Malê Rising

[Jonathan Edelstein]

India, July and August 1895

The orator stood in a square just outside of the Dal Bazaar, amid a gathering crowd. It was dangerous for him to speak, and just as dangerous to listen: he and his kind had been banned from Gwalior, and the memory of the massacre three years past still hung over the city. But that very memory, and all the others that had been laid down since, made the listeners willing to take the risk.

“They want home rule in the Raj,” the speaker was saying. “We have home rule here, or so they tell us. But what have we gained by it? Instead of bowing to a governor’s whims, we bow to a maharajah’s. In the Raj, they play at elections; here, we don’t even have that. Your life is worth nothing if the maharajah’s men want to take it – how much was six-year-old Lakshmi’s life worth when they shot her the other day? The people deserve more than a tyrant who doesn’t care if they die, doesn’t care if they starve…”

The orator fell to silence as a new sound came into the square: the noise of many horsemen, led by a captain in a splendid uniform. Their swords were drawn, and their rifles gleamed in the sunlight.

The crowd cursed and jeered as the cavalrymen formed a line, but they knew they could do no more, not against such force. Some began edging backwards; others turned to flee.

“You are commanded to disperse,” began the captain, but the orator spoke over him: “They’ve come to silence me, but the people can’t be silenced forever…”

And just then, his words were proven true.

Shots rang out from the buildings on either side of the bazaar – many shots, carefully aimed, from repeating rifles. The captain went down before he ever knew he was under attack, and half his men with him. More fell as the men in the houses kept firing.

Screams came from the crowd as they realized what was happening – screams of fear and hatred, screams of pain from those who had been caught in the crossfire. But there were also shouts of defiance from men in the crowd who were now waving flags overhead – men who had known all along that this would happen.

“To the palace!” they shouted. “To the palace! Down with the tyrant!”

Some still fled, wanting nothing of what the rally had now become. But others took courage from the men with the flags, and “Down with the tyrant!” came from hundreds of throats.

The crowd surged forward into the cavalrymen, who were still in shock and without leadership. Some stood and fought, and dozens fell to their sabers, but they fought for themselves, not as a unit, and the crowd surrounded them and dragged them down.

“To the palace!” the orator cried again, mounted on a black horse that had lately been the captain’s. “The palace!” the crowd shouted, and followed.

Long ago, the maharajahs of this land had lived in Gwalior Fort, and if they still had done, the revolution would have ended there: the fort was impregnable to a force of poorly armed citizens. But they had quit the fort long since, preferring the lavish palaces they had built in the heart of the city. And the palace where the current ruler lived was less than half a mile from the Dal Bazaar.

He had warning before the citizens invaded his palace, but nowhere near enough.

*******

​

“You understand, don’t you, Saunders,” said Lord Stanley of Preston, “that this is not what I wanted to hear first thing in the morning.”

“I don’t think any of us did, your Excellency,” Saunders answered dutifully. He was the viceroy’s liaison to the Central India Agency, several ranks below Stanley in the administration, but right now, he was among the most critical men in it.

“So we have a revolution in Gwalior?”

“That’s the thing, sir – the maharajah has one, but we apparently don’t. The provisional government gazetted a decree this morning reaffirming all Gwalior’s treaties with us. They’ve also declared war on the enemy in their own name, if that can be believed, and directed all men of military age to register for conscription.”

Stanley humphed. “Still a princely state, then? A princely republic?”

“There’s precedent, sir, in Africa…”

“And it’s a bloody disgrace,” interjected Lambert, the chief political officer. “We shouldn’t have allowed it in Africa and we damned well shouldn’t let it get started here.”

“Send in the troops, then, sir? And turn the Congress against us for good?”

“Bugger the Congress if this is what they’ve stooped to…”

“It seems to me we’ve got two choices,” said General Eckley. “Restore the Scindias to power and lose the Congress, or don’t restore them and lose the maharajahs.”

“Too right,” Stanley answered. The unspoken agreement between the Raj and the princely states was that, in exchange for their submission to Britain, the British government would protect their privileges. If the Raj decided to let a revolution in one of the princely states go unanswered…

“The provisional government may also have solved that one for us, your Excellency,” Saunders said. “They’ve named a Scindia cousin as president, and it seems like that branch of the family is going along with it.”

“Have they, now. Clever bastards. Do you think we can pass it off as a power struggle within the family?”

“The maharajahs will never believe that, sir – not with a Congress cabinet, and not with Abacarist and Ahmadi slogans all over their manifesto. But…”

“If part of the family isn’t objecting, maybe we have time to study the situation.”

Lambert seemed apoplectic. “Are you really suggesting we do nothing?”

“I’m suggesting we not act rashly, sir!” Stanley answered. “Not when half our soldiers in the field are Indian, and another tenth are African. Do you even begin to comprehend what a disaster it would be if they turned on us?”

“With that said, though” – it was Courtenay, an Executive Council minister who had thus far been silent – “some of those field troops were raised in the princely states. The maharajahs won’t give us any more troops if they see revolutionaries under every bed, and they might even try to call home the troops they’ve sent already.”

“The Congress regiments outnumber them ten to one, though…” began Eckley.

