There! This should get the ball rolling. As usual, any modifications or extensions that would improve the article are encouraged. Yankovic270 21:44, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
do you think this nation would use the old Manitiboa flag? and how do you put flags in articles? --HAD 09:14, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
If anyone has any ideas on how to flesh this article out, fee free to add to the article. --Yankovic270 01:05, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a good beginning. I do have a question about its territory in North Dakota...isn't that part of the Republic of Lakotah (NAU member)? I'm not sure about the borders for Lakotah, but I wonder if it's right on the Assiniboia border or if the two nations are both claiming the same portions of old North Dakota?--BrianD 20:23, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. It does look like they are crossing into Lakotah territory on the map. Mitro 20:35, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
- There could be some overlap, with tech levels and population density so low. Depending on how organized society is, there may not yet be a need to define a border - the citizens of Lakotah and Assiniboia each know who they are. Benkarnell 21:10, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
- On the east side they're gettin awfully close to Superior too. --DarthEinstein 22:33, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
I just thought it was easier to recycle an map of the old Red River Colony, than to create a new map by scratch. --Yankovic270 23:35, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Congrats on start of this article, but I must ask, why Niverville? Tbguy1992 16:47, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. It is probbably because it is close to where the first Assiniboian Prime Minister lived, and thus was much more convienient than Brandon or Steinbach. --Yankovic270 17:09, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
Population[]
Hi, Yank. The population of Assiniboia should be 472,462
This is based on the following formula:
- growth between 1980 and 1983
- A 90/50/25 percentage mortality in the Winnepeg city/urban/metro area with a nuclear air blast
- A harsh mortality of 50% rate for seven years
- A growth rate of 1% per anum for 20 years
I don't know how bad the conditions would be in the areas encompassed, so a harsh mortality rate among the general population may not have occurred. The population in 1983 after the bombing of Winnepeg would have been 952,258. About a tenth of those were directly affected by the bomb(s). The rest would have had to deal with taking in the survivors, the loss of state and province governments, and modern conveniences. An overall mortality rate would vary quite a bit in the first years, so go with whatever you think is good.SouthWriter 20:19, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
I'll go with the largest population possible, thanks. I am a "glass half full" kind of guy.
Yankovic270 20:37, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
- If we assume a modest 1% growth rate for 27 years, that 952,258 comes to around 1,210,000.SouthWriter 20:55, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Expansion[]
Would Assiniboia try to push northwards? And, out of curiosity, would the American's in North Dakota and those in Saskatchewan agree to joining Assiniboia?
If I had to answer these questions, I would say yes to both, because looking north, toward The Pas and Thompson area's, and possibly as far as Gilam and Churchill, to see how these area's are doing, as they wouldn't have been hit, but would still suffer because the majority of the area is Native, and would they agree to join Assiniboia? And, North Dakota, not hearing from Washington, would they agree to join, the same with south-eastern Saskatchewan? Or would Assiniboia eventually join with the North American Union as another part of it?
I will volunteer to write these bits if it is supported. --Tbguy1992 19:32, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
I agree to the ideas of expansion, as when the Assiniboians are stable enough economically they will probbably decide to expand their borders to solidify their political position. I could see them with most of Manitoba, parts of Saskatchewan and even small parts of Ontario along with the parts of North Dakota under their control. I wouldn't have the Assiniboians join the NAU because they have a strong independant identity due to their position between the NAU and Canada, and besides they have a grudge against the NAU. It's because the NAU does nothing to control the Lakotans, who periodically war with Assiniboia over their North Dakotan territories. The situation is akin to a man disliking his neighbor for being too lazy to prevent his dog from crapping on his lawn.
Yankovic270 01:06, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
So, should they hold a central stance between Canada/Superior etc. and the NAU; basically as a diplomat/buffer state, while not being close to either? That could establish them as the "Keystone" Nation of North America, where West meets east, North meets South, while being strong enough to hold their own?
Assiniboia wouldn't hold any Saskatchewan territory. Saskatchewan held together quite successfully. Pretty much everything south of Prince Albert would be under Saskatoon control.Oerwinde 09:08, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
Very well, but Ontario crumbled into pieces.
