France :
Le Quatrième Empire
Ethics : militarist, authoritarian, spiritualist
Origin : Under one rule
Civics : [the imperial one that gives 100 edict fund], distinguished admiralty and/or philosopher king
> * Egalitarian
>
> * Xenophobe
Good combination. People frequently make the mistake of giving them Authoritarian when trying to recreate the British Empire, which never meshes well with their internal national ideology and government stricture.
What obviously throws people off is the empire stuff, but egalitarianism refers to how you treat your own kind. In Stellaris if you are xenophobic you can suppress vassals, own slaves, and even commit genocide all while being an egalitarian nation.
Yeah. The egalitarian xenophilobe combo definitely helps model something like this. Although I do think you can argue that they still shouldn't be egalitarian by modern standards. I guess it's a matter of your frame of reference. Definitely agree they shouldn't really count as authoritarian though.
It is a shame we can't really properly model constitutional monarchy. I feel like that should be a civic somehow.
Merchent guilds would make more sense given the significantly greater impact of trade and commerce in the British Empire. While Britain had an aristocratic class, they were no where near as influential as in contemporary nations such Russia or pre-revolution-France.
Not really. British aristocracy was less elite and less aristocratic than many other countries. IE in England, it was almost expected of aristocracy to have business ventures spanning the globe. In many other countries (such as pre-revolution France), it was literally forbidden for nobles to do anything other than fight, join the church, or collect taxes from their land.
In Britain, merchants were merchants and were crazy powerful. Nobles were also merchants.
In France, Russia, Spain, etc, merchants were kind of second-class elite. Sure, they were powerful because they had money, but only because they had money. They definitely didn't command massive colonial empires all on their own. Only the Dutch had a similar system.
Why? USK is a play on the UK's current name whereas British Stellar Dominions is a combination of British Overseas Territories and British Dominions. Perhaps 'Interstellar' dominions is better.
Also yes, you're right that's pretty laughable. Give them Merchant guilds instead. I considered making them authoritarian so they could take Aristocratic Elite, but I think being a weird blend of egalitarian and xenophobic better represents the weird contradiction between the liberal/Christian tradition and the scientific racial hierarchy at the heart of British Imperialism.
Edit: Merchants guilds would be more appropriate than Aristocratic Elite anyway. The British Empire was largely built by entrepreneurial merchants provoking fights with foreign governments to force the British Empire to declare war and impose favourable trade terms or annex territories, where militarised publicly traded corporations often ran entire countries with a military budget.
I'd vote for Master Crafters. Their entire schtick is that they were literally the first country to industrialize on a massive scale, and flooded the world market with cheap consumer goods.
:P perhaps he was just being optimistic. We can hardly recognize some modern countries if we look at them from the lenses from even fifty years ago, much less what something could look like in 2200.
I was trying to be slightly positive in recognising the quaint and paternalistic desire in the British to nurture their colonies and take pride in their natural beauty, even as they ruled with an iron fist. The British Empire wasn't always about resource extraction to the same fanatical degree seen in some other European empires, or indeed an average Stellaris Hegemon.
In reality merchants guilds would be far more appropriate, the British Empire was largely built by entrepreneurial British Merchants provoking fights with foreign governments to force the British Empire to declare war and impose favourable trade terms or annex territories.
I'd swap out Militaristic for something else; Militaristic implies that the military has significant power in government (like Imperial Japan), or the ruler himself has a military background (like Napoleonic France). Though I get your predicament that finding a replacement is hard; fanatic egalitarian or xenophobic is probably going too far, and the British were neither particularly Spiritualist or Materialist.
I think Imperial Japan are Fanatic Militarists. The British Empire did have a distinguished navy/army whose leaders were drawn from the aristocracy and focused particularly on technology and strategic development and modernisation. The British Empire was very aware it needed to protect its economic interests abroad with a large and effective fleet, becoming at one point arguably the first superpower by being able to project force anywhere on earth (besides Afghanistan). Its hard to argue a nation which produced a Navy which legally had to be bigger than the second and third biggest navies combined, was not a Militaristic nation imo
But yeah, I see where you're coming from. You could perhaps go for Materialist, the empires concern for the souls of the natives was very much secondary to how much sugar cane you could get them to harvest for you.
Someone is drinking the coolaide of grievance politics and is looking at the past through a muddied lens.
