God is a Frenchman

Status
Not open for further replies.
well, there in middle in a revolution and they enemies are attacking them.you should continue the timeline.

I don't want to give you ideas for you because I don't want interfere in your own timeline.

but you should at least finish this timeline, I think is very good.
 

Hapsburg

Banned
Thanks. Maybe one day I'll finish it. In the meantime, if anyone has any suggestions as to where it should go from here, please feel free to share them.
Make a series of periodical maps, taking place on the years just prior to major events. That should keep you occupied while you have writer's block. And who knows, maybe while making some maps, you'll think of new ideas for future installments.
 
Well, I have to say that this TL is pretty interesting so far.

Well, here's the thing. Canada is in Revolutionary hands. Now I don't know what the strength is of the American forces (quick question: do the Tories and Whigs undergo name shifts to "Conservatives" and "Liberals" respectively and who are the party leaders of each?), but surely even if Westminster refuses to budge Philadelphia could take advantage of the situation. Maybe have the American Liberals declare solidarity with the revolutionaries whilst the American Tories argue that the first thing that's important is remaining loyal to the Monarchy.

Also another thing: in 1891 OTL (when there was a threat of Communism) Pope Leo XIII issues "Rerum Novarum" ("Of New Things") which helped to spawn the Christian Democracy movement. So somewhere along the line a Communist Manifesto (written either by Marx, if he exists, or some other person) or socialism of some kind should develop, Europe reacts strongly against socialism, and thus gives the conditions necessary for "Rerum Novarum" to be issued in ATL. Given the possiblity of the French Revolution (which I'm hopefully anticipating to succeed), and the fact that the Pope wants a hand in secular matters, the idea of socialism could be brought in earlier than in OTL.

Here's the full text of "Rerum Novarum" if you're interested.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/l.../hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

Of particular note are Paragraphs 19 and 20:

Pope Leo XIII said:
The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity. Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvellous and manifold. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion (whereof the Church is the interpreter and guardian) in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other, and especially of the obligations of justice.

Of these duties, the following bind the proletarian and the worker: fully and faithfully to perform the work which has been freely and equitably agreed upon; never to injure the property, nor to outrage the person, of an employer; never to resort to violence in defending their own cause, nor to engage in riot or disorder; and to have nothing to do with men of evil principles, who work upon the people with artful promises of great results, and excite foolish hopes which usually end in useless regrets and grievous loss. The following duties bind the wealthy owner and the employer: not to look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but to respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character. They are reminded that, according to natural reason and Christian philosophy, working for gain is creditable, not shameful, to a man, since it enables him to earn an honorable livelihood; but to misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers - that is truly shameful and inhuman. Again justice demands that, in dealing with the working man, religion and the good of his soul must be kept in mind. Hence, the employer is bound to see that the worker has time for his religious duties; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions; and that he be not led away to neglect his home and family, or to squander his earnings. Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages are fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this - that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one's profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven. "Behold, the hire of the laborers... which by fraud has been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth."(6) Lastly, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen's earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the laboring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should in proportion to their scantiness be accounted sacred. Were these precepts carefully obeyed and followed out, would they not be sufficient of themselves to keep under all strife and all its causes?

Just giving you some food for thought.
 
you really sure you don't want to continue?

people are trying to give your ideas.I wish you you will try to continue it rare to see a timeline were the french are the winner.I like you to continue because this time has so much potential.
 

Deleted member 1487

Let the Germans win in the end. It makes for good storytelling ;).
 
Re: Spanish succession

Although it makes for good reading, the fundamental problem is that while you are having a french prince inherit the Spanish crown again, you neglected or overlooked the fact that the Bourbon in Spain begat the Bourbons in Parma and the Bourbons in Naples, and therefore there wasn't a need for the Treaty of Uterecht to be broken. Since a suitable Bourbon to wear a crown could be found, outside of the French branch of the family. :)Although all in all it is an interesting read.
 
