Eurofed
Banned
While the HREGN has something happen that never happened despite three dynasties attempting to make it happen? Bull.
OTL determinism ? Double bull.
While the HREGN has something happen that never happened despite three dynasties attempting to make it happen? Bull.
The paragraph you quoted happens to include all the answers to these questions.
Parallels do happen when broad socio-political trends remain the same.
You haven't been paying attention to the full line-up, it seems.
I stated that they are not necessarily, or even likely, going to stay allies forever.
The British Empire has no Canada and has to fight a Russo-German-Italian Triple Alliance, the Sepoy Rebellion hits them in the middle of it all, and the Union has Canada and 2/3 of Spanish America. Despite what this board's Britwankers seem to think, the bloody pink blot never was all-powerful.
OTL determinism ? Double bull.
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.
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,
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.
But they *do* stay allies for 50 years in an era when changing allies was passe
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?
The main PoD is the success of the Hohenzollern, 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.
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.
I would also suggest that the prevalence of anti-Muslim ethnic cleansing in various TLs is somehow a reversal on the Armenian Genocide and the treatment of the Kurds in the Ottoman Empire. Not saying it is right by any means, but that to me seems to be the reason why people do it. Sort of a "Well in real life they did this, so in my TL, I'll have people do it to them to make it 'different' " mentality.
Except it's not different from OTL at all. Anti-muslim ethnic cleansings did happen occasionally and Armenian Genocide and so-called treatments of Kurds didn't. Indeed there was bloody ethnic strife between muslims and Armenians, because the later did anti-muslim ethnic cleansing towards the former first.
Oh, and it was the Kurds who killed most of the Armenians that were killed during that ethnic conflict back then.
Well, I meant that in most ATLs, they make the anti-Muslim cleansing even worse than reality.
Also, did you just say the Armenian Genocide didn't happen?
Did Stalin commit genocide of the Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, and other groups he deported into Siberia in the middle of a life or death struggle? If the answer to that is yes, then yes. If the answer to that is no, then why is it genocide for Turks to do it but not Stalin?
The deportation was certainly pretty messed up in my opinion.
Yes he did use the search function.
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.
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.
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.*
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
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....
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.
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.
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 butterfly 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.
how long would it have taken for the appointed back-up monarchy to get to Constantinople in such an event?
(and how much of the Empire would have accepted them as their Emperors?)
I would also suggest that the prevalence of anti-Muslim ethnic cleansing in various TLs is somehow a reversal on the Armenian Genocide and the treatment of the Kurds in the Ottoman Empire. Not saying it is right by any means, but that to me seems to be the reason why people do it. Sort of a "Well in real life they did this, so in my TL, I'll have people do it to them to make it 'different' " mentality.
Except it's not different from OTL at all. Anti-muslim ethnic cleansings did happen occasionally and Armenian Genocide and so-called treatments of Kurds didn't. Indeed there was bloody ethnic strife between muslims and Armenians, because the later did anti-muslim ethnic cleansing towards the former first.
Oh, and it was the Kurds who killed most of the Armenians that were killed during that ethnic conflict back then.
Well, I meant that in most ATLs, they make the anti-Muslim cleansing even worse than reality.
Also, did you just say the Armenian Genocide didn't happen?