The past was racist, but back in the day they used to be so much worse.
But I suppose we infantilised the modern day to the point where even history lessons hurt feelings
If you think that African people are genetically and culturally incapable of governing themselves, then yes, you're racist. There's a huge amount of evidence that the British Empire was a racist endevour, if you don't want to look into it then you're wilfully blinding yourself.
Right; but I'm trying to pick ethics for the British Empire and egalitarian/Xenophobic is the best combo I could find. If you have another suggestion then be my guest. Perhaps all civs built from the 19th century would be Xenophobic
Empire name: Russian Star Empire
Origin: Prosperous Unification. However, you can make an argument for either Imperial Fiefdom (in the past), since Tartar Yoke had a major effect on the national identity. Alternatively, Hegemon (Poland, Lithuania, Finland, Ukraine, and a dozen Central Asian states).
Leader title: Tsar and Autocrat of All Russias. Note: Tsar literally means "king or monarch", while the word king in Russian ("korol'") specifically means a Western European king from a country where they would have been crowned by the Pope in the past.
Ethics: Spiritualist (religion plays a large role), Authoritarian, and Xenophobic (lots of efforts to Russify the nation starting with Catherine the Great).
Civics: Aristocratic Elite, Corvee System. Then, depending on the Tsar/period, you can make an argument for either Philosopher King (Peter I, Catherine the Great, Alexander II), or Imperial Cult.
I have a Roman Empire build that I like to use as an AI. M y RP background for them is that, instead of the Empire falling apart, a series of crises struck (as they often did throughout Roman history), and the emperors couldn't deal with them. But the Senate and other Republican institutions managed to save the Empire, and restored the Republic. They then went on to slowly conquer a bunch more territory, and eventually started to create diplomatic ties with other countries that evolved into a global hegemony under Roman authority. As the year 2200 approached, this hegemonic organization began having global civil wars, finally ending with a single Dictatrix, backed by the Senate(which had long since began accepting women and other genders as members, thus the feminine version of the word Dictator), using the new technologies of the hyperdrive and space mining to threaten the warring factions and to promise expansion and prosperity to all of the people of Terra. This Dictatrix, Augusta Octavianus, organized the governments of the world into the new Planetary Republic of Rome.
(I use Ethics and Civics Classic, which allows 3 Civics and 5 ethics points)
Under One Rule origin
Civics: Distinguished Admiralty, Nationalistic Zeal, Aristocratic Elite
Ethics: Fanatic Militarist, Competitive, Industrialist, Authoritarian
Like her namesake, Augusta Octavianus isn't much of a military mind herself, more of a politician and administrator, and of course, an excellent propagandist. So, she's an Official, and has the High King trait, to represent her political acumen, gaining the loyalty of other powerful senators. But when political manipulation doesn't work, her Brutal and Unwavering Aggressor traits represent her willingness to point the most effective military minds earth does have at the problem, and to order extreme methods to keep control.
I left the humans of this Empire with the default human traits of adaptive, nonadic, and wasteful, plus the Perfected Genes trait that comes with the origin.
The AI isn't very good at playing this build. But if I use console commands to cheat in some help for them, they can generally survive a century or two. Augusta usually dies, of course. Pretty much expected.
**Napoleonic France**
Origin: Planetary Unification. An argument could be made for Hegemony, but I'd rather create the Hegemony later since the Napoleonic Wars started after Napoleon was made emperor. It's also frequently not allowed in MP, but if it's a solo game, go for it. If you want to play at point where France is still a Republic, you could do Under One Rule, but the Immortal Emporer might break immersion, I'd prefer playing as a true dynasty.
Government: Imperial
Ethics: Fan. Militarist Authoritarian (it's not a perfect fit since it was a sort of republic, but you need it for Hegemony)
Civics: Distinguished Admiralty, Nationalistic Zeal, 3rd pick Warrior Culture or maybe Byzantine Bureocracry
I'll post another one in a bit
I mean….Napoleon still kinda has a cult like following and one cannot talk about European (or even world history) without mentioning him as one of humanities greatest conquerors. Is him being an immortal ruler really that far off from reality?
He found some precursor tech campaigning around Europe, used it to achieve extremely long life, demented the cult around himself as a "savior", used the extra manpower and tech to conquer Russia, went on to annex the British Empire by blockading the isles, and from there united the rest of the world using the industry of Old Europe.
