I wonder if the Harrapan Civilization had a social order similar to our own.
I say this as throughout history, you tend to find that societies with similar social systems act in similar manners. For example, the Ottomans and Spanish were both frontier societies originally, conquering a very rich realm that had a long and proud history. They had religious warriors (Ghazis/Conquistadors) that conquered other empires. They were both absolute monarchies supported by a ""subservient"" priest class and had strong militaries. Although they had some differences, like how the Ottomans had janissaries or how the Spanish were more religiously intolerant, for the most part they're pretty similar.
Other examples are feudal Japan & medieval Europe, the Scythians & Lakotans (?), etc.
Perhaps the Harrapan social order began with town councils that had a wealthy citizenry, which evolved into a managerial class like the one we have. This might explain why there aren't any major temples around and why there are pre planned cities containing sewage systems that're built in a similar manner all over the Indus river valley (similarly to how cities are built in the modern day). But then again, there are so many flaws with this theory. For example, how'd the Harrapans have a wealthy population?
Now, I am somewhat skeptical as to your overall theory - while I do think social structures and system dynamics are key to understanding history, I am not sure how easily one can equate societies - categories always have their limitations.
But as for Harappa, I have had similar thoughts before. Not about it resembling "us" - but it is indeed interesting to what extent the material relics tell us so much more about structural patterns and similarities between settlements than about, say, hierarchies or religion. Now, that may be an argument for them being a very materialistic-minded, pragmatic culture - or one which was deeply religious but whose religion was highly abstract. In both cases, there would be striking similarities with today, yes, although we should not overdo this - and we simply don't know.
A "managerial class" at that time would not necessarily equate a wealthy population - it would just mean that material-economic activity would follow an agenda set by specialised / professional people who are, at the same time, not the immediate politico-military big men, nor religious-sacerdotal leaders. Whether that group got wealthy on this job or whether it was something they had to do out of social tradition, for prestige, or whatever, would be left open. Also, of course, it's still not clear whether this postulated social class did exist there in the first place.
As for wealth, that's the easiest question of them all, I suppose. Their irrigation systems must have generated enormous agricultural output growth, and they expanded, and as long as they could expand, they would escape limitations on the carrying capacity.
In a world where religion mainly stuck to an ethnic-polytheist character e.g Shintoism in Japan, would this mean a more secular modern world? India seems to contradict this at least on stated census but idk
This is a good and difficult question. The shortest answer I can come up with is: I think, the word "secular" would take on a different meaning in such a world, making the comparison difficult. As for the answer, I am not sure that it is pre-determined into one or the other direction. The assumption behind the hypothesis seems to come from a reflection on Roman development, right? I'm not sure how generalisable that is.
What's the likelihood of the Frankfurt Parliament uniting Germany under a republic? Is it even remotely possible? Perhaps with support from Britain or France?
I have attempted this in
my unfinished TL stub.
My basic idea was:
1) some unwise reactionary bloodbath bringing the moderate liberal "halves" back closer together with the more radically democratic "wholes" in the immediate years before the outbreak of the Revolution
2) in March, the revolutionaries must arm the population
3) there would, in all likelihood, be civil war.
Britain would probably not aid such a republican Germany. France might, especially if - like in the
Primavera d'Italia TL - the Revolution succeeds in Italy, too, so France doesn't fear another set of coalition wars against it.