“We’ve got to keep that in mind,” Stanley agreed, exhaling heavily. “But we’ve also got to face the fact that most of the maharajahs that haven’t outlawed the Congress already will do so now, and they’ll want our help doing it. We have to help them, but how we’ll do it discreetly enough to keep the Congress on-side…”

“There’s another thing we have to do that may make that easier,” Saunders responded. “I’ve looked into where the guns for the Gwalior revolution came from, and the indications are that Russia was involved.”

“Russia, and we’re talking about…” shouted Lambert.

“But it’s equally clear,” Saunders continued, daring to talk over his superior, “that neither the revolutionaries nor the Congress had any knowledge of its involvement. The Russian agents, if I’m right about there being any, concealed their presence very well, and as things turned out, they misread their men badly – the Congress in Gwalior had a grudge against the maharajah, not against us. But if there are more of them, we’ve got to root them out…”

Stanley saw where the liaison officer was going. “And if we find them, they won’t be able to supply guns and money for use against the princely states.” He sighed. “Returning the favor for Kazakhstan, are they? Very well, we’ll concentrate on that first, and I don’t bloody care if the Indians don’t like the way we hunt them. I’m not making any compromises where Russian spies are concerned.”

“If we let the provisional government in Gwalior stay in place, even temporarily, that’s a compromise right there,” Courtenay cautioned. “The maharajahs won’t look with favor on that kind of temporizing, and I suspect Lord Cranbrook won’t either.”

“Cranbrook knows how many Indian troops we have, and how many we still need to recruit. If we find out that anyone in the Congress is in bed with the Russians knowingly, we’ll come down on them like the wrath of heaven. But for now, other than active agents, we’ll take the path of least resistance.” He sighed again. “We’ll settle with the Congress as a whole after the war… if we can.”

*******​

In most other Indian princely states, Romesh Chunder Dutt would have been a wanted man, liable to arrest the moment he stepped onto their soil. Baroda was one of the few that he could still visit openly, and one of only two or three – or maybe not even that – where he could be a guest of the maharajah.

Sayijarao III was different, and not only because he had promoted industry and allowed a legislature. He was that rarest of birds, a genuinely liberal monarch who identified with the people and believed that self-rule was a necessary adjunct to modernization. And that made him one of a very few princely rulers who was still willing to look at the Congress as a potential partner rather than an adversary.

That, Dutt reflected, was something the Congress needed very badly in these times, for its own sake as well as India’s. He could understand why the people of Gwalior had risen up – the late maharajah had been a right bastard – but for them to do so in the middle of a war, and for Russians to be found in the woodpile… Well, to say that complicated things would be a monumental understatement.

The maharajahs, the Raj and the Congress had put their differences on hold at the beginning of the war, but they’d always been uneasy partners, and now they were hardly even that. The princely rulers, seeing their worst fears realized in Gwalior, had responded with raids and arrests, and in a few cases, their prophecies had proven self-fulfilling when the local Congress cells fought back. And while the Raj was still keeping its hands off Gwalior and the two other princely states where revolution was a fait accompli, it hadn’t hesitated to help crush rebellion in the others – which, in turn, bid fair to cause the Congress itself to splinter.

Dutt had emerged as the leader of the moderate faction, urging the Congress cells to lie low, supporting the prosecution of anyone found in bed with the Russians, and advocating continued cooperation with the Raj despite the help it was giving the maharajahs. But there were others who’d had enough – who thought that the repression in the princely states, coming on top of the disappointing Government of India Act, was the final insult. Many of them had walked out of the Congress at its last meeting, and many of those who’d stayed cursed Dutt for his timidity.

They’re fools, Dutt thought – if we splinter, we’re no longer useful to the Raj, and if we aren’t useful, they’ll crush us. The only way to advance is to stay united and to not make ourselves a great power’s enemy. That seemed only rational to him, but calm and rationality were in short supply right now.

If we’re going to return to a state of affairs we can live with, it has to begin here. “Your Highness,” he said.

“Sit down,” Sayijarao answered. “You may have wondered why I called you here.”

“To discuss the legislative session, I assume.” The Baroda parliament had a Congress majority – the only princely state in India where that was the case – and if the maharajah didn’t plan to dissolve the legislature or expel the Congress deputies, then Dutt would have a strong influence over the agenda.

“After a fashion, yes,” the maharajah said, and why, at a time like this, did he have that smile on his face? “I imagine that you’d be working with the legislature a great deal if you became my dewan.”

For the first time in years, Dutt was speechless. “Your what?” he said at last.

“You heard me. I’ve decided to implement responsible government in Baroda. If you become dewan, you will appoint a government, subject to my confidence and that of the legislature.”

“But why now? Why at a time like this?”

“I’m disappointed in you, Romesh. Times like this are exactly when bold moves are most needed. I look at the other maharajahs acting out their fears, and fear will destroy them in the end. We need to go forward instead of letting fear pull us back, and we need to find ways to work together.” The maharajah looked at the Congress leader keenly, the old India regarding the new. “I’m serious. Do you accept?”

It could hardly make things any worse, could it? And if it shows us another way forward, it might help us all step back from the cliff.

