Where was Great Britain during this Indian revolt? Republicanism does not at all mean an end to colonialism. If anything, I'd fully expect Great Britain to have claimed India for itself. Great Britain cannot sustain its navy without its wealthy colonies. Giving them up is basically cutting British power down at the knees. If anything, the numerous nationalists that to a point supported some of these republican movements would revolt against whatever government suggested giving up its colonies.
Summer of Nations (1848 Victorious)
- Thread starter Squidfam
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 1848 revolutions long
Great Britain doesn't exist as a political entity outside of the Australasian government in exile and the political turmoil it went through during its early years shelved any plans of colonialist endeavors until roughly this point (they've taken back a piece of south africa as you can see on the 1858 map). Its less that they've cut their losses and given up on colonialism and more that they deem enacting the reforms the common folk brought them to power on is more important than spending money overseas in a large gambit to try and reoccupy an entire subcontinent.
Affairs Around Africa
Affairs Around Africa
Attack on Algiers from the sea (1855, Théodore Gudin)
As Europe recovered from the chaos of revolution, the attention of many in circles of power shifted toward Africa. The internal strife of many European powers had now given way to a sense of nationalist renewal and with the prominent naval power of the continent almost a husk of its former self, many seized upon the opportunity to carve up slices of the orient for themselves. Perhaps most prominent of these incursions was the Portugese invasion and occupation of the Moroccan Kingdom which had up to that point remained sovereign in the face of other colonial powers. Shortly after the occupation and formal annexation of Morocco a large part of the territory was given to Spain as a "gift" by Portugal as a form of compensation for the seizure of Galicia during the unstable years folloing 1848.
Attack on Algiers from the sea (1855, Théodore Gudin)
By accepting, many in Spain viewed this as rescinding the claim of sovereignty over Galicia wich along with the secession of the Catalan Republic during the revolutions bred an isolationist and ethnically supremacist sentiment among Spaniards, who now regarded themselves the only "purely Spanish" part of Iberia. Spain, they reasoned, was to be only inhabited by Spaniards and now that those regions that did not want to be part of Spain had seceded, everyone else was to conform to Spanish standards or be driven away. This resulted in a wave of attacks on minorities ranging from Jews to Catalans caught on the wrong side of the border and an intensifying campaign against the fledgling Euskaran Republic in the northern mountains.
As large parts of Europe was still in dissaray or in the throes of intense nationalism, many of the refugees and victims of this violence and violence like it across the continent fled to the European colonial holdings in africa, often founding entire villages or filling up entire city districts in socio-ethnic enclaves. Derisively nicknamed "Sobras" ("leftovers" in Spanish) this community would come to be both the most ardent supporters of European colonialism and the most opposed to mainland nationalism, proving a thorn in the side of colonial administrations for decades to come.
France, seeing an opportunity to turn attention away from the recent mainland losses of Brittany and Alsace, retreated into a similar popular mindsetas Spain, highlinghting the aquisition of the wealthy Waloon lands and also began incursions and campaings agains the "Barbary states" of the north african coast, seizing total control of the divided Algerian territories by the end of 1856, establishing a permanent prescence there and formally annexing the area the same year despite Ottoman process. French President Adolphe Tiers confidently remarked that "No force, by land or by sea, can now dislodge France from Algeria". Regardless as to the accuracy of his claim, a clear message had been sent across Africa: Europe was here to stay.
Around the Cape
As Northern Africa slowly fell under European influence, somewhat of a reversal of fortunes was occuring on the other side of the continent in Southern Africa. The collapse of the Britain at home caused a slow drain of supplies and manpower to the now English Cape colony, hindering their plans for expansion and allowing the Boers to cement their legitimacy as nations on par with mainland Europe, at least in regards to sovereignty. However, skirmishes with British forces before 1848 as well as the new threat of a secular and revolutionary advance into Africa forced leading Boers into action. In a meeting led by Andries Pretorius, the various Boer Republics and Territories agreed to unite in a confederacy for the sole purpose of countering foreign and domestic threats. Disputes were to be solved by a Volksraad comprised of one representative from each Republic in the Confederacy, but the constituent nations otherwise retained sovereignty in their affairs. A new banner was unveiled to symbolize this fact, to fly at equal height with the flags of its constituent countries. Whilst some grumbled and accused the whole ordeal of being a simple move by the South African Republic to consolidate their power, the unification of Boer lands was received positively by the general population.
