic Zone, the Eggers line? What filmmaker embdies the ambiance of the uniquely American terrirory that White has covered? I feel the mkst satisfsctory answer is the Coen Brothers. Together, their collabarations have covered a great deal of the territory White has concentrated on. Joel eventally went off-brand (to a degree) with Tragedy of Macbeth, but have largely stayed in this zone. Now whats interesting is they are characterized as making movies set in several locations someone might not be surprised to find a cowboy hat and spurs in, there's a trilogy of movies--THE HUDSUCKER PROXY, BURN AFTER READING and INSIDE LEWYN DAVIS, set in East Coast metropoloi, two in New York City, one in Washington DC. But I would say these actually codify my classification. As mentiomed Washington is below the Mason Dixon Line. Though the Beltway could be on Mars for all Texans could be concerned, it is, by definition, as American as it gets, two sides of the same coin. New York could be said to be the same way though as far from "Western" as it is from "Medieval"--one might say it's the consummate World City, its almosy impossible to imagine Eggers shooting a movie in the Big Apple. What's also interesting to consider is the Great Lakes states--illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan serve as something of a No-Man's Land; The Coens have not set any workd North of New York or east of Minnesota. It could be said this is a region where the culture of the American Heartland and the Europhilia of the Northeast drift in and out, much like how the Russia, which beats some climactic similarity, has often found itself at the crossroads of east and west.
Something that White mentions on the Race page is how people on the Great Lakes are largely physically indistinguishable from Europeans. They might actually be at times culturally idistinguishable as well. And that may go double for New Englanders and Quebecois. The specific pages White created--Southern Secetaries, Western Empires, Cowboys Horse Archers, and of course the United States of America--they're all most destinctly not European. It's about the drift between The West as in "Western Civillization" and The West as in the Western genre of motion pictures. To some extent, the site itself is almost a twist, thinking they'll get something like castles and knights in California (something we see in the Emberverse or Shannara) series of books, and oops, it turns it is not the case at all. Or mostly not the case. Because in New England, Eastern Canada, and some of the Great Lakes region, the climate, demographics and other factors create a region that could theoretically break off an reattach to Medieval Europe and it wouldn't miss that much of a beat. (I mean, there would be differences, but differences like you might see between France and Scandinavia.) The novelty just isn't there most of the time--a Medieval New England or Quebec or even Upstate New York could be the plopped into a fantasy novel and not show the seems. This is what I call the Gothic Zone.
Now when I say "Gothic", I'm not speaking of say, vampires and Byronic dramas and the like. Well, not completely. I'm also referring to French castles. I'm also referring to the Geats of Beowulf fame. Just a general sense of Northern European classicism. Or to put it this way, the recurring works of David Eggers. Eggers, a native of New Hampshire has set two of his films in New England, one in Germany, one across the wide Viking World, with a pending film set in England. Two are set in the 19th century, one in 1600s colonial America and one, of course, the Viking Age, and aforementioned fifth film is supposed to be in Medieval England. There is of course, a recurring focus on supernatural beings, folkloric, Gothic and Lovecraftian all. (There can probably be a lot to be said on the relationship between Rhode Islander H.P. Lovecraft and Texan Robert E. Howard in the nature of fantasy Americana.) As I've talked about before, New England has the vibes of a Transylvania, or Überwald. Nosferatu has historically taken half the plot of Dracula and moved it from England to Germany without seriously disrupting things (To some degree it could be said to shave off the Victorian English racism, just a tad.) Then of course, there's the Hammer Films where a lot of the vampire fiction takes place in some undisclosed Never-Neverland, a dizzying collision of Catholic Priests, ghouls, rustic villagers and snobby aristocrats. Perhaps not unlike New England itself. So I almost want to call it "The Eggers Line". It's not so much to say all of Egger's movies could have their locations switched around--the research is simply too good. But I want to say the entire expanse, from New England to Russia, all share an almost innate commonslity where setting THE NORTHMAN in Vermomt would be a less jarring shift than setting THE VVITCH in Illinois. So what is below the Gothic Zone, the Eggers line? What filmmaker embdies the ambiance of the uniquely American terrirory that White has covered? I feel the mkst satisfsctory answer is the Coen Brothers. Together, their collabarations have covered a great deal of the territory White has concentrated on. Joel eventally went off-brand (to a degree) with Tragedy of Macbeth, but have largely stayed in this zone. Now whats interesting is they are characterized as making movies set in several locations someone might not be surprised to find a cowboy hat and spurs in, there's a trilogy of movies--THE HUDSUCKER PROXY, BURN AFTER READING and INSIDE LEWYN DAVIS, set in East Coast metropoloi, two in New York City, one in Washington DC. But I would say these actually codify my classification. As mentiomed Washington is below the Mason Dixon Line. Though the Beltway could be on Mars for all Texans could be concerned, it is, by definition, as American as it gets, two sides of the same coin. New York could be said to be the same way though as far from "Western" as it is from "Medieval"--one might say it's the consummate World City, its almosy impossible to imagine Eggers shooting a movie in the Big Apple. What's also interesting to consider is the Great Lakes states--illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan serve as something of a No-Man's Land; The Coens have not set any workd North of New York or east of Minnesota. It could be said this is a region where the culture of the American Heartland and the Europhilia of the Northeast drift in and out, much like how the Russia, which beats some climactic similarity, has often found itself at the crossroads of east and west.