“Your Highness, I think I do.”

 

[Ed Costello]

I have to say, that last scene was a bit awesome. When the midden hits the windmill, it's nice to see some people put their brollies up rather than wading through a shower of shit.

 

[Unknown]

Good update.

Things are getting...interesting in India. In the Chinese sense of the word.

When's the next history-book update?

 

[Badshah]

So a Gwalior Republic? That just seems Odd, but I'll roll with it.

 

[Jonathan Edelstein]

I have to say, that last scene was a bit awesome. When the midden hits the windmill, it's nice to see some people put their brollies up rather than wading through a shower of shit.

Every now and then, someone will surprise us all and rise to the occasion.

So a Gwalior Republic? That just seems Odd, but I'll roll with it.

Remember that in TTL, the Congress hasn't followed OTL's hands-off policy toward the princely states: to the contrary, it has focused on local democratization as much or more than on self-rule at the national level, and has used the princely states as laboratories for popular activism. All that Abacarist and *Ahmadi influence, don't you know.

In some cases, especially in the larger princely states with modernizing rulers (Baroda, Travancore and a couple more), this has led to princely states taking the lead in progressive social policy. Others, like Hyderabad, have come along more reluctantly. But in most of the princely states, politics have become very adversarial, and those in Rajasthan and the Central India Agency are among the most radicalized parts of India. In this situation, a Gwalior Republic makes somewhat more sense than it would in OTL, although it's still in a precarious position.

When's the next history-book update?

It will be at the end of year three - I'm having fun telling the war mostly through narratives. The twentieth century will return to the mostly-history-book pattern.

 

[Daztur]

This chain of events in the princely states might lead to them not being absorbed into an independent India down the line or, from the hints that you've dropped, perhaps some loose Indian confederation with lots of semi-sovereign sub-states that might still be associated with the British Empire for at least a while as a dominion or such.

 

[Shevek23]

...The majority of the Swiss are protestant, of course,

I found that statement quite astonishing, especially the last clause. I typically thought of Switzerland as a predominantly Catholic land myself--granting that important parts of it were Protestant.

Currently, there are more Catholics than Protestants, and I suspect that by strict head-count that has generally been true; OTOH perhaps Protestants have held the balance of power, being concentrated more in key cities and so forth.

Actually the main region I had in mind was Geneva; I haven't learned yet whether the Calvinism of the old independent city persisted into modern times or not; I was prepared to point out that actually the Germans of Switzerland are the Catholics and the Francophone Swiss the Protestants! Actually though Geneva did not join the Confederation until the 19th century, apparently.

Reading up more on the history of it all at "The Genocide" aka Wikipedia, it's a pretty nuanced subject actually. Switzerland has been divided between Catholic and Protestant localities since the beginning of the Reformation, and civil war between the denominations has been fought repeatedly. But I gather that although the 1848 revolutions were technically post-POD, they were not much butterflied; the last serious Catholic/Protestant clash in Swiss history was just before the '48, in 1847 in fact, and informed the attitudes that shaped the OTL federal constitution.

Those values include a notion that despite religious differences that in some generations still seemed grave and severe to Swiss on both sides, it was still important for regions of both persuasions to remain in political alliance--a lesson that has roots going back centuries despite occasional flare-ups of violence. My impression is that by 1848, this value had sunk in, deeply enough that a generation later guarantees of freedom of religion had been written into the federal constitution.

This is OTL of course; it could be that here, where international politics has had a greater tendency to organize around sectarian identities, perhaps this moral pillar of Swiss unity is weaker. But it seems likely to me that Switzerland would be a quite different case from say, Spain. There would be--well, it's odd to call them "ultramontanes" when they live in the very mountains the term refers to!--but you know, those kinds of reactionary Catholics. But unlike places like Spain there is the prevailing, consensus, notion that one's religion, or even the religion of a whole community, must be balanced against the importance of keeping the Swiss union as a whole at peace and on a businesslike basis, therefore while it is one thing to champion the rights of the FAR alliance and of the Pope, taking that into national policy would be frowned on, even by devout fellow Catholics. Restraint in these matters would be expected of all Swiss, as a matter of political courtesy and wisdom.

but there's still a large minority of catholics,

As I confirmed, regarding modern demographics anyway, they actually do outnumber the Protestants--but not by any huge margin. Neither division of Western Christian mainstream religion can claim to be "the majority" really, except in the narrowest technical sense, and while I'm prepared to be proven wrong on this, I'll bet that overall, despite fluctuations back and forth, it has generally been the Catholics with the slightly greater head count all along.

So it isn't a matter of a mainly Protestant country with a large Catholic minority--Switzerland is deeply pluralistic in this regard.

The rest of your discussion, the geopolitical situation they find themselves in, seems solidly reasoned though.

I'd think that as OTL, they'll want neutrality in this war.

And the question of the public state of mind in other southern German states a very good one to repeat; I've asked it before myself. Was not one of the southern German monarchies astute enough to maintain and build popularity with their subjects? Is Bavaria actually typical of the southern German states, or are it's troubles uniquely its own?

 

[iori]

I found that statement quite astonishing, especially the last clause. I typically thought of Switzerland as a predominantly Catholic land myself--granting that important parts of it were Protestant.