Flag of the Boer Confederacy. In American fashion, it featured nine stars to represent its constituent Republics.
The English had not given up entirely on south Africa however and in 1857 the Cape Colony was formally readmitted into the English Republic as a colonial possesion as the first English ships arrived bearing food, provisions and news from the mainland, followed by contact from the exiled monarchy a few weeks later. Feeling a stronger connection to the mainland, the colony opted to switch its allegiance to the Republic, with the benefit that as the sole colonial territory of the Republic, it would receive all of the attention and resources of England instead of being treated like a frontier colony by the monarchy. This switch of allegiance was marked with the unveiling of a new colonial ensign above the cape, bearing the English Cross and Striped instread of the Union Jack in the corner.
Flag of the English Cape Colony, modeled after the Republican Ensign.
Last edited:
I consider the idea of most European countries turning into republics in the wake of even totally successfull 1848 revolutions while perhaps not outright ASB at least highly unlikely. Except for France where republicanism had a tradition dating back to the first French Revolution it was a fringe political movement in mid 19th century Europe as the elections to the Frankfurt National Assembly of 1848 demonstrate. The events that could have led to the dramatic change of opinions required for such an outcome are also in no way explained in the respective chapters.
Last edited:
It currently controls the purple area on the map, but the borders aren't terribly solid and shift somewhat near constantly.
Chaos Converging in the Caucasus
Chaos Converging in the Caucasus
The Caucasus War lasted between April 1857 - July 1859 and was fought between the Russian, Persian and Ottoman Empires. The war came about chiefly due to the instability of the Russian and Ottoman Empires and the fracturing of the Caucasus by rebels with Iranian support while the other two empires were putting down rebellions in Europe.
Origins
As a consequence of the wave of revolutions sweeping Europe starting in 1848, the focus of both the Russian and Ottoman empires shifted to the continent in an attempt to put down several rebellions and fighting rival powers to retain their frontier territories. With the collapse of the British Empire to the east, Persia had been given a virtually free hand to act on their ambitions to reclaim their lost caucasian territories. This was facilitated by a number of regional rebellions which were quickly aided by Persia and promised protection under Persian vassalship.
1857
As a consequence of this support Persian forces were allowed to advance deep into the Caucasus relatively unhidered during the early stages of the war, often being greeted as liberators by the local townspeople much to the displeasure of the twin rival powers. Feeling their heartland was particularly threatened, the Ottoman Empire quickly assembled a force to respond to these incursions, with their forces first clashing in late april, prompting formal declarations of war from both sides as well as a Russian declaration to "restore order in the caucasus". Nevertheless the Russian and Ottoman forces were harassed by local rebels during much of the campaign, disrupting supply lines and seriously hindering the transport and use of artillery. It was not until Siirt that the Persian forces were seriously halted when an Ottoman counteroffensive in October ended in a draw.
1858
It was only in 1858 that Russia became substantially involved in the war as a force commanded by Viceroy Aleksandr Bariyatinsky was sent to fortify the city of Ganja, only to find the Persians already moving north of the city. Seeing they had taken the Russians by surprise, the Persian commander quickly routed the unprepared Russians in the ensuing battle, driving them all the way over the Tovuzchay river. After a few weeks of intermittent skirmishing, the Russian forces received reinforcements from Vladikavkaz and forced the Persians into a strategic retreat back to Ganja, where the two sides met in a second battle ending in a Russian victory. A second Ottoman offensive in June that same year forced the main Persian contingent back to the village of Gürpinar, where the two armies once again settled.
