Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
Puritan World:
1616 – 1638 – I don’t this section is needed, as it’s pre-POD. Instead you may consider writing a “Prologue” similar to “Future” paragraph at the end of timeline.
|
I think it's useful, if nothing else because it gives some sort of background to the world in general at this time period. And it would be too much effort to change now...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
1639 and few decades onwards – There are rather small butterfly effects. For example Jan Vermeer is born in 1632. He is seven years old when POD occurs, and from that point his live should be influenced by butterflies. However he still becomes a successful painter. Another example is death of Cardinal Richelieu in 1642 exactly as in real world. Of course this is not a drawback , but I tend to regard timelines that implement chaos theory (changed specific situations, but the same trends) as more realistic and not less plausible.
|
I'm quite sure that there were some minor and perhaps non-trivial changes to the lives of everyone touched by the change of events from OTL, but they're invisible at the level of detail given in the timeline. Depending on how I see things some changes have major butterflies right away, others have minor butterflies that build up over time until events diverge from OTL in a major fashion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
1648 – The year of the main POD. Maybe it would be possible to produce that kind of POD without extensive “introduction” from 1616? Or maybe Charles really needed to build his support for 32 additional years?
|
Well, see above, and I'm not going to have time to change it, so it'll stay for the foreseeable future...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
1660 –“ [Because of the unrest and disruption of this period, the Royal Society of London is not founded in this year, or indeed ever.]” Never? Seems rather unlikely.
|
This is based on their being a different and more despotic King, a different British political history with more emphasis on the King as an absolute ruler, and a very different and much more violent restoration of the British monarchy. Part of the Restoration is the persecution, imprisonment and execution of the enemies of the King, and a much less powerful Parliament. Because of all of this, Britain at this point in time, and its intellectual climate is
very different to that of the real world, and far less conducive to something like the Royal Society.
All in all, the post-Restoration England under a restored Charles I is an intellectual environment that is much more hostile to an organisation like the Royal Institution than was the case in the real world under Charles II.
Because British politics remains in this state for a long time, there is never really any opportunity for something like the Royal Society to form...
It is possible that some of the people who formed the Royal Society in OTL flee to other countries, perhaps the Netherlands, and form something similar there…
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
“Continuing religious struggles and despotism in Britain hold back its development and industrialization.” – Which country industrializes first then? Netherlands? Prussia? They seem better candidates than New Commonwealth.
|
Interesting question. I think possibly all three of them together might make some sense. I currently say the New Commonwealth, but I can certainly see that other European powers would take up the idea, especially those who lag behind nations like France in terms of manpower.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
1713 – “The New Commonwealth sets up the Bank of Massachusetts as the government central bank.” – This gives me idea that Amsterdam Stock Exchange and Boston/Philadelphia Stock Exchange could be later described as semi-equal competition (with Commonwealth Stock exchange being bigger but less active that Dutch)
|
I quite like that as an idea. I may add it in…
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
1728 – Nice example of butterfly effect.
|
Thanks!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
1740 – Again nice implementation of butterfly effect.
|
Thanks again!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
1761 – No attempts of regaining independence are described later in this timeline. Wasn’t there any?
|
Yes, there almost certainly were but, and not meaning to insult your country here, Poland in Puritan world is not really very relevant to the general sweep of events, so it doesn't get too much attention...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
1794 – This is a good time to officially change “New Commonwealth of America” to “The Commonwealth of America” which sounds better IHMO.
|
I like the New Commonwealth of the Americas so I think it'll stay for now. After all, there are still places called New York, New England etc. in the real world even though all of them are by no means new any longer...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
1860 – How come this war is victorious for Russia? They were involved in Northern India and with fight vs. New Commonwealth in Alaska. They should be overextended by now.
|
Well the war in Northern India was over by then, having ended in 1855. And they were not involved in Alyeska as they sold it to the New Commonwealth in 1823. So they were not particularly overextended.
They may well have suffered some local resistance, terrorism etc. in Anatolia, but not enough to seriously threaten them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
1864 – „Holy Roman Empire” is a nice name, with lot regard to tradition but it seems to me that it is inadequate for XIX century even if it’s much more pro-religious than OTL. Maybe something along the lines of “Holy German Federation”?
|
I think the fact that it should say German and other Eastern European states and principalities, such as Poland would make it more likely that something without the word German in it would be more widely accepted as a compromise. And given the former HREs being an umbrella for all kinds of nations, it basically works and is accepted in this context.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
Really good explanation. You should include it into timeline itself.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tony Jones
I shall, when I get the time...