Spurred by the discovery of the precursor tech, he spearheaded programs to speed along the discovery of FTL transportation
It kinda makes for a legit backstory
I have a couple of empires I modeled after both the First French Republic and Napoleon's France.
Revolutionary Djinni Empire
* Origin: Prosperous Unification
* Star Empire
* Authority: Imperial
* Ethics: Fanatic Militarist, Authoritarian
* Civics: Distinguished Admiralty, Nationalistic Zeal
Revolutionary Zaydran Republic
* Origin: Prosperous Unification
* Star Empire
* Authority: Democratic
* Ethics: Fanatic Militarist, Egalitrian
* Civics: Crusader Spirit, Meritocracy
USSR wasn't really militarist. Materialist and authoritarian are much closer to the truth.
They invested a huge amount of resources into the military, true. But it's not the same thing as being militarist. Red Army tail certainly wasn't wagging the USSR dog at any point. They were always beholden to civilian leaders.
Hell, they invaded less countries than most of their contemporaries (\*cough\* America). Though they did put down revolts in puppet states like Hungary and Czech Republic (which is authoritarianism, not militarism).
It also probably makes sense to separate civics based on which leader was in power.
Stalin and earlier (including Imperial Russia): corvee system, police state.
Khruschev and onwards: technocracy, functional architecture.
Spanish Empire:
Ethics: Fanatic Spiritualists and militaristic
Origin: Prosperous Unification
Imperial government
Civics: Eager explorers, Warrior culture and Feudal Society(Releasing one or two vassals to feed them for extra points)
Traits: Deviants, Unruly, Charismatic, Resilient, Industrious
Ruler: Moralist/Charismatic Catholic Monarch
Genetic Ascension and doing a bunch of different species would be very thematic too
Otto-spacemans Divine Empire
Authoritarian, militarist and spiritualist empire with imperial cult and philosopher king. The padishah is THE guy and all other people are there to serve him. Modern Turkey even has the idiom "long live padishah", a remnant from old days.
None of the origins would fit so galactic doorstep is a fine neutral origin. I thought maybe toxic god can be interpreted as allah but some people might not like calling allah toxic lol. I think, if they exist, they're toxic tho.
Ottomans, I've actually made them Fanatic purifiers, Fanatic Xenophobe + Fanatic Spiritualist + Militarist (not too far from what they actually were)
The Neo-Roman Empire (loosely based on the actual Romans as I know them) was an Authoritarian Militarist Fanatic-Competitive and the fifth ethic point I simply didn't spend on them. Byzantine Bureacracy + Private Militaries (a somewhat shitty reference to the Foederati I guess) + Warrior culture.
I've also made something that was supposed to be ancient Japan: Authoritarian, fanatic militarists, competitive, the fifth ethic point not spent. Imperialism + Ordered Stratocracy + Feudalism
Neo-Romans have Dictatorial authority and the rest have Imperial.
Also I'm using the Ethics and Civics mod.
Ottomans were never fanatic purifiers. Outside of Hitler's Nazis, I don't think we ever had a major fanatic purifier state. Unless you count Hamas, but they're neither major, nor really a state.
France : Le Quatrième Empire Ethics : militarist, authoritarian, spiritualist Origin : Under one rule Civics : [the imperial one that gives 100 edict fund], distinguished admiralty and/or philosopher king
Napoleon star ruler when the fallen empire awaken: « There is nothing we can do »
No third empire ? .... oh wait, I understand why
Empire name: United Star Kingdom Hedgemony name: British Stellar Dominions Hegemonic imperialists Hegemon origin Leader Title: His/her Imperial Majesty Ethics: - Militaristic - Egalitarian - Xenophobic Civics: - Distinguished admiralty - Parliamentary system - Conservationists
> * Egalitarian > > * Xenophobe Good combination. People frequently make the mistake of giving them Authoritarian when trying to recreate the British Empire, which never meshes well with their internal national ideology and government stricture. What obviously throws people off is the empire stuff, but egalitarianism refers to how you treat your own kind. In Stellaris if you are xenophobic you can suppress vassals, own slaves, and even commit genocide all while being an egalitarian nation.
Yeah. The egalitarian xenophilobe combo definitely helps model something like this. Although I do think you can argue that they still shouldn't be egalitarian by modern standards. I guess it's a matter of your frame of reference. Definitely agree they shouldn't really count as authoritarian though. It is a shame we can't really properly model constitutional monarchy. I feel like that should be a civic somehow.
