Eurofed
Banned
While the HREGN has something happen that never happened despite three dynasties attempting to make it happen? Bull.
OTL determinism ? Double bull.
Anti-Ottomanism?
- Thread starter Orko
- Start date
OTL determinism ? Double bull.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Only by handwaving actual issues that would have appeared immediately, such as why 1810s Germany, still very tied to German particularism suddenly goes Pan-German out of the clear blue moon in an era when nationalism was liberal, which in itself is a big problem in multi-ethnic Russia once it absorbs Poland-Galicia in particular but in general.
If the South gets those states in the 1810s, why would a Missouri Compromise happen? It was the root that in 40 years produced the ill-fruit of war, in this case there's no rationale for it to exist in the first place.
Yes, I have and it sounds like a Harry Harrison novel.
But they *do* stay allies for 50 years in an era when changing allies was passe (note the British fought *for* the Ottomans in the 1850s but were notorious about butchering a postwar dismemberment of the Empire in the 1910s).
So, Russia, Anachronistically early Imperial Germany, and Anachronistically early United Italy are superpowers all capable of fighting a Britain able to put much more into India to the point the 1857 analogue would be much earlier?
Snake Featherston
Banned
It's not OTL determinism to ask why the HREGN unifies at *just* the right time to fuck over Islam and why they decide to do *that* as opposed to fighting a Franco-German Hundred Years' War analogue against the Capetians. Nor is it OTL determinism to ask how a hypothetical Iberian Peninsula is 100% united when the last people to rule an Iberia like that were the Romans as a single province of a bigger Empire.
Eurofed
Banned
The main PoD is the success of the Hohenstaufen, which butterflies the consolidation of Europe in a few stronger Late Middle Age monarchies (and has Renaissance happen slightly earlier), which fuck over Islam in Crusades 2.0 as their main pre-Americas expansion vector.
Who says they did not ? HRE-English anti-Capetian alliance in a rather shorter HYW -> Franglia and expanded HRE, wiped-out Capetians. Kairos' TL spans three centuries, there is plenty of time for it and Crusades 2.0 to happen.
The OTL dynastic unification of Spain had some near-misses before it latched, which could have easily included Portugal. When the Iberic kingdoms have Franglia and united HRE looming near them, it is easy to see why Iberian nobilty may take a fancy to the idea of unification and decide it's better to err on the side of it.
Last edited:
Eurofed
Banned
Prussia suddenly grows to 1866-like stature and turns more liberal, which accelerates the growth of the German national movement and makes it Prussian-led. Same happens in Italy with Naples.
This is a gross oversimplification of the causes of the ACW.
OTL Prussia/Germany and Russia stayed quite friendly from the 1810s to the 1890s, and quasi-allies from the 1810s to the 1870s. The time scale is similar (actually, there is room to fight another world war on the same side and fuck over the British Empire). TTL Germany-Italy (which develop a tight "special relationship") and Russia stay generally friendly and often quasi-allies from 1816 to 1857, when they both intervene on the side of the Union.
It's anachronistic only in your view, since IOTL German and Italian national movements started soon after the Congress of Vienna, and ITTL they are fulfilled in the 1830s. Earlier unifications and more liberalism mean greater industrial development. A Russo-German-Italian-Hungarian 'CP' were quite capable of defeating an Anglo-French-Iberian Entente. The 1857 analogue happens roughly on schedule (1860, the next to last year of the war), and it is the last nail in the coffin for the Anglo-French-Confederates, since the British are forced to withdraw forces from other theaters to deal with the rebellion. But the balance had been tilting more and more on the side of the Union-'CP'-Russian alliance anyway since, they just had rather more numbers and more industrial potential, overall, than the Anglo-French-Confederates.
Last edited:
Snake Featherson: that is my advice for you... Exist only one rule when dealing with Eurofed/general Zod... Ignore him, he will ALWAYS WILL THINK IN HIS PERFECT CHRISTIAN, UNITED STATES-ISM, SPACE FILLING EMPIRE WORLD, and NEVER, listen reason.....
that is something learning at the bad(he has the frustate ideals than the end of Italians supremacy was the main reason of all the bad of the world), but avoiding problem eurofed. you simply show us for anti-ottomanism... thanks for that....
that is something learning at the bad(he has the frustate ideals than the end of Italians supremacy was the main reason of all the bad of the world), but avoiding problem eurofed. you simply show us for anti-ottomanism... thanks for that....
