TLC2: A Dropped Pen

[Glen]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

Given Iceland was ruled by the English for a time and is now under Dutch rule, I wonder what the ethnicity/cultural situation up there will be?

Hmmm...good question...guess we'll just have to see over time.

Unfortunately, I fear for the Sagas....

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by Glen

Hmmm...good question...guess we'll just have to see over time.

Unfortunately, I fear for the Sagas....

Here's a notion.

Perhaps the Sagas can be turned into stage plays by English (Shakespeare, Marlowe) or Dutch playwrights?

That might be interesting, since Shakespeare at least based many of his plays on history.

[Jasen777]

Originally Posted by Glen

But why would they use up bargaining power for such?

Because it looks pretty on a map? That is, the Netherlands national map in the palace, not my map. Besides, holding those islands were the only thing giving Netherlands any particular bargaining power and England would much rather give those up than their remaining American colonies.

And I don't see why Netherlands having Iceland is any weirder than England having it.

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

Given Iceland was ruled by the English for a time and is now under Dutch rule, I wonder what the ethnicity/cultural situation up there will be?

It is still a vast Norse majority (or whatever the correct term is for them).

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

Here's a notion.

Perhaps the Sagas can be turned into stage plays by English (Shakespeare, Marlowe) or Dutch playwrights?


That might be interesting, since Shakespeare at least based many of his plays on history.

Great idea. Now write me a Shakespearian play of an Icelandic saga.
I'll even forget that Shakespeare would have been butterflied away.

[Jasen777]

Pax Gallia

This term, popular amongst French historians, is used to refer to the last three fourths of the 18th century. It is misleading for several reasons.

First, it ignores the role of Spain. French and Spain maintained an understanding during this period. Though Spain did not have the same level of power as France possessed, it was still quite arguably the only other Great Power in Western Europe. It was the concert of these two powers that was responsible for the age, and not simply the glory of France.

Another reason is that the view is very Western European centric. Even Western Europe wasn't without wars. There were two more wars between Sweden and Denmark, in which Sweden managed to regain Norway from Denmark. England had a short and indecisive war with Scotland-Ireland. Savoy and Naples-Sicily had an undeclared naval war. There were skirmishes between several kingdoms with Germany and between the Germans themselves. As a whole though, Western Europe was more peaceful than it had been in previous periods. But no so the rest of the world.

A third reason the term is rather dubious is that it ignores that European countries were engaged in wars (especially France!), just not so often as before in their back yard. The European powers cooperated admirably in their division of the Americas, though at the often unfortunate expense of the natives. The Europeans warred against the native peoples all over the world at this time, the highlight of this being the successful French campaign to reduce the Mughal Empire to vassalization. The most serious wars involving Europeans however, where the long running Ottoman Wars...


Examination of the 18th Century Decline of the Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire suffered a decline in status in the 18th century. At the time, it was thought that it was because the Ottomans had become weak. Later, the blame was placed upon the rulers, Ahmed II, Mustafa III, Osman II, and Ahmed III, who were viewed as incompetent.

Modern historians reject both of these ideas, and suggest merely that the empire had become over-extended. Arabia and North Africa particularly proved difficult to keep under control. In addition, the relative peace in Europe meant that the Ottomans often faced coalition of nations that were simply beyond the capacity of any one nation to resist.

For instance, in 1761, the Ottomans faced a war in North Africa against Spain and France (who sought to crush the Barbary piratery the Ottomans had difficulty controlling), war in Europe against Austria and Russia, war against Persia, and a serious rebellion on the Arabian coast. The fact is that the Empire weathered this period with its core territories intact, which under the circumstances should be considered a remarkable achievement...

[Jasen777]

Map of the year 1800

Note Scotland and Ireland have been joined in a personal union. And I can't get the effing colors to work right. In the Americas, I have switched over to show agreed upon land claims rather than areas of actual control. Actual settlement of the North America is running behind OTL's levels.

[Analytical Engine]

I still can't get over the UBER-France!!!!

[fortyseven]

I'll have one supersized France and fries.

[Jasen777]

Originally Posted by Analytical Engine

I still can't get over the UBER-France!!!!

They got their hands on the $$ that propelled Britain IOTL.

[Jasen777]

Age of Revolution

The early 19th century is rightly called the Age of Revolution. And not only of Revolutions (both political and otherwise) but also of squashed rebellions. The anti-slavery movement, the introduction of Industrialism, and the development of humanism were revolutions as well. Some say that 1801 was the time the world went to hell in a hand basket, where roads that should have been taken were wrongly discredited. Others laud it as the time when secure rule and capitalism would be established for all time, at least in most of the world. Inarguably, it was the time that gave birth to the modern world.

Perhaps the German Revolutionary Friedrich Buchner put it best:

"It was the time of fire, the time of destruction, the time we took back what was ours. It was the time of rebirth, the time of great sadness, the time of pain, and the time of joy. It was the dawn of a new age. It was the time everything changed." [1]



[1] - Yes, largely stolen from the Babylon 5 intro - season 4.

