A Plethora of Princes - (Thread 2) : A New Europe

[Grey Wolf]

Where are the British ? A familiar cry at the end of the 1820s and into the early 1830s. The answser, of course, was at home, fighting with each other. First the civil unrest, then the civil war in Ireland, then the civil war across the whole of the United Kingdom. The first had brought a gradual weakening of the British presence in other theatres, the second brought a strategic withdrawal, the third brought a complete concentration on the home front.

In the Eastern Mediterranean, the Battle of Navarino had seen the defeat of Ottoman-Egyptian efforts to put an end to Greek independence. But the defeat had led to the breaking apart of the relationship, and to the rapid growth of Egypt as a power. Russian intervention led to the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi and to Russian protection of the Ottoman Empire, but attempts by France and Britain to counter this on the one hand, and to stand off against the Egyptians on the other were undermined by the political unrest sweeping both countries. France was soon bogged down in Algiers, the new monarchy of Louis Philippe I committing to continue the campaign started by his predecessor, as well as going to war with the Netherlands over Belgium. Britain was soon deep into the Irish civil war, soon to become a general conflagration across the whole of the British Isles. In this atmosphere of Western distraction, Russian dominance spread, and Egyptian power continued to grow unchecked.

In Portugal the Liberal opposition to the usurper King Miguel attempted to gain British support. An alternative regime was established in the Azores, a Liberal uprising occurred at Oporto but the forces of conservatism were too strong, and with British aid not forthcoming Miguel was able to secure his hold upon the throne.

In Spain, in 1834 the death of Ferdinand VII plunged the country into civil war. By a sanction as pragmatic as the eponymous one which had brought Maria Theresa to the Austrian throne, Ferdinand had arranged for the succession of his daughter as Isabella II. But in so doing he had overturned tradition and had knocked back from the succession his own brother, Don Carlos. Carlos's revolt gained aid from Miguel's Portugal, and after a civil war lasting a couple of years, Carlos had forced his niece into exile and secured his rule in Madrid.

The birth of two new nations occurred at this time, both forged in the last resort by warfare. Greece initially offered the throne to Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, the widower of Princess Charlotte of Great Britain, but he turned it down due to the instability raging there. Under Ernest Augustus' auspices, the claims of his wife's brother, Duke Charles of Mecklenburg-Strelitz were put forward as an alternative. Not directly the heir to the Grand Duchy (that was his brother George), Charles was seen as an acceptable candidate, and despite the instability of Britain in this period, the backing of its leading power brokers was enough to secure the election.

The second new nation to make an appearance on the map of Europe was that of Belgium, born of a revolt in the former Austrian Netherlands which had been under the rule of the North since the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Born at the same time as the overthrow of the conservative Charles X was occurring within France, the future of Belgium was tied up closely with the fortunes of the Orleanist monarchy coming to power in France.

The Belgian National Congress in February 1831 offered the throne to King Louis Philippe I's second son, the sixteen year old Prince Louis. Although not initially enthusiastic, the political chaos in Great Britain encouraged Louis Philippe I to take the gamble. He supported his son's candidature and Louis was accepted as king in Brussels. The war between France and the Netherlands would continue for some time, but would eventually end in a complete victory for the dual Orleanist houses, with the whole of Limburg and Luxembourg incorporated within the new kingdom of Belgium as the Netherlands went down in eventual defeat.

Grey Wolf

 

[unsunghero]

Very interesting timline thus far. Are we going to see a a greater conservative triumph in Europe in this TL ie - no revolutions of 1848 or perhaps stillborn in Paris, so it doesn't spread?

 

[G.Bone]

Will there be a map forthcoming or is it a minor change in the borders of the Low Countries?

 

[Grey Wolf]

Will there be a map forthcoming or is it a minor change in the borders of the Low Countries?

I've got a map - its not mine, but it shows the details. Basically, the eventual settlement in OTL split Limburg and gave the Netherlands the dangly bit we know and love, and split Luxembourg carving half of it off as a Grand Duchy in personal union to the Netherlands crown, whilst it remained in the male line.

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Very interesting timline thus far. Are we going to see a a greater conservative triumph in Europe in this TL ie - no revolutions of 1848 or perhaps stillborn in Paris, so it doesn't spread?

The strange thing about European history in the nineteenth century is what the hell was going on 1830-1848 ? There seems to be a kind of hole in research and knowledge. I have information on the events in the Eastern Mediterranean, and if I can find the book I have it all well covered (the book went into hiding when I tidied up before my parents' visit last weekend). But elsewhere ? Its as if the history of Europe runs into a fog around the early 1830s and doesn't properly emerge until 1848. Very strange thing history when that happens.