Currently, there are more Catholics than Protestants, and I suspect that by strict head-count that has generally been true; OTOH perhaps Protestants have held the balance of power, being concentrated more in key cities and so forth.

Note that 11% are Irreligious (compared to only 3.8% in 1980 and much smaller amounts the farher you go back) and that immigration from other places has changed the demographics as well, afterall Switzerland in say 1930 did'nt have a population that was 2% Orthodox and 4% Muslim, so if you subtract those it's more than enough to lead to Switzerland being a Plurality Protestant country and in the 19th century would allow it to be Protestant majority.

 

[Julius Vogel]

India will certainly be very interesting if we ended up with a later federation composed of organically constituted autonomous states.

 

[Jord839]

I found that statement quite astonishing, especially the last clause. I typically thought of Switzerland as a predominantly Catholic land myself--granting that important parts of it were Protestant.

Currently, there are more Catholics than Protestants, and I suspect that by strict head-count that has generally been true; OTOH perhaps Protestants have held the balance of power, being concentrated more in key cities and so forth.

First of all, I admit that it's been a long time since I really looked at the actual demographic statistics, I know that it was always a relatively close balance. As in, one is in the 40% range and the other in the 50%. It looks like I made a mistake about which one was which though. My bad. That's actually a pretty embarrassing mistake coming from a Swiss-born Catholic like me. I'll have to dig out my old history books on the subject, because I could've sworn that the balance was in the Protestants' favor for quite a while...

Also, I didn't mean that in the sense of sectarian conflict, just some political blowback against Italy in some conservative corners. There will be catholic conservatives in parliamentary parties at this time, and they'll have support especially among the rural south-east and central Switzerland, so the Pope issue will be divisive within parts of the country and government. They're no ultramontanes about to take up a national call to arms or anything, but it might be a controversial topic that BOG sympathizers will be trying to avoid bringing too much attention to.

I'd think that as OTL, they'll want neutrality in this war.

Yes, they will. Granted, there will still be sympathies to one side or the other, and it's not unimaginable that some kind of diplomatic or military mistake could drag them in.

And the question of the public state of mind in other southern German states a very good one to repeat; I've asked it before myself. Was not one of the southern German monarchies astute enough to maintain and build popularity with their subjects? Is Bavaria actually typical of the southern German states, or are it's troubles uniquely its own?

I believe that Jonathan mentioned earlier that at least Baden had done a little to emphasize local culture as a means of combating the Pan-German sentiment, but I don't recall how effective it was or could be. I suspect it's a complicated issue. Some probably are okay with independence but want some association with Germany over France, Some will want outright union, and the smallest group is the completely anti-union pro-independence faction most likely.

Reading up more on the history of it all at "The Genocide" aka Wikipedia, it's a pretty nuanced subject actually. Switzerland has been divided between Catholic and Protestant localities since the beginning of the Reformation, and civil war between the denominations has been fought repeatedly. But I gather that although the 1848 revolutions were technically post-POD, they were not much butterflied; the last serious Catholic/Protestant clash in Swiss history was just before the '48, in 1847 in fact, and informed the attitudes that shaped the OTL federal constitution.

I'm not sure I'd refer to the 1848 revolution as a religious clash. Certainly, the Catholic cantons were more on the side of the Sonderbund, but that had more to do with the fact that even today those areas are the more rural and conservative parts of Switzerland. Back then, conservative equaled a very weak central government which the more urban cantons, Bern and Zurich particularly, opposed.

Those areas are today still more conservative than the rest of Switzerland, and largely support the SVP and other conservative parties. I extrapolate that back the late 19th century religion is still more important than currently and conservatism on the subject of the Pope wouldn't be too uncommon.

Those values include a notion that despite religious differences that in some generations still seemed grave and severe to Swiss on both sides, it was still important for regions of both persuasions to remain in political alliance--a lesson that has roots going back centuries despite occasional flare-ups of violence. My impression is that by 1848, this value had sunk in, deeply enough that a generation later guarantees of freedom of religion had been written into the federal constitution.

You're certainly correct, that these values will have sunken in, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the issue with the Pope won't be controversial among rural conservatives if it's brought up. I'd still put it as a possible mark against BOG sympathy as a whole.

 

[Jonathan Edelstein]

This chain of events in the princely states might lead to them not being absorbed into an independent India down the line or, from the hints that you’ve dropped, perhaps some loose Indian confederation with lots of semi-sovereign sub-states that might still be associated with the British Empire for at least a while as a dominion or such.

India will certainly be very interesting if we ended up with a later federation composed of organically constituted autonomous states.

India’s internal borders have already been redrawn to a great extent, due to the various administrative reforms of the Raj – the provincial boundaries of the area under direct British rule bear little resemblance to any pre-colonial borders. But yes, there may be many more surviving princely states, either as independent nations or as parts of a federation, and there will be more micro-provinces and enclaves.