Snake Featherston
Banned
One of those is difficult to do. All of them at once? Brandenberg's rulers do better so that means that other European monarchies also consolidate and instead of fighting among themselves they go fight the Muslims while the Renaissance impossible without the Byzantines happens without them? Huh?
Er........that doesn't necessarily follow. If HREGN unites, it becomes a potential hegemon, which would mean England (then a backwater of Europe), France, the Italian states, and Russia are more likely to attack *it* than ally with it.
At a point in time where most of the Peninsula is ruled by a Muslim emirate? Yeah......I don't see it.
So it becomes more liberal with the sudden growth of what took Otto von Bismarck's reactionary government to achieve? That does not follow.
Actually it is *the* Horseshoe Nail to be nipped in the bud to prevent a Civil War. Divide Slave and Free states equally in a political system that values equal representation, and any growth by either section at the expense of the other will cause a war. *Don't* set the precedent and the inflexible political system is much more flexible, meaning that there's less bloodiness to come out of a West that would be Free or Slave.
Er...........*that* is a Big Damn Overgeneralization in its own right. Germany allies with small, militarily incompetent Italy but not with Uber-Russia? Why would Italy even *matter*?
Except that the Metternichian-era nationalists were *liberals* and Prussia, the one that took control of Germany in the 1860s and 1870s was ultra-*reactionary.* You're asking for a big anachronism in the presence of reactionary nationalism at a point where nationalism will be associated with Nappy and hence therefore to be avoided.
And there is no fucking way in Hell the USA would win a war against any British Empire-French-Confederate alliance. In 1860 the OTL North had just completed the first stages of Industrialization and did not do all that well in the first year of the war, though it nearly cut the CSA in half by the second. In this case you get the Divided States of America.
Don Grey
Banned
Im not going to get into the armenian holohoux because it been discussed so many time as for the kurds that just never happen. The concept of kurds hardly existed in the ottoman era.And just because turkey has a problam with them now doesn mean they were always a problam in history. The reason are completly diffrent.
There is this.
Yes he did use the search function.
Not to mention if were not going to considere what happen to muslims in balkans and after greek independence and during greek invasion of western anatolia and what the tashnaksu did in eastern anatolia and what armenia did to azerbeyjan not genocide its kinda weird to consider this as such.
Not deportation relocation. Since syria was apart of the ottoman empire its not realy deportation but relocation.
It would have been much easyer if the ottomans had better infratsructer and if they didnt need to fight of tashnaksu from one side and kurdish bandits from the other.It also would have been more messed up if talat pushing didnt requasition funds as an allowance for every armenian (man women and childed) relocated. It would have gotten more messed up if he didnt hang ottoman soldiers for shotting armenian to set and example so no one else would seek retribution for what they had done to the muslims or it could have been more messed up if istanbul didnt inform domascus to prepair proper shelter and food for people being relocated.
It wouldnt have been this messed up if syria wasnt blockaded of vital resource because of the enemy. It would have been less messed up if there wasnt a great war going on it also would have been easyer if the ottomans werent fighting for servial on 7 fronts running low on everything. It would have been less messed if anatolia wasnt plagued by drought famine and disease. It would have been less messed up if russia wasnt comming down from teh caucess full force leaving the non-combatants in the middle of a war zone. It would have been more messed up if the ottoman goverment had order the relocation of all armenians in the empire such as the one in symerna and istanbul which were left untouched during the otl. It would have been less messed up if the ottomans had the ability to take the necessary precautions.It would have been more messed up if the ottomans didnt attach soldiers to escort the convoys to syria so as to protect them from murading kurds. It would have been even more messed up if the ottoman goverment would have just (like any other goverment of the time would do) said fuck it and gave the order to shoot them all instead of trying to get them out of a war zone.
So it could have actualy gotten more messed up then it was had the ottomans not been in the situation they were.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Well these sort of events are in the past. I don't tend to have any bias for or against the Ottomans.
No need for such curtness. I posed the question out of incredulity that he would actually deny it. I wanted to be sure that was indeed what he was saying.