As to the question, Louis Philippe I's reign is a boost to the more liberal elements, and one can imagine that an Orleanist Belgium allied the more closely (and not bound by neutrality as per OTL) would be similar in outlook.

I don't know what the name for the Mecklenburger royal family is ? Anyone ? King Charles I of Greece will have an increasingly uncomfortable time as his main backers collapse into civil war (i.e. Britain) ands he finds himself pulled principally between the intrigues of France and of Russia.

Russia in crushing the Poles has gone along the line as OTL, whilst Portugal and Spain have become more conservative. But will it last, and will it have any particular far-reaching effects for the rest of Europe ?

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Part 2

The series of crises affecting Britain, and developing into the full-blown civil war of 1832-1836 had effectively removed British interests from many parts of the world, not least among them the Eastern Mediterranean. During the 1830s Britain had not been more than a spectator to events in this theatre, Ernest I Augustus' pressing of the claims of Charles of Mecklenburg to the Greek throne being the only notable success, and the last at that. For the rest of the decade, Britain had been largely an irrelevance, and the powers of France and Russia, both able to field significant fleets despite their own distractions, had dominated the theatre. The decline of Ottoman power, and the subsequent rise of that of Mohammed Ali's Egypt had unbalanced the scales of power, but for most of the decade had not tipped them over completely. Egypt, with its new possessions in Syria and the Lebanon, had continued to build and field an impressive fleet, whilst the Ottomans, since the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi under effective Russian protectorship had seen a halt of some sorts to their own decline, but no great increase to conter-balance the ambitious Egyptians.

The Spring of 1839 saw Sultan Mahmud attempt to bring his rebellious and by now fully-autonomous vassal back under control. Taking advantage of a revolt across Syria caused in a large part by high Egyptian taxes, the Ottoman forces crossed the Euphrates and invaded. However, the Ottoman fleet, although numerically the equivalent of the Egyptians was greatly inferior in quality, and Mohammed Ali was able to retain control of the seas.

At the same time, Russia was seriously distracted by events in the Caucasus which threatened its control of the coastline there, and was willing to offer the Ottomans only defensive support, and even then only if the need really was pressing. Most of the Black Sea Fleet was needed off the Caucasus coast.

Orleans France, continuing its upward progress in international affairs, backed the cause of Egyptian independence.

Britain, however, continued to be a minor power in the theatre. The Radical government had finally succeeded in extending its control into the countryside, and had replaced the House of Lords with a Senate, one half elected and one half hereditary. It had dis-established the Church of England and thrown out the Bishops from the process of government, and was struggling to find a happy medium in the new Senate, where accusations of exclusion and favouritism undermined the decision-making process. King George V had married Princess Marie of Saxe-Altenburg and in early 1840 they produced an heir, also named George, an event which eased the hearts of those who feared the succession reverting to the Cambridge line, now ruling as Kings of Hannover. But a settling down of politics within Britain was not the same as a reassertion of influence upon the seas, and only a small squadron was dispatched to the Eastern Mediterranean, enough to watch events unfold and to report upon them, but too weak and without orders to intefere.

The death of Mahmud, following on shortly from a major defeat of his forces, caused another major change in the theatre as the comander in chief of the Ottoman Navy defected to the Egyptian cause, taking his entire fleet with him. Although mutinies and rebellious attitudes would decrease the number of ships that Mohammed Ali was able to deploy, this represented a severe loss for the Ottomans, and a material gain for the Egyptians.

With Russia unable to commit to more than the defence of the Marmara, and with France leaning increasingly towards Mohammed Ali, neither Austria nor Prussia were in any situation to act. Austrian warships joined with the British contingent in a joint patrol, but neither was sufficiently strong enough to act, even had the inclination being there.

By the end of 1839 with Egyptian forces pressing into Asia Minor, and with no other aid forthcoming, Sultan Abdulmecit came to an accord with Mohammed Ali that effectively granted Egypt all of its wishes, including de facto independence.

In Paris, King Louis Philippe I and his government hailed this as another victory for French interests. In Saint Petersburg, Tsar Nicholas I was only too aware of what a defeat this would prove to be for Russian interests. To all effects and purposes Unkiar Skelessi was dead, sacrificed by necessity for operations upon the Georgian coast. Russia had retained Georgia and the Caucasus, but had lost its protectorship of the Ottoman Empire

Grey Wolf

 

[G.Bone]

Just curious- why did Prussia suddenly shift from East Germany to West, bordering near the Netherlands? On other maps it shows Prussia being in between present day Poland/Germany (right where the Oblast is), with small territories in the west. I was wondering if you could clarify me how and why they shifted over.