I’ve mentioned that, while the more cooperative atmosphere between Hindus and Muslims will likely prevent a partition, there might also be some holes in the map. Some of the princely states will want to stay independent, and might pull it off either through alignment with Britain (this will be a particularly important factor between about 1915 and 1925) or by agreement with whatever Indian government comes out the other end of decolonization. On the other hand, there will also be a pull toward unity, especially since the Congress is active in both the princely states and the Raj – a princely state with a Congress government might not see any good reason to stay out of a Congress-ruled India, given that the members of both governments will likely have fought, studied and campaigned for independence together. There should be some indication by now of which states will go which route, but things will become much clearer when the fault lines of the late 1910s emerge.

There will be catholic conservatives in parliamentary parties at this time, and they’ll have support especially among the rural south-east and central Switzerland, so the Pope issue will be divisive within parts of the country and government. They’re no ultramontanes about to take up a national call to arms or anything, but it might be a controversial topic that BOG sympathizers will be trying to avoid bringing too much attention to.

Speaking of which, do you think Switzerland would provide significant numbers of recruits for the Papal Legion? I’ve been envisioning that force as mostly Iberian, and it is, but it will accept recruits from anywhere. There are certainly Belgians in it, along with some FAR citizens who prefer to fight for the Pope rather than in their native armies (Poles, for instance, or ultramontane Frenchmen) and even some disaffected Italians, although in the last-named case, even the most ultra of the ultramontanes might hesitate at committing outright treason. There are probably some American Catholics too, as well as recruits from the neutral Latin American countries and parts of Africa – maybe a few uniates from the Near East, although the number of such recruits would also be limited by the treason factor. I’d guess that there would be at least a few Swiss Catholics, even if there aren’t many of them.

The Papal Legion is an interesting force – I’ve seen the army of the Papal States in OTL described as the first international military force, and the Legion would be its successor in TTL. It deserves a closer look – I might visit it during year four, or else after the war (and yes, that’s a hint).

I’m also guessing that times are tough for liberal Catholics, with the religious overtones of the war pushing many to the extremes of ultramontanism or irreligion. But I suspect there are a few of them in the Legion as well – Papal patriots despite their disagreements with conservative doctrine – and that their war experiences might cast a shadow on postwar politics. I wonder if TTL’s version of the Christian Democratic parties might be as much a reaction to ultramontanism as to secularism, and if the war veterans will play a part in shaping the *Christian Democratic movement.

And the question of the public state of mind in other southern German states [is] a very good one to repeat; I’ve asked it before myself. Was not one of the southern German monarchies astute enough to maintain and hold popularity with their subjects? Is Bavaria actually typical of the southern German states, or are its troubles uniquely its own?

I believe that Jonathan had mentioned earlier that at least Baden had done a little to emphasize local culture as a means of combating the Pan-German sentiment, but I don’t recall how effective it was or could be. I suspect it’s a complicated issue.

Baden has indeed tried (to varying degrees and by various methods since the 1870s) to emphasize local culture, and so has Württemberg. Unlike Bavaria, both have tried to win the hearts and minds of the pan-Germanists rather than simply repressing them, although there’s been a fair bit of that too. The monarchies of both countries have also been less ham-handed than the Wittelsbachs in handling the domestic opposition – neither is anywhere near a full democracy, but the monarchs have co-opted some of the opposing leaders, and they’ve retained more legitimacy (if not always popularity) with the public.

Pan-Germanism still has a strong appeal, though, and not only because of the NDB’s military and economic might. True independence isn’t really an option for the southern German states – what they face is more a choice between North German, French and Austrian patronage – and of the three, North Germany is the one for which the people feel the strongest cultural and commercial affinity. Also, while the monarchies benefited from a wave of patriotism at the beginning of the war, the economic strain and the de facto Franco-Austrian occupation of rail lines and major cities are beginning to tell. There hasn’t been any popular revolt thus far, but if the NDB were to mount an offensive into the region, the people and even many of the soldiers might be quick to bend the knee.

Next up: the United States, with a cameo by Samuel Clemens; Central Africa will follow, and probably the south German front after that.

 

[Admiral Matt]

There are Swiss Catholics in the Vatican as we speak, it think it's safe to say that serving in the Papal Legion would be the natural course.

 

[Jord839]

Speaking of which, do you think Switzerland would provide significant numbers of recruits for the Papal Legion? I’ve been envisioning that force as mostly Iberian, and it is, but it will accept recruits from anywhere. There are certainly Belgians in it, along with some FAR citizens who prefer to fight for the Pope rather than in their native armies (Poles, for instance, or ultramontane Frenchmen) and even some disaffected Italians, although in the last-named case, even the most ultra of the ultramontanes might hesitate at committing outright treason. There are probably some American Catholics too, as well as recruits from the neutral Latin American countries and parts of Africa – maybe a few uniates from the Near East, although the number of such recruits would also be limited by the treason factor. I’d guess that there would be at least a few Swiss Catholics, even if there aren’t many of them.

Significant? It's hard to say. While I'd say there's probably a not-insignificant amount of recruits coming from Switzerland, it's going to be nowhere near the number or share of able-bodied men that would be coming from Spain, for example. Plus, there are other factors to consider.