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
1865 – I think Ottomans wouldn’t be admitted to HRE, unless as a some sort of protectorate or condominium?
|
Well, they are, essentially. They basically secede from the Ottoman Empire, which cannot protect them, and instead transfer their allegiance to the HRE, becoming a part of the HRE rather than part of the Ottoman Empire. I should probably reword things to reflect this. There is probably some unrest in the European Ottoman Empire over this, but their rulers do it in the interests of survival against Russia.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
1922 – This a good opportunity for some Russian rebellion for example in previous Ottoman lands or in deep Siberia (as further New Commonwealth diversion) or in Northern India.
|
Yes, this all makes lots of sense, and I may add something to that effect to the timeline.
I do quite like the idea of the New Commonwealth also diverting attention into Siberia by various means (diversionary attacks etc.) and then invading Britain instead.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
1926 – “Atlantic Alliance” you mean Hextuple Alliance, don’t you?
|
No, I don't. At this point in history there are two major alliance systems in Europe, the Atlantic Alliance of nations that border, use or are dependant on the Atlantic Ocean for trade etc., and the Hextuple Alliance, which was largely formed to counter Russian expansionism in the middle east. These two alliances merge into the Octuple Alliance in 1926.
Quote:
|
It's rather unclear in the timeline itself.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
Overall problems with timeline:
-Why are there no major uprisings in New Commonwealth and in Russia?
|
For the New Commonwealth in many cases because the places they are taking over are lightly populated, and so cannot put up much resistance; any uprisings there would not be major. For much the same reason that the OTL USA hasn't had many uprisings, I guess. I guess you could certainly make the case that there could be uprisings in the formerly-Spanish parts of it if they had some defeats or setbacks in their Central or South American campaigns.
Russia could probably do with more uprisings, particularly in the North Indian and Anatolian parts of the Russian Empire. Maybe I'll add some in.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
-Why there are no nationality problems in HRE?
|
Partly because when the HRE was first formed it was during and because of a war against Russia. Thus cooperation was essential then. And this has carried over to the present day, as there are still threats to keep the HRE together, such as Russia lurking on its eastern border, and the French and Dutch to the west.
Of course this is not to say that the internal politics of the HRE is not tumultuous and at times violent, with some ethnic and so on strife, but in general they have more reasons to stay together than tear the HRE apart.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
-New Commonwealth seems a bit to successful in its wars. (I know that the point of TTL is creating a strong Commonwealth, but one or two military failures would surely help to maintain a realistic timeline)
|
A fair point. Certainly some of the wars the New Commonwealth has been involved in should include a setback or two for them, even if they win at the end.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
Other suggestions:
-This timeline was created for RPG session nearly ten years ago, wasn’t it? I think you could consider advancing it too 2000, (And stretching Monarchy World TL to 2000 as well), so that it ends in the same year as Cliveless World.
-You could also consider unifying the format of all three timelines (for example subsections could be named the same in all three timelines, countries could be described by continents and so on)
|
Puritan World was actually written for a much more recent game than 10 years ago. It's just that the game was set in 1995-1996. It started being run in 1995 when game time was the same as real world time, but since then game time has progressed much more slowly than real time, so it was still in about 1996 of game time when this bit of the game was run.
Yes, it might be nice to advancing the timelines to 2000 and consistently organising/formatting them all, but that's not going to happen because I just don’t have the time for major rewrites! Between real life, other projects, and my becoming a parent in the next month or so, I'm just never going to have the time to fit it in!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnificate
Noticed even stranger thing. In Puritan World Russia is much bigger, but clearly less influential than in Monarchy World. That does not seem right.  |
Well, land area alone does not directly equate to power and influence, although obviously it helps.
Although Russia has a great physical extent this has not led to its becoming any more powerful than any of the other major European powers such as France or the Netherlands. This is partly because Russian society and politics has adapted less well to the needs of the modern age and so it is less developed. This has not been helped by their being terrorism and unrest in many of the areas they have taken over, such as Anatolia and Northern India, which they have then been forced to expend resources on controlling.
Also Russia here [i]has{/i] had quite a large influence on the shape of the world, its invasions, politics, involvement in wars and so on having forced the formation of some of the European alliances that led to the formation of the Octuple Alliance.
Tony
May 26th, 2006, 04:05 PM
Linear Mode