Oh- and how is the Hannover line doing, seeing that they are English to begin with (i.e. they were raised there) and now they are in Germany? Is Hannover a stronger power because of that or is Germany a mess overall?

 

[Gladi]

Bright day
It is only Prussian possesion, not Prussia itself (well it is Prussia, but you should know what I mean).

 

[Grey Wolf]

Just curious- why did Prussia suddenly shift from East Germany to West, bordering near the Netherlands? On other maps it shows Prussia being in between present day Poland/Germany (right where the Oblast is), with small territories in the west. I was wondering if you could clarify me how and why they shifted over.

Oh- and how is the Hannover line doing, seeing that they are English to begin with (i.e. they were raised there) and now they are in Germany? Is Hannover a stronger power because of that or is Germany a mess overall?

Prussia was originally an area of then-Poland
It was granted as a duchy to the elector of Brandenburg
He became so powerful he applied to be a king
As he was a member of the HRE, he became King IN Prussia
The name Prussia took over that of Brandenburg
By dynastic marriage etc, and results of the Napoleonic wars too, Prussia gained most of Rhineland-Westphalia as well

Regarding Hannover, OTL they split off from Britain in 1837 with the accession of Victoria when they required a male monarch and went with Ernest. They had previously been ruled by viceroys (royal dukes such as Sussex).

In this ATL, Hannover is still united as a kingdom with Britain under Ernest jduring the civil war. I have him drawing reserves from there, and later sending his brother Cambridge to do a kind of Mackensen role and organise things. In 1836 with the Radicals-Whigs alliance in London, the peace agreed places Cambridge's line on the throne of Hannover

I certainly don't see this as being any worse than OTL, with Ernest Augustus as King of Hannover so in the unmentioned period I have Hannover doing relatively well

Grey Wolf

 

[G.Bone]

Ah....interesting.....

Thanks for the answer.

When will the major changes in Europe come in?

 

[Grey Wolf]

Ah....interesting.....

Thanks for the answer.

When will the major changes in Europe come in?

This is where I am having trouble

The ATL date for Europe is somewhere in the mid 1840s, and the major changes are :-

Belgium - an Orleanist king, a bigger country, an alliance with France
Greece - a Mecklenburger king, no Britain in the international consideration
Egypt - de facto independent, a French aligning, holding onto Syria, large navy
Portugal - Miguel as king, conservative
Spain - Carlos as king, conservative
Britain - George V, Radicals ascendant, eclipse of traditional conservatives
Hannover - Adolphus I, Cambridge dynasty, split from Britain by defeat
Ireland - King Francis I, Orlanist, alliance with France, independent from Britain

These are quite significant changes though their full effect has yet to come into play

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Discussion ?

I was thinking that
http://www.realcasadiborbone.it/uk/archiviostorico/cs_071.htm
offers a different way out of the 1840s

Maybe in France, Louis Philippe I abdicates and his son Ferdinand takes over as king. This dampens the chain of events as per OTL

Meanwhile in the Italian peninsular, events do occur as per OTL in Naples, but the bright hopes for a monarchical confederation are realised as revolutions are not sweeping Europe and as Piedmont-Sardinia is not able to have realistic hopes of acquiring territory (eg Lombardy) from Austria.

Democrats and republicans are still a danger to the plan, but Neo-Guelphism gains ground. Perhaps one can postulate that King Ferdinand I's France backs this ?

Grey Wolf

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

While primarily a Britain-centered TL (and a fascinating one at that), I have some Ottoman comments.

As I mentioned on the other site, while things could go down as you have them, I think Navarino is LESS likely to occur in this TL. Philhellenism was largely an artificial and self-indulgent movement that I would think a Britain in the midst of civil war would not entertain. Without them, the Ottomans/Egyptians are likely to prevail.

In OTL, Mehmed Ali's invasion of Syria was brought on by his frustration at having spent so much money on the Greek campaign for nothing, and felt he should be rewarded for obeying the Sultan's commends to supress the Wahhabis and Greeks. If successful in Greece he would have had to be rewarded, probably with governorships in Syria. Upon his death, they would likely return to Ottoman control, especially as Ottoman power began to eclipse Egyptian power by mid-century.