[Jasen777]

Excerpts from the biography of Friedrich Buchner

Friedrich's family was from what was once Germany's minor nobility before the great princes had ground that class out of existence. His father, Adalbert, never forgot his heritage and was constantly scheming, mostly in taverns, to restore the fortunes of the nobility. This sort of thing drew the notice of the princes' enforces (which ironically missed out almost completely on the growing neo- Muntzerian movement)...

Friedrich came back from hunting one day alarmed to notice that his house was on fire. He rushed to the scene and tried repeatedly to enter in an attempt to rescue his family, but it was simply too hot. His father and mother, along with his two sisters perished in the fire. Upon learning from witnesses that the fire had been set by mercenaries in employ of the Prince, he set off immediately to seek revenge.

Fortunately before he had a chance to do anything overly reckless Friedrich ran into Hartmut Weld, the man who was destined to be the political and religious genius of the revolution. Hartmut was able to calm Friedrich down, convincing him that headlong recklessness would not give him the revenge he sought...

The relationship between Friedrich and Hartmut was not one-sided however. If it was Hartmut who taught Friedrich to plan carefully (advice he only sometimes heeded) it was Friedrich who plodded Hartmut into the action that launched the revolution. Hartmut was the key figure in the Muntzerian movement in central Germany. The movement had grown massively in the past few years, riding a wave of popular resentment of the wealth the great princes kept for themselves. The old Muntzerian doctrine of "all in common" was back with avengeance amongst the lower classes.

Hartmut gathered his followers and started the march on Erfurt. His band attracted many more on their journey, to the point that it was a numerically impressive army by the time it reached Erfurt - if under equipped, extremely ragged, and with little cohesion. Nevertheless, the city garrison fled at the sight of the army and the revolution was on…

Hartmut's influence had obtained a captaincy for Friedrich despite his young age of 19. It was put to the test in April of 1804 when he was assigned to the revolutionary army gathered to oppose the Polish incursion...

The Poles had shattered the German left and center. Friedrich however was everywhere on the right flank, rallying the men and urging them to stand fast, often with threats to shoot anyone fleeing. A threat he is said to have carried out on one of his superiors, though the accuracy of this report is in some dispute. The right wing took massive causalities but was able to hold until nightfall, thus preventing a disaster for the German cause.

Amongst the causalities or fled were many officers, and to his surprise, Friedrich found himself the highest ranking officer that he on the field. He knew that the army was likely doomed the next day if he did nothing, so he decided on a reckless course. He silently moved all the men he could during the night, gathering an attacking column on the Poles' flank. His bayonet charge recklessly launched before dawn against an army with three times the effective combatants was the stuff of legend. The Poles were thrown into disorder and failed to reorient their forces to oppose this unexpected attack. In just a few hours, the Poles were retreating from the field, thinking that the Germans had received reinforcements during the night…

If it was the Poles who met Friedrich's recklessness, it was the Danes who met his technical genius in the form of his reverse slope tactic…

His popularity as the most renown general of the revolution and the clear favor of the Hartmut lead Deacon Committee lead to Friedrich's landslide election victory as the first Chancellor of Commonist Germany...

[fortyseven]

Commonist

[Jasen777]

That's the English of course. Acts 2 inspired. I'll write something to explain their government setup (eventually).

[Jasen777]

The Foreign Policy of King Charles XIII

Charles XIII lacked the confidence and adroit diplomatic ability that had marked the French monarch for so long. Despite his hesitancy, it is hard to find much fault the overall outcome however. The early 19th century was not an easy time for any policy maker.

1801 saw the outbreak of the Netherlander Civil War, with Republicans pitted against the monarchy. While Charles dithered over it, the German Revolution broke out the next year. Although against the German Commonists on ideological grounds, Charles eventually decided that the war in Netherlands was more important and committed the French army to the support of the Netherlander Monarchy. He did nevertheless fund Danish and Polish attempts to crush the German Revolution. These failed however.

1806 saw the Netherlander Republicans still fighting and the German Commonists in solid control of Germany. The Mughal revolt also broke, demanding a large number of French troops to deal with it. They meet with, at best, a partial victory. Mughal broke free of French vassalage, though France came out of it with direct control of more land in India than before. There were also revolts in North Africa.

Because of these events, Charles agreed to not oppose Russian and Austrian intervention in Germany. Nether intervention achieved its stated goal however. Austria was suffering its own Muntzerian revolts and as a result couldn't supply a large army in Germany. Russia was sidetracked into the conquest of Poland, which many suspected was the Tsar's goal in the first place.

France also was dragged into involvement with the Italian nationalist revolts, especially in Rome. Some Italians had dreams of uniting Savoy, Rome, and Naples-Sicily into a single Italian state. This failed, likely because Savoy and Naples-Sicily had begun to develop their own identities. French forces were necessary in the defense of Rome from Naples-Sicily in 1810 however.