Yankovic270 14:37, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Whoa, Yank!! Zack and I are working on the Dakotas, and I don't remember any discussion that gave up any of the remaining quarter of the former North Dakota to Assinobia. As it is, you have based the original state on an ancient map that included your home town. That is great, but over half of the territory on that map is already in the former US, and I don't think it should be expanding southward. The Dakotas have already lost the land west of the Missouri to the Lakota, and the resulting land left to them is barely the size of one of the original states as is. Fargo is an important town in the Dakotas, as is the old capital in Bismarck. Both cities took in refugees from land later claimed by Assinobia, and I don't think they would just up and join the new state from the north who has swooped down and claimed the resources they would have needed to rebuild. SouthWriter 17:43, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was me writing it. By the way, where is your article, so that I can look at it? And, also, is Dakota accepted in the timeline, because I haven't been able to find it.
- And, maybe it might be possible that Fargo and other towns may have joined together, due to the one line that they have, that being the Red River? It is just a possibility, and it can be changed.
- Again, sorry. Tbguy1992
- First, welcome to the wiki, Tbguy, I've seen your posts but haven't greeted you formerly. Here is the discussion at the talk page of the Provisional Government of the Dakotas, essensially an extension of what's left of South Dakota into what's left of North Dakota. The "South Dakota" page has a little bit of information on it, but right now we're just in the proposal phase. Zack and I have a lot on our plates, it seems, and have not gotten back to work on the articles lately.
- Whereas the Red River is the eastern boundary of the Dakotas, it cuts through the middle of Assinobia. Most of the population of the former North Dakota is probably in Fargo, since it is on the other side of the territory from the competing population of the Lakota. Your mention of the Red River, though does open up the possiblity of an expansion of the Dakotas eastward with the Red River as its northern border. It does not look like southern Minnesota, with its many lakes, has organized into anything yet. If it has, I have missed it. SouthWriter 18:47, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the greeting, SouthWriter. That really means a lot to me.
- Anyway, Assiniboia was founded by Lord Selkirk, a Scottish nobleman, who brought several families to the Red River in the early 1800's, with land granted by the Hudson's Bay Company, which was composed of all land that drains into the Red River,(Assiniboia) with their first settlement at Fort Garry, now the radioactive ruins of Winnipeg, Manitoba. (I know this, because I live in Manitoba, and this is one of the first History lessons we get :)
- My theory for this situation is that cities like Fargo and Bismark would join Assiniboia, mostly because then they could confront the threat from Lakota united, as if their were two states, Lakota would be able to drive a wedge and be able to destroy both eventually.
- I'm not trying to shoot down your idea, but I personally think this would be possible, as their was a lot of cross-border traffic between Manitoba and North Dakota, with friends on both sides. If they united, even for a temporary time, maybe for the long term, they would be able to survive.
I guess, then, "we" (Zack and I) of the Dakotas ought to thank you Assinobians (you and Yank), for the invitation to join up. However, as I noted in the previous note, the Red River drains all the way down to the Mississippi, a very possible northern border for the new state of Dakota. It is possible, I suppose, for Assinobia to expand that far south, claiming what has yet to be established as a state in the former Missouri.
As far as the percieved threat of the Lakota, their war with Wyoming (PUSA) was pre-emptive for fear of expansion into "their" land. In the twenty years since they have not shown any intensions of expanding past their present borders. Instead, they joined the NAU for the mutual benefits that brought. Once the Dakotas are exstablished they will undoubtedly want to join the NAU, if not the PUSA, in a common cause. SouthWriter 12:26, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with an independant Dakotan survivor state. For the most part the Assiniboian territory in North Dakota has remained the same size. They have mostly expanded north, east and a little bit west. And besides, Assiniboia has been on the books longer than the Dakotas.
Yankovic270 12:56, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
I am perfectly fine with the Dakotas having the chunk of North Dakota not in Lakotan or Assiniboian hands. But you have to consider the reactions that their neighbors would have. While the Assiniboians would be friendly, the Lakotans wouldn't be so cordial. They would probbably attack the Dakotans just as much as they attack Assiniboia's Dakotan territories. By the way, the story of the Assiniboia (or Red River) colony was my inspiration for the nation.
Yankovic270 13:04, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding of the Lakota is that they are trying to get along with their neighbors once they have acquired a land of their own. The Dakotans have the Missouri River as a well-defined border between them and the Lakotans. The Assiniboians, though, seem to have a small area of Lakotan territory north of the Missouri and south of the former Saskatchewan that does not have a clear border. If Assibobia were to annex that territory, they might meet some opposition.