While the Ottomans were at a nadir in 1800, by 1830 the situation had improved markedly, and I think you are underestimating their vitality and overestimating Egypt's. Egyptian rule was generally very unpopular as Mehmed Ali was in it for the money and tended to be rapacious.

Just as a curiousity, why do you like Mehmed Ali so much? He was actually a horrible person. He cared nothing for his subjects, invaded the Sudan in a genocidal frenzy to acquire a slave army after his attempts at creating a slave army out of Egyptian peasants didn't work out, never kept his word, was a treacherous bastard, was horrible to his children, and in general was just a bastard.

While energetic, as was his son Ibrahim (but NOT the rest of his descendants), he was IMHO no match for Mahmud II, nor did his armies have the staying power of Ottoman troops, nor did he have sufficient legitimacy to replace Ottoman power in the Near East with his own.

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

I'm actually going to agree with Abdul here. After Mehmet Ali and his son, the Egyptians are just going to be eclipsed by the Ottomans. While I would say the death blow to Ali's ideas surrounding industrialization came with the ACW (where Cotton went from 45% to 95% of export revenue), trade tables from the 1840s already begin to show signs of a slow down in Egyptian manufactured goods from the period of Ali.

Regardless of the character of Ali, if the Ottomans are able to maintain Greece and manage to keep the Europeans from interfering on an even greater scale, I think that the Ottomans may be able to end up in a much stronger position via Egypt by the 1860s.

 

[Grey Wolf]

While primarily a Britain-centered TL (and a fascinating one at that), I have some Ottoman comments.

As I mentioned on the other site, while things could go down as you have them, I think Navarino is LESS likely to occur in this TL. Philhellenism was largely an artificial and self-indulgent movement that I would think a Britain in the midst of civil war would not entertain. Without them, the Ottomans/Egyptians are likely to prevail.

In OTL, Mehmed Ali's invasion of Syria was brought on by his frustration at having spent so much money on the Greek campaign for nothing, and felt he should be rewarded for obeying the Sultan's commends to supress the Wahhabis and Greeks. If successful in Greece he would have had to be rewarded, probably with governorships in Syria. Upon his death, they would likely return to Ottoman control, especially as Ottoman power began to eclipse Egyptian power by mid-century.

While the Ottomans were at a nadir in 1800, by 1830 the situation had improved markedly, and I think you are underestimating their vitality and overestimating Egypt's. Egyptian rule was generally very unpopular as Mehmed Ali was in it for the money and tended to be rapacious.

Just as a curiousity, why do you like Mehmed Ali so much? He was actually a horrible person. He cared nothing for his subjects, invaded the Sudan in a genocidal frenzy to acquire a slave army after his attempts at creating a slave army out of Egyptian peasants didn't work out, never kept his word, was a treacherous bastard, was horrible to his children, and in general was just a bastard.

While energetic, as was his son Ibrahim (but NOT the rest of his descendants), he was IMHO no match for Mahmud II, nor did his armies have the staying power of Ottoman troops, nor did he have sufficient legitimacy to replace Ottoman power in the Near East with his own.

As stated on AHF, Navarino is in 1827 which, whilst after the POD of Alexandrina Victoria's death is before the crisis over Catholic Emancipation raises its head. Thus I don't think the changes kick in soon enough to prevent Navarino, and without preventing it don't prevent Greek independence.

As to the vitality of Egypt, militarily HE did beat Mahmud II and it was the Anglo-French-Austrian alliance which chased him out of Syria, at the same time France drifting off towards a pro-Egyptian stance. Only the blockade of Alexndria coupled with the attack on Acre led to Mohammed Ali's having to withdraw. He had already defeated the main Ottoman force, the main Ottoman fleet had defected to him, and Russia was unale to do much since its main force was engaged in putting down revolts along the Georgian coast. All this is as per OTL.

While I admit an ATL may go differently, I guess the main reason I am going with Mohammed Ali is to provide an interesting alternative. Egypt in this period and Alexandria were not the backwaters and primitive abodes general history would disregard them as being. I don't make personal statements about rulers really - if I did I would have shunted Andrew Jackson aside as I don't find him a nice person at all, and Ernest Augustus himself whilst a fascinating person in many respects had all that freaky protestant crap that I can't stand from the likes of the mad Ian Paisley. But in alternate history, interesting characters make for interesting history. Besides, one of the most sympathetic historical characters is Victoria, so having her reign till 1901 would be...unrealistic !

Grey Wolf

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I'm actually going to agree with Abdul here.

Will wonders never cease?