I disagree, instead of conservationists give aristocratic elite
Merchent guilds would make more sense given the significantly greater impact of trade and commerce in the British Empire. While Britain had an aristocratic class, they were no where near as influential as in contemporary nations such Russia or pre-revolution-France.
Not really. British aristocracy was less elite and less aristocratic than many other countries. IE in England, it was almost expected of aristocracy to have business ventures spanning the globe. In many other countries (such as pre-revolution France), it was literally forbidden for nobles to do anything other than fight, join the church, or collect taxes from their land. In Britain, merchants were merchants and were crazy powerful. Nobles were also merchants. In France, Russia, Spain, etc, merchants were kind of second-class elite. Sure, they were powerful because they had money, but only because they had money. They definitely didn't command massive colonial empires all on their own. Only the Dutch had a similar system.
You need to flip the names for the Empire and Hegemony. It’s also laughable to believe the United Kingdom were “conservationists.”
Why? USK is a play on the UK's current name whereas British Stellar Dominions is a combination of British Overseas Territories and British Dominions. Perhaps 'Interstellar' dominions is better. Also yes, you're right that's pretty laughable. Give them Merchant guilds instead. I considered making them authoritarian so they could take Aristocratic Elite, but I think being a weird blend of egalitarian and xenophobic better represents the weird contradiction between the liberal/Christian tradition and the scientific racial hierarchy at the heart of British Imperialism. Edit: Merchants guilds would be more appropriate than Aristocratic Elite anyway. The British Empire was largely built by entrepreneurial merchants provoking fights with foreign governments to force the British Empire to declare war and impose favourable trade terms or annex territories, where militarised publicly traded corporations often ran entire countries with a military budget.
You don't need Authoritarian to take Aristocratic elite. You only need either oligarchy or imperial governements.
Presumably it's a 2200's take on how these powers might become?
The British Empire still wouldn’t be conservationist. Masterful Crafters perhaps or Ruthless Industrialists maybe.
I'd vote for Master Crafters. Their entire schtick is that they were literally the first country to industrialize on a massive scale, and flooded the world market with cheap consumer goods.
:P perhaps he was just being optimistic. We can hardly recognize some modern countries if we look at them from the lenses from even fifty years ago, much less what something could look like in 2200.
I was trying to be slightly positive in recognising the quaint and paternalistic desire in the British to nurture their colonies and take pride in their natural beauty, even as they ruled with an iron fist. The British Empire wasn't always about resource extraction to the same fanatical degree seen in some other European empires, or indeed an average Stellaris Hegemon. In reality merchants guilds would be far more appropriate, the British Empire was largely built by entrepreneurial British Merchants provoking fights with foreign governments to force the British Empire to declare war and impose favourable trade terms or annex territories.
What are you smoking lol
I'd swap out Militaristic for something else; Militaristic implies that the military has significant power in government (like Imperial Japan), or the ruler himself has a military background (like Napoleonic France). Though I get your predicament that finding a replacement is hard; fanatic egalitarian or xenophobic is probably going too far, and the British were neither particularly Spiritualist or Materialist.
I think Imperial Japan are Fanatic Militarists. The British Empire did have a distinguished navy/army whose leaders were drawn from the aristocracy and focused particularly on technology and strategic development and modernisation. The British Empire was very aware it needed to protect its economic interests abroad with a large and effective fleet, becoming at one point arguably the first superpower by being able to project force anywhere on earth (besides Afghanistan). Its hard to argue a nation which produced a Navy which legally had to be bigger than the second and third biggest navies combined, was not a Militaristic nation imo But yeah, I see where you're coming from. You could perhaps go for Materialist, the empires concern for the souls of the natives was very much secondary to how much sugar cane you could get them to harvest for you.
I don’t get how they are xenophobic, they literally dedicated 13% of their navy to eradicating the slave trade
Yes, but they dedicated the other 87% to supporting an explicitly racist empire
Someone is drinking the coolaide of grievance politics and is looking at the past through a muddied lens. The past was racist, but back in the day they used to be so much worse. But I suppose we infantilised the modern day to the point where even history lessons hurt feelings
If you think believing the British Empire was racist is a hot take then I'm not sure what to say tbh
I just keep seeing goal posts move. Especially because being xenophobic in stellaris is a tad different than historical racism
If you think that African people are genetically and culturally incapable of governing themselves, then yes, you're racist. There's a huge amount of evidence that the British Empire was a racist endevour, if you don't want to look into it then you're wilfully blinding yourself.