Thank you for good reading stuff!
Some questions, though:
1. Am I right to suppose that Britain is more conservative ITTL, both socially and politically? Was there something like the Reform Act? I wouldn't be surprised if not.
2. Some prominent French personalities of the reign of Louis XVII bear suspiciously commoner names, such as Malraux and Epstein. But France is still very Estate-oriented, or have I missed something. It would be more natural to find a Duc de Xxxx or Marquis de Yyyy in the seat of the Prime Minister. The case of Epstein is to my eyes even more bizarre. He is clearly a Jew. But even the Third Republic (by the end of her existence!) had in the ranks of her army only one Jewish general (Boris). So how could an Epstein make such a brilliant career in a thoroughly aristocratic army of the Ancient Regime? One of the preliminary conditions should be the emancipation of the Jews - hardly possible in the country where even Protestants are barely tolerated. Did Talleyrand or Malraux achieve such an emancipation in a quiet way, behind the scenes?
3. The French diplomatic machine under the Ancient Regime had an astonishing peculiarity: the 'official' Foreign Office with all its ambassadors, residents, consuls and so on was effectively doubled by the so-called 'Secret du Roi' (lit. King's Secret), a shadow Foreign Office (+intelligence service) that effectively ran the things. It flourished under Louis XV. Why has it been butterflied away?
4. What does the rebuilt Paris look like? Is it somewhat like Haussmann's Paris or something of an enlarged Versailles (not the park but the center of the town which is quite impressive by itself)? Or something third?
5. Attempt on the life of Louis XVII - I've really loved it! A jolly mix of Fieschi's and Orsini ones.
6. Henri V as the assassin of his own father? Don't do it! I'll never buy that a Dauphin, in the XIXth century, has strangled by his own hands his father. Even in Russia Catherine hasn't assassinated Peter III by her own hand, neither Alexander I his father. So pleeease, let it be a heart attack!
 
Just read this. Obviously it was written some years ago, and the author's ideas may have changed. I have a few thoughts though.

There's been no explanation of why France didn't undergo its demographic change ITTL. In many ways, the long-term triumph of the British over the French in OTL is simple - the Brits outbred them. They always had surplus population to ship off to settler colonies, and establish a cadre in non-settler colonies. The French have the force to prevent a rise of a British Empire - but they can't actually build something similar themselves. Of course, preventing a British Empire does go a long way to increasing the relative power of France, but this French Empire is a paper tiger - the whole globe may be a lovely shade of blue, but lots of nominal subjects of the French Empire will have never seen a Frenchman, because there aren't many of them to go around.

Meanwhile, Britain needs to find a place for all of those excess people.

Take North America. Even if we give the French Americans a natural increase on par with the British Americans, the lower number of initial (and continuing) settlers means that the French are still outnumbered by at least three to one. Americans will choose to expand, treaties or no. OTL Tennessee, Mississipi, Alabama and Florida are all nominally Spanish if I've followed the TL correctly, and the Spanish governor of Florida couldn't keep out settlers if he tried. America DOES have a border on the Mississippi River in fact, if not in law - which should make the Governor-General in New Orleans very solicitious of them. OTL's Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio are different in that the French seem to have established a major garrison and burgeoning city in Montcalm [OTL's Cinncinnati] and in St. Louis, but that will only check migration westward from Pennsylvania, not stop the trickle "up" from "Florida". These colonists are going to have to nominally acknowledge French authority and pretend to Catholicism, but a French landholder is going to find it just too convenient to let them settle, collect his monies and leave them be more or less. The official map and the reality in America are going to be wildly out of synch. Of course, these latter folks are by now not properly British or French...

The Treaty of Paris said nothing about Africa. I expect Britain has diverted a LOT of its surplus population to Africa, and has at least one large and possibly a few mid-sized well-developed colonies there by now.

I, too, question the idea of a Jewish Marshal of France. But we shall see.

Even without trigger events that parallel the French Revolution, disloyalty in the Spanish colonies is massive and predates the PoD. I would have expected New Spain to have revolted probably three times by now, especially against Enrique. They would argue that the Treaty of Utrecht remains binding and valid, Enrique's acceptance of the French crown was thus the abdication of the Spanish one, and so they acknowledged someone else as monarch in 1838...

In general, I like this timeline.
 
I have sort of the same idea with my TL "Ou est Nouvelle Paris?" it is under the thread title "WI the French gave up their Caribbean Colonies", why don't we help each other out?

I am watching intently.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top