Code Geass World History & Geography Speculation

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by Ronin Aquila

Hmm, judging from the colors on this map, Australia seems awfully independent from the rest of the world.

What faction is Australia called and how does our Fair Land Down Under relate to the rest of the Code Geass world?

Some speculate it to be a dominion of some sort to Britannia.

My hypothesis is that it would be a multicultural (old english settlers, later indian and chinese like Mao), neutral nation.

But so far those are only speculations.

[KrimzonStriker]

Originally Posted by Ronin Aquila

Hmm, judging from the colors on this map, Australia seems awfully independent from the rest of the world.

What faction is Australia called and how does our Fair Land Down Under relate to the rest of the Code Geass world?

It's still called Australia and Mao built a white house in the open plains where no one else was there... don't know how reliable even that scant information is though given how warped in the head he was

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by KrimzonStriker

My bad, the arrows showed another invasion into the North of Algeria as well. Still, this is probably something close to an encirclement of El Alamain if you count Area 18 now, wouldn't you say?

IF the arrows of that particular map are true.

Originally Posted by KrimzonStriker

My subs had 'deployment of the Italian forces on the left flank' or something like that

I believe that was supposed to be "The Germans on the right and left wing have started attacking"


Oh, and I got my translation wrong: It was "The Italian National Guards are doing well for their ability."

[tenken627]

This is probably retarded, but it would be a pain to call people "Eighteens" in English.

"Hey you! Eighteens, get over here!"

Hmm, it doesn't roll right off the tongue like Elevens does.

I guess it's not so bad when you say "Juuhachi".

If it was in Korean, at least we could call someone 18 nom. lol

[KrimzonStriker]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

IF the arrows of that particular map are true.





I believe that was supposed to be "The Germans on the right and left wing have started attacking"


Oh, and I got my translation wrong: It was "The Italian National Guards are doing well for their ability."

Meh, whatever, still not sure if it's Italy or not, I only heard Schneizel was campaigning in North Africa and asked Suzaku to come along and help so I assumed he was still there >_>

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by tenken627

If it was in Korean, at least we could call someone 18 nom. lol

*Chuckles*


Yes, that would make complete sense.

[Dean_the_Young]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Well, I tend to ignore the arrows for that particular map.


Also, bypassing Algeria doesn't make sense: why ignore the oil fields there and go for Egypt?

Because Suez is so much more important than oil? Britannia has never been shown to have to work with low energy sources, solar power alone is already a major energy source in First World areas judging from all the settlements we see, and when it comes down to it, cutting off a major trade/supply route will have profound implications.

If Britannia can seize Suez, it means a number of things. It bisects the European Union from Africa, and prevents men and material from Africa from freely flowing elsewhere. The ability to supply and maintain control over Suez and bits of the Middle East means that Britannia can secure supply lines over North Africa, which in turn means that little African support can get through the Mediterranean, even if Britannia doesn't hold Gibralter. (And if Britannia does, that's even worse for Europe.) Without relying on Chinese aid and ports, suddenly all materials from Africa can no longer go to the east coast and go through Suez: they have to go around the long way, along the coast and across the Eastern Atlantic, or other equally risky measures.

And, of course, once Britain can snatch Suez, it would mean beating Europe's North Africa forces, allowing them to snatch other parts of North Africa at their leisure.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young

Because Suez is so much more important than oil? Britannia has never been shown to have to work with low energy sources, solar power alone is already a major energy source in First World areas judging from all the settlements we see, and when it comes down to it, cutting off a major trade/supply route will have profound implications.

If Britannia can seize Suez, it means a number of things. It bisects the European Union from Africa, and prevents men and material from Africa from freely flowing elsewhere. The ability to supply and maintain control over Suez and bits of the Middle East means that Britannia can secure supply lines over North Africa, which in turn means that little African support can get through the Mediterranean, even if Britannia doesn't hold Gibralter. (And if Britannia does, that's even worse for Europe.) Without relying on Chinese aid and ports, suddenly all materials from Africa can no longer go to the east coast and go through Suez: they have to go around the long way, along the coast and across the Eastern Atlantic, or other equally risky measures.

And, of course, once Britain can snatch Suez, it would mean beating Europe's North Africa forces, allowing them to snatch other parts of North Africa at their leisure.

Not appliable, in my view: The Suez was important in that it was the gateway to India. Given that most African resources are on the west coast in the first place, losing the Suez wouldn't harm EU as much as it would have hurt Britain in our world.

[The Bloodlust Kid]

I may be over thinking but if I can recall, the reinforcements in Ep 6 came directly East from Britannia. If Area 10 and the Philippines been conquered, would it make more sense to send armies from bases in the Philippines and the surrounding area? But on the other hand they have Alaska...

And just a speculation but I think the CF somehow reclaimed Southeast Asia because they probably wouldn't want Brittania sitting dangerously close to their borders.

[Dean_the_Young]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Not appliable, in my view: The Suez was important in that it was the gateway to India. Given that most African resources are on the west coast in the first place, losing the Suez wouldn't harm EU as much as it would have hurt Britain in our world.