Are the Papal Legion's forces being focused mainly on Italy or are they being used by the French to help with the attack on the NDB? If the latter, based on what you were saying about pan-Germanism still being relatively popular in Baden and Wurttemburg, I'd say support for the Legion suffers. It's one thing to support the Pope in a reclamation of his role in Rome, but it's another to fight for a nominally Papal army that's actually a clear French puppet against the popular will of Germany. If the former, I'd say things might be a little better.

Also, the 1890's are right about the time when Catholic parties are coming into formation again and significant political reforms are taking place. Josef Zemp from Luzern IOTL becomes the first member of the executive council from a Catholic Sonderbund canton since the civil war, now that memories of the civil war are fading, which is usually looked back on as a sign of the healing of war wounds and return to an all-Swiss mentality. It's also the year in which IOTL they revised the constitution to include many of the direct democracy traits that we consider unique. Events of the war could conceivably butterfly those developments a bit, but I think the Catholic parties are mostly hamstrung in Switzerland due to internal cultural divisions(see the Freiborgouis conservatives who treated even the notion of interconfessional political alliances with Germans a dastardly plot) and the still significant Catholic support for the dominant Radical party.

At the same time, this is before the wealth of Switzerland really takes off. The Catholic cantons are the poorest and most rural regions of the country, and the ones that traditionally exported mercenaries. If the Papal Legion's paying well and farms or factories in the city cantons aren't? Expect a larger number.

Based on OTL, I'd probably guess they're behind the Belgians or the Poles in numbers, but probably ahead of disaffected Italians or Americans by a decent margin.

The Papal Legion is an interesting force – I’ve seen the army of the Papal States in OTL described as the first international military force, and the Legion would be its successor in TTL. It deserves a closer look – I might visit it during year four, or else after the war (and yes, that’s a hint).

I look forward to it. That should be a fun viewpoint to explore.

I’m also guessing that times are tough for liberal Catholics, with the religious overtones of the war pushing many to the extremes of ultramontanism or irreligion. But I suspect there are a few of them in the Legion as well – Papal patriots despite their disagreements with conservative doctrine – and that their war experiences might cast a shadow on postwar politics. I wonder if TTL’s version of the Christian Democratic parties might be as much a reaction to ultramontanism as to secularism, and if the war veterans will play a part in shaping the *Christian Democratic movement.

Huh. That would be interesting, and a unique complement to the tradition of liberal religious innovation ITTL. Christian democracy as a moderate answer to both secularism and ultramontanes? Could be interesting to play with.

Also, one thing that might be really interesting for you to know is that from 1870-1891 there was a lot of political turmoil against the dominant Catholic conservatives in Italian-speaking Ticino canton due to the poverty of the region and the federal government had to be called in several times to restore order to the province. In fact, IIRC there was an armed uprising right at the beginning of the 1890's against the local Catholic parties in favor of the confederation-dominating Radical party that required similar intervention. That could tie up a lot of catholic conservative attention or with a full fledged occupation going on just outside the border, could lead to a number of very bad coincidences...

 

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Are the Papal Legion's forces being focused mainly on Italy or are they being used by the French to help with the attack on the NDB? If the latter, based on what you were saying about pan-Germanism still being relatively popular in Baden and Wurttemburg, I'd say support for the Legion suffers. It's one thing to support the Pope in a reclamation of his role in Rome, but it's another to fight for a nominally Papal army that's actually a clear French puppet against the popular will of Germany. If the former, I'd say things might be a little better.

It's being used on both fronts, with more of them in Germany than in Italy. To some extent it is a French puppet, although the Pope has temporized by arguing that it's necessary to win the overall war in order to ensure the security of the Church. On the other hand, it has the papal blessing, and as you say, many poor Swiss Catholics might join up for financial reasons.

Speaking of which, the French and Austrian armies are almost certainly not the only occupying forces in northern Italy right now - there are probably some Papal Legion regiments there too. (I can't believe it took me until now to realize this.) I suspect the French commanders are having a hard time restraining them from acts of revenge, and they might be the ones who set off partisan activity in the French-occupied zone. I also suspect that the Pope is demanding a share in the government of occupied Italy, and that the French and Austrians are having a hard time refusing. We'll visit that region again before the end of year three, so some of those trends might have an effect by then.

Huh. That would be interesting, and a unique complement to the tradition of liberal religious innovation ITTL. Christian democracy as a moderate answer to both secularism and ultramontanes? Could be interesting to play with.

As I understand things (and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong), Christian democracy in OTL grew out of the conservative Catholic parties during the first decade of the 20th century, after the Vatican signaled its acceptance of democratic governance and progressive economic policy. In TTL, the papacy is about 20 years behind the curve - given that the Pope was a temporal ruler until 1893, he could hardly endorse popular government, and the reaction that follows the loss of Rome could last for decades, especially if accompanied by defeat in battle.

In that event, the Catholic parties will stay very conservative, and the liberal Catholics who disagree with them but also don't think the secular socialists have the answers will have to form their own movement. I could see Christian democracy arising organically from that situation as a reaction to the ultramontanes' excesses before and during the war - it might even shape up as a movement that, while religious, is somewhat anticlerical and skeptical of allowing religious hierarchies to control secular politics. I'm not sure how much crossover there would be with religious reformism in non-Catholic parts of the world, but there'd almost have to be some influence by osmosis.