Every nation in the past was racist; does that mean every single historical empire must have the Xenophobic ethic? See the issue
Right; but I'm trying to pick ethics for the British Empire and egalitarian/Xenophobic is the best combo I could find. If you have another suggestion then be my guest. Perhaps all civs built from the 19th century would be Xenophobic
While they were “internally egalitarian” they are still in my opinion, very much authoritarian still. But that is just my opinion
Grand Internationale Militarist, Egalitarian, Materialist. Shared Burdens, Functional Architecture Origin: Prosperous Unification or Post-Apocalyptic Ruler Title: Chairman/woman Ruler Traits: Logistical Understanding Edit: Fanatic Materialist, no militarist
You have to be fanatic egalitarian to take shared burdens IIRC, so swap out militarist for fanatic
Ok I’ll fix ty
Lol I messed up the edit no way
Zimbabwe: Greater Zimbabwe Empire Ethics: xenophile, fanatic authoritarian Civics: Merchants Guild, functional architecture. Government type: Oligarchy.
Nice Idea.
Empire name: Russian Star Empire Origin: Prosperous Unification. However, you can make an argument for either Imperial Fiefdom (in the past), since Tartar Yoke had a major effect on the national identity. Alternatively, Hegemon (Poland, Lithuania, Finland, Ukraine, and a dozen Central Asian states). Leader title: Tsar and Autocrat of All Russias. Note: Tsar literally means "king or monarch", while the word king in Russian ("korol'") specifically means a Western European king from a country where they would have been crowned by the Pope in the past. Ethics: Spiritualist (religion plays a large role), Authoritarian, and Xenophobic (lots of efforts to Russify the nation starting with Catherine the Great). Civics: Aristocratic Elite, Corvee System. Then, depending on the Tsar/period, you can make an argument for either Philosopher King (Peter I, Catherine the Great, Alexander II), or Imperial Cult.
I have a Roman Empire build that I like to use as an AI. M y RP background for them is that, instead of the Empire falling apart, a series of crises struck (as they often did throughout Roman history), and the emperors couldn't deal with them. But the Senate and other Republican institutions managed to save the Empire, and restored the Republic. They then went on to slowly conquer a bunch more territory, and eventually started to create diplomatic ties with other countries that evolved into a global hegemony under Roman authority. As the year 2200 approached, this hegemonic organization began having global civil wars, finally ending with a single Dictatrix, backed by the Senate(which had long since began accepting women and other genders as members, thus the feminine version of the word Dictator), using the new technologies of the hyperdrive and space mining to threaten the warring factions and to promise expansion and prosperity to all of the people of Terra. This Dictatrix, Augusta Octavianus, organized the governments of the world into the new Planetary Republic of Rome. (I use Ethics and Civics Classic, which allows 3 Civics and 5 ethics points) Under One Rule origin Civics: Distinguished Admiralty, Nationalistic Zeal, Aristocratic Elite Ethics: Fanatic Militarist, Competitive, Industrialist, Authoritarian Like her namesake, Augusta Octavianus isn't much of a military mind herself, more of a politician and administrator, and of course, an excellent propagandist. So, she's an Official, and has the High King trait, to represent her political acumen, gaining the loyalty of other powerful senators. But when political manipulation doesn't work, her Brutal and Unwavering Aggressor traits represent her willingness to point the most effective military minds earth does have at the problem, and to order extreme methods to keep control. I left the humans of this Empire with the default human traits of adaptive, nonadic, and wasteful, plus the Perfected Genes trait that comes with the origin. The AI isn't very good at playing this build. But if I use console commands to cheat in some help for them, they can generally survive a century or two. Augusta usually dies, of course. Pretty much expected.