You forget what's to the west of Europe and Africa: the Britannian-infested Atlantic. And if Britannia can get to the Middle East, it also means they have a strong presence in Gibralter. Suez isn't simply a natural major trade route with China and India: it's also a much safer path for European shipping to get to Europe, on the safer side of the continent.

The Suez is a natural trade route no matter the owner, not least because it allows a major shortcut to Europe from having to go around three sides of Africa.

[Ridwan]

Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young

You forget what's to the west of Europe and Africa: the Britannian-infested Atlantic. And if Britannia can get to the Middle East, it also means they have a strong presence in Gibralter. Suez isn't simply a natural major trade route with China and India: it's also a much safer path for European shipping to get to Europe, on the safer side of the continent.

The Suez is a natural trade route no matter the owner, not least because it allows a major shortcut to Europe from having to go around three sides of Africa.

In the most recent episode, it was shown that Britannia has made peace with France. How did they get there ??

I think that the whole Africa is already under Britannian control, or at least almost all of it or virtually.

[JMvS]

The landfall of Turn 3 was probably a kind of remake of Operation Dragoon (aka invasion of southern France during WW2 by the Allied forces).

The dialogue of Turn 8 plus the fact that the landfall point was a rocky seaside with hills in the foreland and mediterranean architecture are good hints toward this.

[Dean_the_Young]

Originally Posted by Aegir

In the most recent episode, it was shown that Britannia has made peace with France. How did they get there ??

I think that the whole Africa is already under Britannian control, or at least almost all of it or virtually.

Too many people, I believe, have a mistaken impression from World War Two about the scope of Africa. You do not need all of Africa to control parts of the mediterranean, merely supra-Saharan Africa. The Sahara is a formidable barrier even today: all Britannia would need would be a landing zone on the Western coast and work their way across the Northern coast. And that's if they didn't simply choose to land on the French or Spanish coast: France does have a large Atlantic coast, after all. Landing and working up the Spanish Peninsual in tandem with North Africa would secure them Gibralter, and some access to the Mediterranean.

Landing in Europe in no way requires conquering Africa first. Not even all of it: securing a secure organizational area that you could launch planes, boats, and store supplies at would be all you needed.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Originally Posted by Aegir

In the most recent episode, it was shown that Britannia has made peace with France. How did they get there ??

I think that the whole Africa is already under Britannian control, or at least almost all of it or virtually.

Come to think of it.

Why did he say France? Wouldn't it be correct to say "EEU?" or was the purpose of the fighting was to break France out of the EEU?

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

Come to think of it.

Why did he say France? Wouldn't it be correct to say "EEU?" or was the purpose of the fighting was to break France out of the EEU?

At this point, it seems that the EU is more like a military and probably economic alliance than a Federation: much like the actual EU, but with a more uniform military.

The States would probably retain enough political and territorial sovereignity for the local administration of France to ask for peace talks.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Well their armies ARE divided into "State" forces. Hence the Dutch engineering corps, Germany army, and Italian army.

If the French army was defeated and the other allies failed to support them then I'd guess they could broker a peace treaty with Britannia (And stay neutral out of the fight).

Though taking the French out of the fight is a pretty big accomplishment. I'm guessing that France would've been one of the major powerholders in the EU.

[KrimzonStriker]

Figures the French would be among those to give up the fight... >_>

[Ridwan]

Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young

Too many people, I believe, have a mistaken impression from World War Two about the scope of Africa. You do not need all of Africa to control parts of the mediterranean, merely supra-Saharan Africa. The Sahara is a formidable barrier even today: all Britannia would need would be a landing zone on the Western coast and work their way across the Northern coast. And that's if they didn't simply choose to land on the French or Spanish coast: France does have a large Atlantic coast, after all. Landing and working up the Spanish Peninsual in tandem with North Africa would secure them Gibralter, and some access to the Mediterranean.

Landing in Europe in no way requires conquering Africa first. Not even all of it: securing a secure organizational area that you could launch planes, boats, and store supplies at would be all you needed.

I did say "or virtually", no ? Which means in Africa Britannia is already unmatched, effectively means Britannian control over solid majority of the African continent. I'd say for Britannia to get to the Middle East it's harder to take the mediterranian route than to depart from an already established base in Southern/Eastern Africa or from Indonesia. At least Southern/Eastern and Northern part of Africa must be already under Britannian direct control by now.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

Come to think of it.

Why did he say France? Wouldn't it be correct to say "EEU?" or was the purpose of the fighting was to break France out of the EEU?

I'm thinking they're saying "France" like how they say Washington when referring to the US as a whole.

It is possible that EU doesn't have a central capitol.

[Ridwan]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

I'm thinking they're saying "France" like how they say Washington when referring to the US as a whole.

It is possible that EU doesn't have a central capitol.

Possibly this EEU just isn't meaningfully different from our world's today EU : Alliance of European countries, instead of a full fledged unitarianistic federation like US. It was explained in one of the previous episodes that every EEU members have their own military, and all of those are combating Britannian invasion.

And yes there's always that vague issue about EEU having any central capitol or not or whatsoever....