Don Grey
Banned
There was no abruptness in my post intented i just see it so many times that i just tell them to use the search function since its been discussed so many times.So people wont keep comming back with the same outdated miss informed logical falacy ridden argument infavor of this holohoux you call a genocide so technicaly there is no denial either.
Well that was a passive-aggressive response if ever I saw one. I meant no ill by my post, to me denying something of that sort is nonsensical, but I also believe that as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, everyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe. You believe it didn't occur, I believe it did, and that's okay. Just differences of opinion and belief.
Eurofed
Banned
Kairos' TL spans three centuries from PoD (longer-living Frederick I Barbarossa and his son Henry VI) to the moment the conquest of North Africa and the Middle East (minus Arabia and Persia) is more or less complete (end of 15th century). That's plenty of time for both the consolidation to happen, which involves some of that intra-European fighting, notably the HRE-English alliance that screws up Capetian France, as well the Crusades 2.0. The butterflies involve a revitalization of the Byzantine Empire, which expands back to fill the typical geopolitical niche (Anatolia, Levant, Egypt, Mesopotamia) of the eastern Med empires. The Byzantines become the second most powerful European power, after the HRE, and both at the forefront of the Renaissance.
This is the centralization of the Hohenstaufen HRE, so there is no HREGN and no Italian states, both get united in the same German-Italian neo-Roman imperial state. Russia is busy kicking out the Golden Horde in this age. England has a vested interest in allying with a rising hegemon to accomplish something they have a common interest in, wiping out Capetian France, and rising Franglia and an expanded HRE in its place.
The Reconquista was all but done soon after the PoD, and Granada basically lingered on existence at the goodwill of the Christian kingdoms afterwards.
It turns more liberal because Russia is doing so, and Russia does so because Alexander I did have liberal leanings IOTL, but failed to act on them because of indecisiveness and Metternich's influence. The divergence makes him much more confident to act on his plans because of greater success, and removes Metternich's influence.
OvB, exceptional as he was, was hardly a strict necessity for the unification of Germany. 1848 was a more liberal near-miss, which would have worked with a Prussian King with a different mindset.
The Missouri Compromise is not strictly necessary in its OTL form. All you need is some kind of agreement about rough balance between the two sections, and then Dixie panicking because it sees the balance getting overturned by forces beyond its control.
Because of earlier unification, Italian major industrialization happens in the 19th century, and Italian army is remolded on the Prussian model because of the German-Italian alliance, which means Italy is neither weak, nor militarily incompetent.
Dude, De Maistre was ultra-reactionary. Bismarck was a pragmatic conservative.
Even when the Anglo-French Entente is also fighting a triple Alliance of Grossdeutchsland, Russia, Italy, and Hungary, all with accelerated industrialization, and the Union includes Canada and 2/3 of Spanish America ? For all that you decried 67th Tigers, I smell an exceeding amount of Britwank here. If you are going to stand and claim that bloody Victorian Britain could defeat anybody, in any circumstances, there is no point in continuing this discussion.
Long Federalist political dominance -> bipartisan committment to infrastructure and manufacturing development, and a strong military -> accelerated US industrialization.
Last edited:
Eurofed
Banned
This thread had gone on for some time, among other things decrying how nasty TL authors screw up poor Ottomans wth little justification. Since I happen to have at hand one TL where this is done with extensive geopolitical justification and a 90-year butterflies build-up, I step in to provide an example where such justification in fact exists. A poster plays Doubting Thomas on that, so I'm damned if I don't answer his naive objections, about issues that were settled to the satisfaction of my regular readers long ago, and damned if I do.
Last edited:
I will go as far as saying that militarily, the British Army and especially the Royal Navy could have defeated almost any power on earth at their zenith. However, the political cost would have been too great. For example, they might have bested France, Prussia/Germany or China, but the amount of men they would lose and the amount of time it would take would be very damaging politically and may even cause revolts at home.
Also, it's unlikely the British Empire and any of the above powers would have gone 1 on 1 for any length of time. Look at the First World War. The whole thing about the Victorian period was the "Great Game" and the balance of power that it entailed. If Britain was curbstomping someone major, you can guarantee that another power, even if it wasn't exactly friends with the nation being curbstomped, would step in to preserve the balance of power.