Also, one thing that might be really interesting for you to know is that from 1870-1891 there was a lot of political turmoil against the dominant Catholic conservatives in Italian-speaking Ticino canton due to the poverty of the region and the federal government had to be called in several times to restore order to the province. In fact, IIRC there was an armed uprising right at the beginning of the 1890's against the local Catholic parties in favor of the confederation-dominating Radical party that required similar intervention. That could tie up a lot of catholic conservative attention or with a full fledged occupation going on just outside the border, could lead to a number of very bad coincidences...

Hmmm. That's also the canton that directly abuts the Lake Como area, and the one whose southernmost point is about 40km from Milan. The Italian troops who are besieged in the Milan-Como pocket will see it as their lifeline - as long as they hold part of the border, they'll have a way to get humanitarian and military supplies.

This could go a number of ways. If there's unrest in the canton, the rebels might seek aid from the Italian forces, who after all are likely to side with them against the clerical conservatives. But if the Italians are seen as causing trouble within the confederation (I assume the ruling Radicals wouldn't welcome a foreign army in Switzerland, even if it's aligned with them politically), then the federal authorities might close the border. In a worst-case scenario, that could prompt an Italian invasion of Ticino, followed by Franco-Austrian intervention on behalf of the confederation, which would effectively bring Switzerland into the war. And even if Italy (or, more accurately, whatever civil and military authorities exist in the Milan area) can avoid being tangled up in the Ticino rebellion, they're likely to become involved in its politics to some extent - is there any chance of this leading to Italian irredentism, and/or separatism in the Italian cantons, after the war?

Incidentally, thanks for the lesson on Swiss politics of the time - Switzerland is a country I don't know nearly as much about as I should. Update hopefully this weekend, or maybe even earlier if a miracle happens.

 

[Faeelin]

Baden has indeed tried (to varying degrees and by various methods since the 1870s) to emphasize local culture, and so has W[FONT=&quot]ü[/FONT]rttemberg. Unlike Bavaria, both have tried to win the hearts and minds of the pan-Germanists rather than simply repressing them, although there’s been a fair bit of that too. The monarchies of both countries have also been less ham-handed than the Wittelsbachs in handling the domestic opposition – neither is anywhere near a full democracy, but the monarchs have co-opted some of the opposing leaders, and they’ve retained more legitimacy (if not always popularity) with the public.

I gotta say, I've always felt like the way the southern German states have been treated in this timeline has been a bit... unfair?

This is a timeline all about people's self-determination, but the French and Austrians who have no problem shooting uppity Germans who think they should all be in one nation aren't given crap for it.

I really like this timeline, so I find this contrast a bit interesting.

 

[Falecius]

I also suspect that the Pope is demanding a share in the government of occupied Italy, and that the French and Austrians are having a hard time refusing.

Very unlikely. The only piece of occupied Italy the Pope has any claim whatsoever over is Ferrara and its surroundings, which is definitely NOT the point you want to be in middle of a war like this. The Papal claim on this area was the weakest one among the former Papal States territories, Austria had precedents coveting it, and more importantly the area was, well, little more than a very large malarial swamp with a city in the middle and some fields.
In my opinion, the Pope is likely to stake his claims if and when the war is won. He knows he will have to make concessions, and Ferrara is the first place he is likely to concede.

 

[Falecius]

As for Ticino, there WAS some small degree of, well, not exactly irredentism, but something milder, IOTL. A Swiss entanglement with the North Italian mess would make things interesting, in the bloody and messy sense. I am not very familiar with the history of Ticinese identity, but my limited understanding is that the it was an incredibly messy thing in this timeframe.

 

[Shevek23]

I gotta say, I've always felt like the way the southern German states have been treated in this timeline has been a bit... unfair?

This is a timeline all about people's self-determination, but the French and Austrians who have no problem shooting uppity Germans who think they should all be in one nation aren't given crap for it.

I really like this timeline, so I find this contrast a bit interesting.

I'm not sure if by "giving crap for it," you mean within the timeline, or by us the readers.

Within the timeline--I'd say the death toll on the various fronts amounts to the FARs being given quite a lot of "crap" for their highhandedness.

As for the attitude of us timeline readers--well, I've always been entirely on the BOG side of the war, despite having some sympathy for Imperial French society as it has been developing--too bad they fell under the leadership of someone like Leclair, who of course got into power because there are unfortunately a lot of wrong-headed Frenchmen at this point. But also a lot of French men and women who are not so wrongheaded; I care about them. I even have a certain romantic attachment to the idea of making the Austro-Hungarian Empire work out--it seems far too late to hope for that here though. But despite these contrary currents, the BOG side looks like the right side to me. The North Germans were not attempting to conquer unwilling southern Germans, but to enable willing ones who wanted to join with them to do so--that's what makes the French side the wrong side in this war. (That they also allied with the Romanovs is additional damnation IMHO).

So I can't speak for anyone else, but I think I'm being pretty consistent here. The BOG generally stands for progress in human relations, the FAR distinguishes itself from its foes by being more reactionary. It's tragic that this is least true in France, quite a progressive place, but it's true enough there too--Leclair's war is a reactionary war, backed by French reactionaries, who fortunately are by no means all of France but unfortunately make up a lot of it, and hold the upper hand at the moment.