Wednesday, January 1, 2025
Commander in Chief
I'm probably one of the last ones to say anything, or maybe I'm the authority on saying anything, but we sometimes take the idea much, much more seriously than Matthew White. For all the fantasy novelist wrld-builder and all of it likes to ponder the subject, his surreal histories are, in general, extremely tongue-in-cheek and satirical. They're also not meant to be part of any larger "shared universe" (they can't, in fact), but they are all works from the same mind, who's often made the same observations about history.
White makes repeated references to things like "thrones" and even "kingdoms", but he makes certain to never officially invoke a title more associated with Medieval Europe. "President" is used, as is "Colonel". "Governor" is referred to a couple times, though not attached to any specific nation states. As I talked about in Noveember, there's no official correspondence between these terms, the important thing is they're used instead of things words "Duke", "Prince", and especially "King". There's probably a couple of factors here. The first is just White being humorous and whimsical and overall probably adds to the ambiance of Americana. The second is that it makes sense that Americans would be resistant to outright monarchial labels, even if the sementic distinction really doesn't mean anything anymore. But the the third is something, if you're a strange bird like me, can attribute the whole thing to a "translation convention". This is done throughout history...actually done throughout the present where what we call countries isn't necessarily the name they use for themselves. It's something J.R.R. Tolkien has said was done through his legendarium (That is Frodo would never have answered to the name "Frodo"), and it's even something White has claimed for his own works. The idea of using the word "President" in a feudal setting and have it "feel" right is something that's been in my head ever since it was used (as a translated subtitle) in the television show Shogun to describe Yoshii Toranaga's office (Not the Shogunate), which was very interesting, considering the term "Shogun" is a very, very unique feudal titel. So when we go back to White's page on the Roman Empire, and how they radically rejected monarchy to the point "King" was never used during the Republic OR the Empire, instead it was Caesar as something of loophole. That word would travel throughout history, corrupted into terms like "Kaiser", and "Czar", especially ironic as "Czar" would go on to be almost synonymous with absolutism. So if one likes, and doesn't wish to use a term like "President", which rightly or wongly evokes thing modernity and democracy, the actual title could be fiddled with. (The first instinct would be "Potus", although I'm not super, super fond of use of acronyms for the scenario. It's a little "cargo cult".) "Preden" and "Powesrtant" are things that came out of my mouth when saying the word faster, and slower, or in various exaggerated dialects.
White makes repeated references to things like "thrones" and even "kingdoms", but he makes certain to never officially invoke a title more associated with Medieval Europe. "President" is used, as is "Colonel". "Governor" is referred to a couple times, though not attached to any specific nation states. As I talked about in Noveember, there's no official correspondence between these terms, the important thing is they're used instead of things words "Duke", "Prince", and especially "King". There's probably a couple of factors here. The first is just White being humorous and whimsical and overall probably adds to the ambiance of Americana. The second is that it makes sense that Americans would be resistant to outright monarchial labels, even if the sementic distinction really doesn't mean anything anymore. But the the third is something, if you're a strange bird like me, can attribute the whole thing to a "translation convention". This is done throughout history...actually done throughout the present where what we call countries isn't necessarily the name they use for themselves. It's something J.R.R. Tolkien has said was done through his legendarium (That is Frodo would never have answered to the name "Frodo"), and it's even something White has claimed for his own works. The idea of using the word "President" in a feudal setting and have it "feel" right is something that's been in my head ever since it was used (as a translated subtitle) in the television show Shogun to describe Yoshii Toranaga's office (Not the Shogunate), which was very interesting, considering the term "Shogun" is a very, very unique feudal titel. So when we go back to White's page on the Roman Empire, and how they radically rejected monarchy to the point "King" was never used during the Republic OR the Empire, instead it was Caesar as something of loophole. That word would travel throughout history, corrupted into terms like "Kaiser", and "Czar", especially ironic as "Czar" would go on to be almost synonymous with absolutism. So if one likes, and doesn't wish to use a term like "President", which rightly or wongly evokes thing modernity and democracy, the actual title could be fiddled with. (The first instinct would be "Potus", although I'm not super, super fond of use of acronyms for the scenario. It's a little "cargo cult".) "Preden" and "Powesrtant" are things that came out of my mouth when saying the word faster, and slower, or in various exaggerated dialects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)