- As for the border between historical Assiniboia and the former US states it occupies, it would be interesting to see the negotiations that would have taken place to claim these lands. Assiniboia may have been "on the books" longer than the Dakotas, but it is a recent invention historically. Doomsday would have brought out surviving governments of the US states that must at least be dealt with. The governments of both North and South Dakota very well may have survived. This whole time line has taken directions concerning which the original creator had no idea. We have been forced to build to a 2009 in which most of the states do not know of the others (a clearly tenuous idea to start with). But that being said, we keep creating states and nations to work around the original assumptions. I'm good with that, I think. SouthWriter 20:00, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
- General note on that: there is no reason why nations should not know about their nearest neighbors and, indirectly, their neighbors' neighbors. It's just that most places, certainly in North America, are not part of "The International Community" or "The Global Economy" as we know them. They'd be more like relatively remote nations in the 1400s or so. Also, there is nothing at all wrong with writing a history in which your nation interacted with its neighbors. Utah and Spokane fought a long-distance war a decade or more ago, and that's fine. I just wrote my Yukon page and had them restore contact with Alaska in 1989, and that's also fine. Just as long as a new nation doesn't fly through the timeline like a cannonball, it is acceptable (preferable) to create a logical history for its interactions with its neighbors. Otherwise, we have a magical era in which every single country of the world emerges from "isolationism" in 2009-2010 - something that is definitely a Bad Thing.
- General note on borders: in this kind of fluid society, borders are bound to be ill-defined, since we're dealing with small populations and slow communications. It may be that there are frontier areas where "you know who you are" - citizenship is based on self-identification rather than simply residency. THink early 19th-century Oregon, which was "shared" between the US and Britain. Benkarnell 20:57, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
The reason why I broached the idea of a union between Assiniboia and the Dakota's is because of a "strength in numbers" thing. If they were to join together, which would be greatly possible because of the agricultural bounty of these lands, they would be able to hold their own and be able to show themselves as a neutral state in the center of North America (Call it the Switzerland of the America's, or something), and a mediator in some conflicts.
What do you guys think? Tbguy1992 15:59, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
I love it, though I think Vermont fills that role.
Yankovic270 17:46, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
OK, maybe not a mediator, but a link between East and West, North and South? Assiniobia is perfectly situated for THAT role. Tbguy1992 18:25, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
Also, anyone have ideas for who should be the next PM of Assiniboia? I currently have Raymond McVicar being elected, and serving one term before retiring. I would push for someone from the South-West corner of the province, but not the part that would have been irradiated by the bomb on Minot AFB in North Dakota.
By the way, anyone have an idea how bad Minot would have been hit on Doomsday? I've always heard stories that a nuclear attack on the Air Force Base would have also destroyed communities north of the border, or fallout could have ruined the land and forced the people to flee.
Tbguy1992 18:45, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
As i have mentioned regarding Victoria, a republic cannot be a monarchy. Would "Commonwealth" be more acceptable?HAD 18:52, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
No. It's my article, and I say either Republic or Dominion. There is no third choice in my opinion.
Yankovic270 19:04, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I was looking at this map [[1]], provided by the Talk:1983:_Doomsday page, and it looks like some area's could be hit in North Dakota that can cause some fallout over the border (most of the strikes must have Minuteman launch sites), but, unless the wind was blowing straight northwards at all, their wouldn't be to much destruction in Manitoba.
Kinda answers my question, huh? Tbguy1992 19:16, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
Whats wrong with being polite to a person you disagree with, Yankovic270? Whats wrong with Commonwealth anyway? It just can't be called a Republic if it has a monarchy.HAD 19:18, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Where did it come in that Assiniboia might have been a Republic? From what I read, it has the Canadian constitution, which names the monarch of Great Britain (or its now survivor state) is the monarch of Canada, but more of a figurehead than anything else, as the Governor General has the power of the Monarchy in Canada. Tbguy1992 19:22, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry about being too foceful with my opinions. I just dislike the term "Commonwealth" as applied to a single nation. To me the term Commonwealth evokes images of the British Commonwealth, the organization that formed after the British Empire was gone for good.
Yankovic270 20:30, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
- The fact of the matter is that various nations throughout history have used the tile Commonweath [2]. Even some US states have their official name begin with the title Commonwealth. In fact the term itself predates the Commonwealth of Nations by centuries. Mitro 20:41, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
I simply like the term "Dominion" better than "Commonwealth". To me the name "Commonwealth of Assiniboia" doesn't have the same ring as "Dominion of Assiniboia"
Yankovic270 20:53, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Believe it or not I like the title Dominion as well, but I just wanted to point out that Commonwealth doesn't always invoke the same image for you as it does for everyone else. Mitro 20:55, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
I was simply explaining why I disliked the term "Commonwealth".