1859
The last military action occured in early March with an encirclement of Ottoman forces by the Persians in the town of Edremit, forcing their surrender and a failed Russian attack on fortified Persian Positions in Yevlakh that same month. Faced with continued European instability, the Ottomans and Russia finally agreed to an armistice and representatives of the three powers met in Baku to negotiate. The Ottomans, partly motivated by the increasing separatism of the Eastern Kurdish areas and looming instability in the Bosnia vilayet ceded the contested territory to Persia and consequently put pressure on Russia to accept the Persian demands. Persia aquired most of the rebelling Azeri territory as well as parts of Armenia in the peace agreement that was signed in July that year, formally ending the war.
The war had longterm effect on relations between the three powers, laying the groundwork for further Persian expansion into Ottoman territory, with the implicit recognition by Russia that the Caucasus was a Persian sphere of influence as well as Persias frequent support of regional independence movements reaching as far as Bosnia and Libya.
Their pressure on the russian delegation wasn't as much an "alliance" as it was more of a "I'm taking you down with me" thing. I.E if the Ottomans had to lose territory, they wanted to make sure Russia did too.
What I don't understand is how the Ottomans and Russians could lose to the Persians considering all the problems they have. Since the Crimean War didn't happen, Persia is still in debt to Russia, and while the British collapse does give Persia access to Herat, Persia at this time isn't doing so well, and this scenario doesn't really fix the problems Persia has already. Persia could maybe stall the Russian army, but they can't conquer the Caucasian territories back. At the end of the day, the Caucasian Muslims are looking out for their own interests. A great Persian military leader like Agha Mohammad Khan doesn't have the iron fist to control the Caucasus. The same thing would have happened like in 1795 and 1796. Many Caucasian nations joined the Persian side, but when news of a Russian invasion in 1796 was heard, they turned on the Persians. When Agha Mohammad Khan campaigned in Georgia and the Caucasus, he killed Muslims and Christians alike, which alienated him from the Caucasian Muslims.
I can't really see how the Persians are going to primarily win a war between the Ottomans and Russians. Ottomans are one thing, Russia is another.
The Persians elect to use their traditional method granting much autonomy to the provinces they've conquered to maintain their support in contrast to the tsardoms russification policy. They're almost more like protectorates than integrated provinces.
The problem is that traditional methods may have worked then, but now they don't considering the European imperialism in the Caucasus has increased over the decades. Considering the fall of Britain, wouldn't Russia push for further influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia? They could easily conquer Central Asia and the Caucasus without British intervention in Persia, and while I personally don't understand at all how a revolution in Finland could succeed considering Finland is right next to Saint Petersburg, the economic, and industrial heart of the nation with most likely many many soldiers in place ready to crush any Finnish Revolution, and I am very speculative of why Sweden would support it considering even with the backing of Britain, and France, Sweden didn't accept the chance to retake parts of Finland from Russia in the Crimean War, I doubt they'd be so ambitious here.
Back to Persia however, Persia in this timeline would not be conquering anything anymore, they'd be completely subservient to Russia considering the massive debt they own Russia, and the fact Britain can't oppose Russian Imperialism in Central Asia. Considering the treaty of Aigun during the Taiping Rebellion will happen, and Russia will be expanding in Central Europe, further Caucasian expansion is very likely. Persia has no other power to prop it up against Russian Imperialism. They have to reform themselves, which will be very difficult considering the geographical problems, history of tribalism, Russian interference with reform, and ethnic rivalries.
American "State Nationalism"
American "State Nationalism"
Excerpt from "The end of the American Empire: A historical perspective" (2004, Rosefield Books, Oxford)
As Europe and Americas neighbors were rocked by nationalistic revolutions for self-determination and an end to monarchy, many in the United States saw this as the fulfillment of the American ideals across the world, but also spurred an increased sense of state nationalism. At this time many still more identified with their states than with the actual united states, but the great european revolution and its cultural impact cemented that identity, particularly in areas with large immigrant populations not loyal to the Anglo-Saxon core and formerly independent regions, of particular note being Texas and Florida.