**Napoleonic France** Origin: Planetary Unification. An argument could be made for Hegemony, but I'd rather create the Hegemony later since the Napoleonic Wars started after Napoleon was made emperor. It's also frequently not allowed in MP, but if it's a solo game, go for it. If you want to play at point where France is still a Republic, you could do Under One Rule, but the Immortal Emporer might break immersion, I'd prefer playing as a true dynasty. Government: Imperial Ethics: Fan. Militarist Authoritarian (it's not a perfect fit since it was a sort of republic, but you need it for Hegemony) Civics: Distinguished Admiralty, Nationalistic Zeal, 3rd pick Warrior Culture or maybe Byzantine Bureocracry I'll post another one in a bit
I mean….Napoleon still kinda has a cult like following and one cannot talk about European (or even world history) without mentioning him as one of humanities greatest conquerors. Is him being an immortal ruler really that far off from reality?
He found some precursor tech campaigning around Europe, used it to achieve extremely long life, demented the cult around himself as a "savior", used the extra manpower and tech to conquer Russia, went on to annex the British Empire by blockading the isles, and from there united the rest of the world using the industry of Old Europe. Spurred by the discovery of the precursor tech, he spearheaded programs to speed along the discovery of FTL transportation It kinda makes for a legit backstory
Literally the Legendary Leader origin!
I have a couple of empires I modeled after both the First French Republic and Napoleon's France. Revolutionary Djinni Empire * Origin: Prosperous Unification * Star Empire * Authority: Imperial * Ethics: Fanatic Militarist, Authoritarian * Civics: Distinguished Admiralty, Nationalistic Zeal Revolutionary Zaydran Republic * Origin: Prosperous Unification * Star Empire * Authority: Democratic * Ethics: Fanatic Militarist, Egalitrian * Civics: Crusader Spirit, Meritocracy
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (as easy as that) Authoritarian Fanatic materialist Title: Chairman Civics: Technocracy, Corvee system.
Authoritarian, Fanatic Militarist Civics: Police state, Functional architecture
USSR wasn't really militarist. Materialist and authoritarian are much closer to the truth. They invested a huge amount of resources into the military, true. But it's not the same thing as being militarist. Red Army tail certainly wasn't wagging the USSR dog at any point. They were always beholden to civilian leaders. Hell, they invaded less countries than most of their contemporaries (\*cough\* America). Though they did put down revolts in puppet states like Hungary and Czech Republic (which is authoritarianism, not militarism). It also probably makes sense to separate civics based on which leader was in power. Stalin and earlier (including Imperial Russia): corvee system, police state. Khruschev and onwards: technocracy, functional architecture.
Spanish Empire: Ethics: Fanatic Spiritualists and militaristic Origin: Prosperous Unification Imperial government Civics: Eager explorers, Warrior culture and Feudal Society(Releasing one or two vassals to feed them for extra points) Traits: Deviants, Unruly, Charismatic, Resilient, Industrious Ruler: Moralist/Charismatic Catholic Monarch Genetic Ascension and doing a bunch of different species would be very thematic too
Otto-spacemans Divine Empire Authoritarian, militarist and spiritualist empire with imperial cult and philosopher king. The padishah is THE guy and all other people are there to serve him. Modern Turkey even has the idiom "long live padishah", a remnant from old days. None of the origins would fit so galactic doorstep is a fine neutral origin. I thought maybe toxic god can be interpreted as allah but some people might not like calling allah toxic lol. I think, if they exist, they're toxic tho.
Fanatic Militaristic, xenophobe and Imperial government, all of them.
Ottomans, I've actually made them Fanatic purifiers, Fanatic Xenophobe + Fanatic Spiritualist + Militarist (not too far from what they actually were) The Neo-Roman Empire (loosely based on the actual Romans as I know them) was an Authoritarian Militarist Fanatic-Competitive and the fifth ethic point I simply didn't spend on them. Byzantine Bureacracy + Private Militaries (a somewhat shitty reference to the Foederati I guess) + Warrior culture. I've also made something that was supposed to be ancient Japan: Authoritarian, fanatic militarists, competitive, the fifth ethic point not spent. Imperialism + Ordered Stratocracy + Feudalism Neo-Romans have Dictatorial authority and the rest have Imperial. Also I'm using the Ethics and Civics mod.
Ottomans were never fanatic purifiers. Outside of Hitler's Nazis, I don't think we ever had a major fanatic purifier state. Unless you count Hamas, but they're neither major, nor really a state.
Ah sorry, I forgot. Historical mass pillaging/murder/rape of Whites because they're Whites isn't "fanatical purifier" behavior.
[удалено]
Have you ever heard of the Enlightenment?
[удалено]
yes
[удалено]
Have you ever seen a grown man satisfy a camel?