Yankovic270 20:59, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Amusingly enough, "commonwealth" is just an Anglo-Saxon translation of the Latin "res publica" - republic! Benkarnell 21:01, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
Fargo[]
Yank and Guy, please let the Provisional Government speak for Fargo. Though the Red River runs along beside the city, it does not make it part of Assinobia. As part of the original Dakotas, I believe it needs to be left as part of the American state that evolved from survivors of those states. The northern part of North Dakota was basically wiped out when the two military bases were taken out by nukes. That part could be reclaimed by Assinobia with not much problem, since it was within the original boundaries of that ancient colony. SouthWriter 01:58, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Not trying to sound rude, but what would Assiniobia want with irradiated farmland? I would think we have enough north of the border without needing areas dangerously contaminated by fallout. Tbguy1992 15:05, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
If the land outside the cities was outside the blast zones, as most of it was, then the area would not be "dangerously contaminated with fallout." Fallout is produced as short-lived, and extremely shortwave, sub-atomic particles change the surrounding atoms and molecules to radioactive isotopes. In air blasts, by the time the dust reaches the rising mushroom cloud the "irradiation" has already occurred - in the fine particles of metal, plastic, and ceramic materials that made up the bomb. And this matter ends up far up in the atmosphere to become seed for widely scattered rain or perhaps dust even farther spread. If the bomb explodes on the ground, a lot smaller area is directly destroyed but a huge amount of deadly fallout is produced as actual soil and building material ends up being created. That kind of scenario would be a lot harder to envision based on the unpredictable weather patterns that would spread the fallout. SouthWriter 18:42, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
It's good to have you on my side again South.
Yankovic270 19:10, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, I call them as I see them. I'd much rather be living outside the kill zone of an air blast than get dumped on by a bunch of nasty fallout when it's least expected. By the way, according to the FEMA fallout map, Both Kentucky and West Virginia got dumped on big time by the heavy duty fallout from the Missouri silo barrage! It's a good thing that we don't treat those maps as "gospel truth." [Actually that's an oxymoron when it comes to nukes -- no "good news" about nukes falling on our heads!].
- On another note, Yank, have you seen my note about your newest President-General? SouthWriter 21:25, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Yank, why did you revert Guy's change which had Fargo refusing annexation to Assiniboia? I thought you were going with mostly Canandian expansion. I propose a boundary of the 47° 50' parallel (northern boundary of McLean, Sheridan, Wells and Eddy Counties. Fargo would want to remain "American," being linked with its southern brothers instead of a new nation from Canada. I figure a treaty with the provisional government of the Dakotas would be in order(we haven't set a time line, but Assiniboia's time line seems rushed a bit).--SouthWriter 18:24, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
New Additions[]
Alright, I added a bit more from after Raymond McVicar left office until the present, mostly the elected leaders. I don't expect to have it all right, so someone may want to change it. Tbguy1992 19:44, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that if contact were made with Gillam that it would not be made with Thompson as well, for starters. But having those towns survive at all is illogical - like I said, the people in the large mining towns (mostly Thompson and Gillam) in the north would have died off within a year of Doomsday from starvation. Makes no sense to have them live.
More likely, the ruins of these towns would later be reoccupied. I'll give the time-frame for that as being what is here now, but still....
Lordganon 09:54, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
Much better.
Lordganon 00:42, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
Feasibility[]
I have some concerns about the feasibility of the population. Over half the population of Manitoba lives in Winnipeg, and has for many decades. The north of Manitoba is almost entirely uninhabited. The population of Winnipeg in 1983 was roughly 610,000, while Manitoba overall had about 1,045,000. The strike of the nuclear bomb, we can figure, decimated downtown, did great damage to the city proper, and had a moderate impact on the suburbs. The largest population in Winnipeg could reasonably expect, immediately following the bombing, is around 150,000.
I find it unfeasible that wind patterns would blow the radiation off into Hudson Bay. All year round, and especially in fall, wind patterns in southern Manitoba and the Winnipeg area trend to the south and the west. There'd have to be an unusually strong prevailing wind pattern, completely defying the norm, to blow it away into Hudson Bay. However, even supposing that wind blew it the the north and east, radiation would settle over a wide range of farmland and waterways. All Manitoba really has is farmland and waterways. Without that, there's really no way to survive out there. The communities are deeply isolated from one another, and Winnipeg is the only common hub they all share. Farming was the way of life for most of the population out there.