The former had existed as an internationally recognized sovereign Republic for a number of years while the latter had merely hosted a 28-day independence movement outside its concurrent territory before American annexation. Even so, a number of areas in the souther United States now began flying "The Bonnie Blue" along with the Stars and Stripes as a display of regional pride and identity which wouldn't go away even after the civil war.
These forces became increasingly powerful in local elections, with regionalist parties like "Party of the Vermonters" and "The Carolina Party" gaining seats in local assemblies and even in rare cases posts in the senate, but were still outmaneuvered by the Whig and Democratic parties on the federal level. However, a predicament arose as regional nationalism spread across the United States; the narrative of a united people freeing themselves from the chains of autocracy resonated more with one particular group than any other: the large enslaved population of African-Americans, particularly in the south.
This only inflamed the paranoia of many white slaveowners to the extent that many created informal militas to be summoned in case of a slave uprising or "other tyrannies infringing on the rights of southern men", all of wich would erupt into the first American Civil War just a few years later and shape the history of the North American continent up until today.
Is the USA going to Balkanize (or ITTL "Americanize")?American "State Nationalism"
Excerpt from "The end of the American Empire: A historical perspective" (2004, Rosefield Books, Oxford)
As Europe and Americas neighbors were rocked by nationalistic revolutions for self-determination and an end to monarchy, many in the United States saw this as the fulfillment of the American ideals across the world, but also spurred an increased sense of state nationalism. At this time many still more identified with their states than with the actual united states, but the great european revolution and its cultural impact cemented that identity, particularly in areas with large immigrant populations not loyal to the Anglo-Saxon core and formerly independent regions, of particular note being Texas and Florida.
The former had existed as an internationally recognized sovereign Republic for a number of years while the latter had merely hosted a 28-day independence movement outside its concurrent territory before American annexation. Even so, a number of areas in the souther United States now began flying "The Bonnie Blue" along with the Stars and Stripes as a display of regional pride and identity which wouldn't go away even after the civil war.
These forces became increasingly powerful in local elections, with regionalist parties like "Party of the Vermonters" and "The Carolina Party" gaining seats in local assemblies and even in rare cases posts in the senate, but were still outmaneuvered by the Whig and Democratic parties on the federal level. However, a predicament arose as regional nationalism spread across the United States; the narrative of a united people freeing themselves from the chains of autocracy resonated more with one particular group than any other: the large enslaved population of African-Americans, particularly in the south.
This only inflamed the paranoia of many white slaveowners to the extent that many created informal militas to be summoned in case of a slave uprising or "other tyrannies infringing on the rights of southern men", all of wich would erupt into the first American Civil War just a few years later and shape the history of the North American continent up until today.
I think the most correct term ITTL would be "Austrianize" since the austrian empire fell apart earlier into a bunch of smaller states. As for America, it will be a more drawn-out process.
International Sports
The first Pan-European games
The flag of the games has remained the same since the beginning; a flame representing a variety of things, from unity to the human spirit itself.
The flag of the games has remained the same since the beginning; a flame representing a variety of things, from unity to the human spirit itself.
From “Transnationalism: from SPQR to CCR” By Dr. Leah Sundström (2008, Stockholm book Syndicate)
One well-known form of transnational interaction is that of sport, which can trace its root back to the inter-city Olympic Games of the ancient Greeks, which reemerged in a new form following the great European revolution of 1848. Conceptualized by the Dutch academic Niels Van Loper, the Pan-European games were viewed as a way to bring the newly minted nations of Europe together in a form of mutual brotherhood across national boundaries. The first Pan-European council (which despite the name was merely a sporting organization) convened in 1859 and gained official status by many of the would-be participants only the year after. Unsurprisingly, the city of Amsterdam was chosen as the hosting city (thought lofty proposals such as the founding of a new “pan-European city” on the border between france, Germany and the Netherlands was also proposed) and in the end 20 nations chose to attend the event, all of them having experienced a successful revolution during 1848.