The Greek revolt was pretty much the only revolt by mainland Greeks against the Ottomans in their entire history, bought on by the horrible misrule of Janissary notables. Soon after they were destroyed and more responsible central administration imposed in the remaining Ottoman territories.

If the Greek Revolt had failed, this opens the question, then what? Pretty much all Greeks would still be in the Ottoman Empire. How would that affect development of the Ottoman Empire? The Greeks at this time did not think of themselves as 'Greeks', they thought of themselves as Romans, and the basis for Bulgarian, Serbian, and Rumanian nationalism was resistance to GREEK rule, not Ottoman, as these peoples were all subject to the Orthodox Patriarchy.

I really can't even speculate. It could go any number of ways. Without the example of one Balkan people gaining independence, would that retard the others? Would a later revolt happen and succeed? Probably only if timed to coincide with a major external war. Would the Greeks become a dominating influence in the empire? Possibly, as they were the commerical middlemen for the West.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I'm actually going to agree with Abdul here. After Mehmet Ali and his son, the Egyptians are just going to be eclipsed by the Ottomans. While I would say the death blow to Ali's ideas surrounding industrialization came with the ACW (where Cotton went from 45% to 95% of export revenue), trade tables from the 1840s already begin to show signs of a slow down in Egyptian manufactured goods from the period of Ali.

Regardless of the character of Ali, if the Ottomans are able to maintain Greece and manage to keep the Europeans from interfering on an even greater scale, I think that the Ottomans may be able to end up in a much stronger position via Egypt by the 1860s.

Well, on the one hand I spent about a week deciding where this was going to go and am not making it up on the off-hand. Thus, I am not about to change it now

A chap called Jomard is interesting. In 1839 he was a major advisor to Mohammed Ali and well-trusted. Just before the uprising in Syria and the Ottoman invasion he came up with a 40-page dossier on plans to put in motion - the full integration of the Syrian economy with the Egyptian, the establishment of a forestry school, the improvement of the Naval Academy and its merger with a remodelled Polytechnique to create a sufficient number of sailors to allow Egypt to dispense with its use of Greeks.

Egypt, with Syria, Lebanon and that area of modern Turkey around Alexandretta is a different proposition than just OTL Egypt. As is an Egypt that is victorious and recognised as de facto independent by all the powers, rather than having been defeated, forced out of Syria in 1840 and forced to agree an accord with the Ottoman sultan under threat.

Grey Wolf

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

While I admit an ATL may go differently, I guess the main reason I am going with Mohammed Ali is to provide an interesting alternative

Perhaps, but this isn't really an 'alternative' for you, lol, you do it all the time! If not for the powers, Mehmed Ali would not have been able to hold Syria long, as Ottoman power was increasing rapidly and his rule was deeply resented. The Ottoman admiral that defected to him did so for various reasons, and the personnel, as residents of the Ottoman core, were not likely to be willing to serve long-term in Egypt!

In any case, Egypt was deeply overcommitted, and if not for the intervention of the Powers would likely have collapsed entirely under the strain. He was attempting to digest a huge and difficult empire (Egypt, Sudan [!], Arabia [!], Crete, Syria, Somaliland, Eritrea, etc. with very limited financial and human resources, and no legitimacy, the importance of which can not be overestimated. He continued to pose as the loyal servant of the Sultan even at his most treasonous for that very reason.

Also, Egyptian historians tend to portray him as a great man, struggling for the independence of Egypt from the Ottoman yoke. This could not be further from the truth - he was out to further his own ambitions in the Ottoman context, not 'liberate' Egypt. He was a Turk, after all.

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

I find the Greek influence question to be an interesting one. There certainly was a growing influence of Armenians, Jews, and other Christians in Anatolia and "Palestine" during this same time (to the great displeasure of many Muslims). IIRC, by the time of the Young Turks, Jews and the assorted Christians had a great amount of control over commerce throughout the empire and when they left after WWI, that is what allowed the Turks to basically create an industrial build up out of nowhere.

Now with Greece still in the fold, I don't really think there would be too many insurrections from the other nationalities. The other Great Powers might not want it. They saw the failure of Greece, and with a stronger Ottoman Empire, capable of keeping Russia off the Bosphorus on its own, countries like Great Britain and France might not be so willing to attempt to weaken it a second time.

With the growing strength of commercialism within the Ottoman empire, I believe that the Greeks might well become a huge force within the bureaucracy and executive powers, because even with a separate Greek nation in OTL, the Greek, Armenian, and Jewish merchants in Constantinople/Istanbul were highly influential even after the war.

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

Will wonders never cease?

One should hope not.