But that's neither here nor there in this thread, just wanted to respond to that comment
Snake Featherston
Banned
And my question to you, given that there were HREGN states that were Ecclesiastic policies and to do this would require defeating the Church, which Early Modern sovereigns with real armies couldn't do, and no Medieval leader ever did, is how this fantastically improbable thing happens in mere centuries. You'd need a lot longer than that or a lot smaller HREGN. One blending Italy, Germany, and a shitload of ecclesiastic states ain't gonna do it.
Too, the HREGN rejected the legitimacy of the Byzantines, so why is it that they want them stronger ITTL, given this is a post-Schism POD, and we all know how tolerant Medievals were of schismatics.
Ah, so the Hohenstaufens get Draka-levels of competence and complete exemption from the religious-secular clashes of the time, while England, which when a SUPERPOWER did not like the concept of a European hegemon adopts a completely different kind of politics when vulnerable to invasion at that time and likely in the middle of a civil war assuming its politics in the aftermath of the fall of the Angevin Empire is remotely like OTL decides to welcome a power tempted to conquer it (after all, if they can rule something the size of OTL HREGN, why not add England if it goes all Civil War infighting?).
All the same Iberia, which actually *was* united IOTL stays united because....the other power in Europe is united? By this logic the whole Sengoku period should never have happened.
And because of fear of something like a Decembrist revolt, which actually happened and soured his brother on liberalism for good. Tsar Alexander I decides on policies that would lead to revolution in Russia as Tsarist "liberalism" meant "Tsars without pesky Boyars" as opposed to "free Russia" and this works out that way because.....?
And if the king is a mad one and his brother is the OTL Wilhelm I, that dog don't hunt.
And with Cuba and parts of South America it's going to feel this way why? Under the 3/5 clause it controlled Congress up to the 1850s. ITTL it would do that far longer and any Civil War would come about very different.
Their problems weren't industrialization IOTL, they had some very brave and hard-fighting soldiers. Their problems came from bunglers like Cadorna and Mussolini.
Pragmatic in the sense that he leads a defiantly reactionary empire and flips the bird at the liberals in the "Blood and Iron" speech. Yeah.....no.
Tigger mistakes all Union generals for Zapp Brannigan and all Confederate generals for Marty Tzu. The British Empire vastly economically outweighed the USA in 1860, and with a larger Confederacy able to throw up much more manpower and presumably with something more like a real navy the war right there stops resembling OTL.
Uh.........so Thomas Jefferson disappeared ITTL? The Adamses learned how to attract flies with sugar instead of Vinegar?
It's not Doubting Thomas to ask how the Metternichian faction suddenly ups and disappears after reactionaries *defeat* Napoleon. And I disagree with 67th Tigers' underestimation of the USA and its best generals and his Confederate-wanks but there is no way the USA in the middle of a civil war across a region the size of Russia can take on Superpower-Britain.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
There's no way to answer that. At the time there was an unspoken understanding that the Crimean Khan would get the throne, but the Khanate was gone, so I'm not sure how much support the Khan-pretender would get. Meanwhile the governor of Egypt had massive ambitions. Most likely there would be a horrible civil war. Possibly the matter would be settled by picking someone and marrying them to an Ottoman princess.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
The Kurds are the people who turned the Armenian Genocide into what it was. It's pretty tiresome to see people turning pity on the people who were by far the bloodiest in that conflict, and that's saying something. The Kurds had incredibly privileged treatment in the empire, and there's really no way to spin that otherwise.
It's still the result of bigotry. The Muslim death toll in WWI in eastern Anatolia was as a % of population equal to the Armenians and as a raw number much higher. Likewise, the Greek invasion of Anatolia disgusted even their closest allies, and when they withdrew, they burned every building and felled every tree, and that's not poetic license. Bursa was only saved by a British landing to prevent the Greeks from destroying it. The death toll and economic damage done in Western Anatolia took generations to undo.
But nobody cares about Muslim losses. That's less true today, but nobody is even willing to examine actual evidence about the past in favor or lazy reliance of incredibly slanted texts that support their preconceived notions about the barbarian Turk.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
There was ethnic cleansing of Armenians in WWI, but certainly never any such thing against the Kurds. It is true that the Armenians were not entirely innocent victims in the conflict, and somehow it's been totally lost that the Russians are responsible for as much Armenian death as the Ottomans.