The events were not quite like they would be recognized today and along with staples like poetry, weightlifting and soccer, more abstract activities including painting and wrestling without a set time limit were included (the latter would be removed following the second games during which the same match lasted several days). Many fraternal and not so fraternal rivalries quickly became prominent during the games’ progression: The French and German teams fought fiercely to top the other, whilst the Slavic teams jokingly mocked each other between games and in many cases even cheered on athletes from competing teams. In the end the winner of the first games was appropriately enough the Netherlands who managed first place with only one medal ahead of the tied nations France and Germany, followed by England.
The games themselves would go on to become more and more popular as time went on, growing in scale with the development of European communication and transportation allowing more spectators along with the political restructuring of authoritarian nations in the rest of Europe leading to more competing nations. The first games were attended primarily by the wealthy and politically affluent along with people from the host country, but would soon become a multinational phenomenon and attracted eyes all over the world by the early 18th century as the event grew into the Trans-Pacific games. Particular rivalries between the nations of the European Isles, France and Germany and the Balkan states have gone into history and are frequently a source of elation or consternation depending what side of the rivalry happens to win a given year.
The formation of the Popular Games and various international tournaments for specific sports have over time loosened the international sporting community, but regardless the games continue on following a 1953 rebranding as simply “The international games” and is to this day seen as a common cultural heritage, beacon of human cooperation and celebration of the human spirit, going so far as to feature commentary in the transnational language Esperanto.
One well-known form of transnational interaction is that of sport, which can trace its root back to the inter-city Olympic Games of the ancient Greeks, which reemerged in a new form following the great European revolution of 1848. Conceptualized by the Dutch academic Niels Van Loper, the Pan-European games were viewed as a way to bring the newly minted nations of Europe together in a form of mutual brotherhood across national boundaries. The first Pan-European council (which despite the name was merely a sporting organization) convened in 1859 and gained official status by many of the would-be participants only the year after. Unsurprisingly, the city of Amsterdam was chosen as the hosting city (thought lofty proposals such as the founding of a new “pan-European city” on the border between france, Germany and the Netherlands was also proposed) and in the end 20 nations chose to attend the event, all of them having experienced a successful revolution during 1848.
The events were not quite like they would be recognized today and along with staples like poetry, weightlifting and soccer, more abstract activities including painting and wrestling without a set time limit were included (the latter would be removed following the second games during which the same match lasted several days). Many fraternal and not so fraternal rivalries quickly became prominent during the games’ progression: The French and German teams fought fiercely to top the other, whilst the Slavic teams jokingly mocked each other between games and in many cases even cheered on athletes from competing teams. In the end the winner of the first games was appropriately enough the Netherlands who managed first place with only one medal ahead of the tied nations France and Germany, followed by England.
The games themselves would go on to become more and more popular as time went on, growing in scale with the development of European communication and transportation allowing more spectators along with the political restructuring of authoritarian nations in the rest of Europe leading to more competing nations. The first games were attended primarily by the wealthy and politically affluent along with people from the host country, but would soon become a multinational phenomenon and attracted eyes all over the world by the early 18th century as the event grew into the Trans-Pacific games. Particular rivalries between the nations of the European Isles, France and Germany and the Balkan states have gone into history and are frequently a source of elation or consternation depending what side of the rivalry happens to win a given year.
The formation of the Popular Games and various international tournaments for specific sports have over time loosened the international sporting community, but regardless the games continue on following a 1953 rebranding as simply “The international games” and is to this day seen as a common cultural heritage, beacon of human cooperation and celebration of the human spirit, going so far as to feature commentary in the transnational language Esperanto.
Will there be an attempt by Maratha to unify India? Will they to get help from European republics to modernize themselves?
Are there any social changes in India?
What is state of Bengal and Punjab?
Are there any social changes in India?
What is state of Bengal and Punjab?
The Maratha are as of the last post focusing internally and attempting to reunify, which will cause rather widespread social change later down the line, but for now the culture is mostly like OTL. Bengal and Punjab are both independent and will remain that way for a time.