Consider the mortality rate generated by irradiated farmland and water, by the destruction of the only true urban centre. Consider the survivors in the Winnipeg area who would die of cancer in the next few decades. Consider the attacks from raiders and the isolation of individual communities. A death rate of 40 per 1,000 people isn't unreasonable in this circumstance. In fact, one of 50-60 per 1,000 people is more likely around the Winnipeg area. One of 20-30 in the outlying areas is rather feasible, considering conditions. 104,750 in Winnipeg; 393,100 in the rest of Manitoba. If things settled down to about a more moderate deathrate, still higher than OTL ones but far lower than disaster conditions, and the population began to grow at a modest rate, the population couldn't feasibly be higher than 450,000; even that assumes that everything went well in the 27 years following Doomsday. A population closer to 400,000 is far more likely.
Found my statistics using Manitoba censuses and the Canadian Wind Energy Atlas website. Southern Sea 17:47, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
As someone from the Canadian Prairie, and knowing that this article was written by people from the Prairie, I can tell you right now that you must be reading that website wrong, because the winds in Western Canada almost always go east/northeast, not south and west. Thus, blowing onto the Bay, like it always does. The main areas of the province outside Winnipeg are spared, and only a few natives really die from the radiation.
You also forget that this does include areas of N. Dakota and Minni.
Population is perfectly reasonable, as birthrates go up readily.
Lordganon 18:27, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
This nation is feasible. If it were not feasible, it wouldn't have made it through the graduation process. And it wouldn't have made it through the Review process. Let me ask you something Anon. Are you one of those glass-half-empty douchebags who has a fit unless every single human being is living in filth and misery? Not even a timeline like 1983: Doomsday is as negative as you think it is. 26-27 years is plenty of time for survivors to better themselves. And judging on your absolute lack of knowledge of wind patterns, you are also one of those idiots who complain about stuff they have no knowledge of. I politely request you think before posting. Or better yet, it wuld be nice thay would think period.
Yank 19:07, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
Yank, that is entirely unwarranted. Your response was pretty much the equivalent to "My opinion is by default better than yours so shut up.
Anyway, according to this: PDF on Canadian weather, wind patterns would have pushed the fallout southeast, not northeast or southwest. So everyone is wrong.Oerwinde 07:14, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
- I tried to respond to Yank yesterday and my browser failed to co-operate. I agree with Oerwinde here, Yank. At least in admonishing you for your response. However, the PDF referenced does not make the case for the spread of whatever fallout there would be (fallout is mostly a factor only of ground bursts, not air bursts). The maps throughout the PDF show many different scenarios, but the only overt mention of wind direction is for that in the mountains. Two maps on page 7 of the PDF (p. 53 of the full document) show the upper winds over Canada for summer and winter. Both show the effect of the Arctic Low in guiding winds from west to east in a counter-clockwise direction (a northern 'spin' around local lows). In other words, a low pressure like that caused by a nuclear bomb would propel its residue to the northeast. After that, the regular winds would sweep towards the east and southeast.
- In short, prevailing winds are to the southeast, but storms push toward the northeast. Both LG and Yank are natives, and they know the general patterns a lot better than SS or Oer. A local low system would produce northeasterly winds. SouthWriter 14:39, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Well. I'm sorry that me having a concern has upset you so greatly, Yank. That being said, that's all I had. A concern. I was reading the article here and I was wondering about the feasibility of it, so I brought together my concerns and put them forward. I'm from Ontario, not Manitoba, so I defer to you there in the case of the wind patterns. I was wrong, then, and I misinterpreted the data I was reading. I appologize. Maybe next time, though, you could try addressing someone's concerns instead of just biting their head off and attempting to belittle their intelligence. That seems conductive only to driving people away from the timeline. Southern Sea 16:28, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry for blowing my top like that. It's just that Assiniboia is one of my masterpieces, the articles I'm proud of creating. When they recieve critisism (no matter how constructive it may be), I see red. Again I apologize for my rudeness.
Yank 18:45, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. Thank you. I appologize as well. I didn't do the proper research before I commented on it. No harm done and no hard feelings, I think. ^_^ Southern Sea 20:39, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
Foreign Relations/Neighbors[]
So the foreign relations section mentions Athabaskans, but I found no article about them. Are they not a literal nation, or is there no article yet?
Also on the North America Map on the North America Article, there is a nation east of Assiniboia called "International Falls" I think (har to read) cant find that either, so...
Wut is go on? Therubbleoroursins (talk) 08:31, February 6, 2016 (UTC)