1810 saw a major shift in European politics. The Netherlander Civil War was over, with victory for the Monarchy (which now faced revolutions in New Netherlands and Iceland). Charles, already concerned with the raise of Russian power, grew outright alarmed after their conquest of Poland. He thus militarily opposed Russia and Austria when they invaded Germany the following year. That launched an extremely costly war, but Austria still suffered from Muntzerian rebels and now also faced a Hungarian revolt, and Russia was fighting a long way from its power base. These factors eventually lead to a Franco-Germany victory and the Council of Erfurt in 1814, which saw some redrawing of Europe's borders.

Germany emerged from the wars, not only communist, but also enlarged by the Swiss duchy and Wurttemburg. Poland disappeared into the Russian Empire. Charles, at considerable cost in blood and treasury, had kept France's status as the leading power of Europe. Perhaps his most significant achievement was fostering the beginning of France's cooperation with the Ottoman Empire in opposition to Austria and especially Russia.

[Jasen777]

Excerpts from The History of the Americas

It wasn't merely Europe that saw upheaval at the start of the 19th century, the Americas were prominently involved. Chaos struck New Netherlands in 1801 due to the outbreak of the Netherlands Civil War in Europe. New Netherlands heavily favored the Republican cause, especially in New Amsterdam. The New Netherlands Loyalists were unable to effectively organize and suffered persecution by the Republicans. Many loyalists emigrated back to Europe or to New England to avoid this.

That was not the end of difficulties in New Netherlands however. The Germany majority in the Vasaland region was indifferent to the Netherlands Civil War. They were not indifferent to land issues however. Netherlands had drawn a straight-line border in New Netherlands, north of which Vasaland Germans were discouraged from settling. Irregular warfare erupted between the German settlers and New Netherlanders along the border, neither side being organized enough to mount a proper campaign.

Oddly enough, the two sides came together after the Netherlander Civil War. Republican New Netherlands declared Independence after their cause had failed in Europe. Vasaland joined them in declaring Independence, something New Netherlanders were willing to accept in order to bring them into the revolution on their side.

The Netherlander Monarchy after securing power in Europe sent an army of some 5,000 men to New Amsterdam to regain control of the territory. They were meet north of the city by a Colonial army of over 8,000 commanded by the famous republican, General Van Vleck, who was to achieve his revenge upon the monarchy that day…

After the debacle of the Battle of New Amsterdam, the monarchy, already bankrupt from the Civil War found itself unable to mount another expedition…

[Jasen777]

Some Notes on Governments

Germany - A Commonist Theo-democracy. A complete state controlled economy, based on the concept of everything being given to the church state and then redistributed based on need. Inspired by the Early Church in Acts, although in this case it's not optional.

There is complete freedom of religion for Christians as long as the "all in common" principal isn't questioned. On the national level, the elected Reichstag rules Germany. Members are elected by an electorate of all male head-of-households. There is also a Chancellor that is democratically elected that shares executive power with the Prime Minister (appointed by the Reichstag). All political candidates must be ideologically acceptable to the national 7-member Deacon Committee and/or its local dependencies. Members of lower committees are appointed by the national committee, members of the national committee name their own replacement.

Western European Monarchies - (Spain, France, Netherlands, England, Scotland-Ireland, Savoy, Rome, Naples-Sicily, Denmark, Sweden): All are following to various extents a developing ideology of Monarcho-Capitalism. It holds that a strong monarchy is the best guarantee of a capitalist system. Big merchants have substantial influence. While there are parliaments that prevent absolute monarchy, they tend to be weak and most members are hereditary or elected in elections that have a high standard to qualify to vote.

Austria is an absolutist monarchy on the federal level, but there are various degrees of decentralization.

Russia is an absolute monarchy.

New Netherlands (possible name-change pending) is a unitary republic with a relatively strong parliament. Qualified voters, males who can afford the poll tax, elect the Prime Minister for life. The Prime Minister can however, be removed by a 3/4 vote of the parliament.

Vasaland - A unitary republic with a Prime Minister appointed by parliament. All male landholders are eligible to vote.



Map - 1820:

I've put little blocks representing the ethnicity of people in the independent American countries, although they're hard to see.

[Jasen777]

Y EL Mappo

[dreadnought jenkins]

How is it that with any POD, no matter how early, people still go on to

KILL POLAND.

The rest is great though. Love it.

[Jasen777]

Originally Posted by dreadnought jenkins

KILL POLAND

Maybe because it tends to get surrounded by 3 powers all bigger than it?

[dreadnought jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jasen777

Maybe because it tends to get surrounded by 3 powers all bigger than it?

But none of that is inevitable. United Germany is never a certain fact, and OTL Austria was never enthusiastic about the partition.

But hey, killing Poland is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. Don't let my anal whining get in the way of this good timeline.

I like your timeline, don't get me wrong. It's good competition.

[fernerdave]

is france doing any colonization? L'Afrique Du Sud?