History of New Zion

Started by Desertfox, July 06, 2008, 05:36:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Desertfox

I'm working on the History of New Zion, this is what I have so far. How does it look?

Brownie points to whoever finds out where I got some of the major points.


1882 - a major wave of Jewish immigrants arrive in the Kingdom of Ethipia (then vassal to the Caliph). Among them is a former Swiss Army Officer and renownk Zionist by the name of Ahad ben Yusev of the Royal Davinic Line. Ahad distinguishes himself in the Battle of Mekele, where the Italian invaders are crushed.

1889 - Menelik II formally assumes the throne of Ethipia, is crowned Emperor. Ahad is knighted, giving a post in the Royal Guards, and marries the daughter of Menelik, Zauditu.

1896 - Italian invaders are once agian defeated in the battles of Amba Alagi and Adowa.

1901 - The Caliphate of Cairo disintegrates, Menelik II takes to opportunity to declare full independance.

1903 - After two years of war Italy finally gains a foothold in Eritrea. Menelik II and Prince Wossen are killed at the Battle of Metemma.

1903-04 - A quasi Civil War ensues between General Ahad and the sole remaining son of Menelik II,  Kebede Tessema.  Casualties are low, the war intself ending with the assasination of Kedebe by his own bodyguards.

1905 - The Peace of Tel Aviv ends the Civil War. Ahad is crowned King of New Zion, while civil power is transfered from the monarchy to the Council of Elders.

1908 - Secret Treaty of Tel Aviv, New Switzerland pledges to defend New Zion against all aggressors.

1912 - King Ahad falls seriously ill...
"We don't run from the end of the world. We CHARGE!" Schlock

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20090102.html

The Rock Doctor

Did you conclude the 1908 treaty, with mod approval, while playing NS?

Desertfox

Well nothing was set in stone, but that was when the Russian CB deal was done. I mention then (as NS) that I would defend New Zion if NZ was attacked. But that Treaty could have been lost with the political upheaval in NS post-war.
"We don't run from the end of the world. We CHARGE!" Schlock

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20090102.html

Ithekro

The mentioning of New Zion was heavy during the middle part of the war in 1908 and the pressure on that country to "not get involved" was also heavy dispite the harboring of Swiss raiders for several months.

The Rock Doctor

If there was any in-character posting about it, kindly refer it to me - it'll help us mods determine what ended up happening.

Korpen

Quote from: Desertfox on July 06, 2008, 07:44:52 PM
Well nothing was set in stone, but that was when the Russian CB deal was done. I mention then (as NS) that I would defend New Zion if NZ was attacked. But that Treaty could have been lost with the political upheaval in NS post-war.
Well, that does not have to be a treaty, it could simply be a guarantee of independence.
Form NZ perspective that would be much better, as the main reason everyone around them hates them is the NS connection.
Card-carrying member of the Battlecruiser Fan Club.

Desertfox

QuoteIf there was any in-character posting about it, kindly refer it to me - it'll help us mods determine what ended up happening.
I don't think there was any IC posting about it. There was a bit of OOC, but I don't recall any IC stuff.

QuoteWell, that does not have to be a treaty, it could simply be a guarantee of independence.
That's more of what I'm driving at, since the NZ is not under any obligation to help NS at all. What would be a better way to put it than a treaty?

QuoteForm NZ perspective that would be much better, as the main reason everyone around them hates them is the NS connection.
That might be why the Neatherlands hates them.  DKB already didn't like them, and Italy has a history of invading Ethiopia.
"We don't run from the end of the world. We CHARGE!" Schlock

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20090102.html

Korpen

Quote from: Desertfox on July 07, 2008, 10:01:13 AM
That's more of what I'm driving at, since the NZ is not under any obligation to help NS at all. What would be a better way to put it than a treaty?
By as declaration of independence, that is the NS would simply declare that it will guarantee the independence of NZ.

QuoteThat might be why the Neatherlands hates them.  DKB already didn't like them.
Well I think the DKB dislike was for the very same reason, the NZ was seen as being close to NS.
That said; hate is too strong a word. It is simply the fact that the NZ have conducted hostile actions against the kingdom in the past and seems to be cosy in a relationship that makes it likely that they will do so again. If the NZ changed it was and made amends, the Kingdom would change its position, it is really in the hands of NZ.
Card-carrying member of the Battlecruiser Fan Club.

Desertfox

QuoteBy as declaration of independence, that is the NS would simply declare that it will guarantee the independence of NZ.
I'll change it to that then.

QuoteWell I think the DKB dislike was for the very same reason, the NZ was seen as being close to NS.
Not really, in fact it was the NZ-DKB tensions that allowed NS to gain a foothold in NZ.

QuoteThat said; hate is too strong a word. It is simply the fact that the NZ have conducted hostile actions against the kingdom in the past and seems to be cosy in a relationship that makes it likely that they will do so again.
By that you mean, helping raiders? Heck, Siam proved more helpful than NZ. New Zion didn't have designs on the Dutch Kongo, but had the war gone better, I might have persuaded NZ to jump in against the DKB, like say the Fins in WWII.
"We don't run from the end of the world. We CHARGE!" Schlock

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20090102.html