 

[Jord839]

Hmmm. That's also the canton that directly abuts the Lake Como area, and the one whose southernmost point is about 40km from Milan. The Italian troops who are besieged in the Milan-Como pocket will see it as their lifeline - as long as they hold part of the border, they'll have a way to get humanitarian and military supplies.

This could go a number of ways. If there's unrest in the canton, the rebels might seek aid from the Italian forces, who after all are likely to side with them against the clerical conservatives. But if the Italians are seen as causing trouble within the confederation (I assume the ruling Radicals wouldn't welcome a foreign army in Switzerland, even if it's aligned with them politically), then the federal authorities might close the border. In a worst-case scenario, that could prompt an Italian invasion of Ticino, followed by Franco-Austrian intervention on behalf of the confederation, which would effectively bring Switzerland into the war. And even if Italy (or, more accurately, whatever civil and military authorities exist in the Milan area) can avoid being tangled up in the Ticino rebellion, they're likely to become involved in its politics to some extent - is there any chance of this leading to Italian irredentism, and/or separatism in the Italian cantons, after the war?

There was always a small minority of irridentists, but for the most part the majority preferred Switzerland IIRC. There's still enough that they could open up problems on the other side as well: If people sympathetic to the rebels help the Italian resistance in some way too and the French/Austrians cross the border/go after Swiss citizens, the gov't won't be happy either. It's in their interests not to do anything but protest and get them out as soon as possible, but if things spiral out of control, anything's possible.

Very unlikely. The only piece of occupied Italy the Pope has any claim whatsoever over is Ferrara and its surroundings, which is definitely NOT the point you want to be in middle of a war like this. The Papal claim on this area was the weakest one among the former Papal States territories, Austria had precedents coveting it, and more importantly the area was, well, little more than a very large malarial swamp with a city in the middle and some fields.
In my opinion, the Pope is likely to stake his claims if and when the war is won. He knows he will have to make concessions, and Ferrara is the first place he is likely to concede.

I think he meant more in the sense of governing it while it's temporarily occupied, not as a permanent gain. If he's framing it as his interest as an Italian for the purpose of protecting the people/making his cause look more legitimate in comparison to French/Austrian pupetry would that affect anything?

As for Ticino, there WAS some small degree of, well, not exactly irredentism, but something milder, IOTL. A Swiss entanglement with the North Italian mess would make things interesting, in the bloody and messy sense. I am not very familiar with the history of Ticinese identity, but my limited understanding is that the it was an incredibly messy thing in this timeframe.

You're right that there was some mild thing going on in Ticino. It was always poor and conservative and that made hopes for reform pretty explosive when local elites tried to hold back the tide. Some of the more paranoid political commentators against a proportional representation movement around this time IIRC made claims that Italian irridentists in Ticino and other minority groups like monarchists in Neuchatel would ally to push their causes, but most of it was baseless fear-mongering AFAIK. Ticinese are probably going to feel a strong connection and sympathy with Italy ITTL but I don't think they'll be eager to leave the Confederation or anything. Still, if even a small group decides to get involved in the Milan pocket problems, that cause conflict.

And of course, if Switzerland gets involved on the opposite side of Italy and loses, the Ticinese might not get a choice depending on how irridentist the Italian gov't is shooting for and how that situation in Ticino develops.

 

[Falecius]

There was always a small minority of irridentists, but for the most part the majority preferred Switzerland IIRC. There's still enough that they could open up problems on the other side as well: If people sympathetic to the rebels help the Italian resistance in some way too and the French/Austrians cross the border/go after Swiss citizens, the gov't won't be happy either. It's in their interests not to do anything but protest and get them out as soon as possible, but if things spiral out of control, anything's possible.

I think he meant more in the sense of governing it while it's temporarily occupied, not as a permanent gain. If he's framing it as his interest as an Italian for the purpose of protecting the people/making his cause look more legitimate in comparison to French/Austrian pupetry would that affect anything?


You're right that there was some mild thing going on in Ticino. It was always poor and conservative and that made hopes for reform pretty explosive when local elites tried to hold back the tide. Some of the more paranoid political commentators against a proportional representation movement around this time IIRC made claims that Italian irridentists in Ticino and other minority groups like monarchists in Neuchatel would ally to push their causes, but most of it was baseless fear-mongering AFAIK. Ticinese are probably going to feel a strong connection and sympathy with Italy ITTL but I don't think they'll be eager to leave the Confederation or anything. Still, if even a small group decides to get involved in the Milan pocket problems, that cause conflict.

And of course, if Switzerland gets involved on the opposite side of Italy and loses, the Ticinese might not get a choice depending on how irridentist the Italian gov't is shooting for and how that situation in Ticino develops.

In Ticino, I meant not-really-irredentism in Italy. I am under the impression that the Ticinese majority, while unhappy with current local arrangement, was never particularly eagery to leave Switzerland for Italy. However, my knowledge on the topic is very limited.
I guess that things can get pretty complicated in this TL's situation. BTW, Switzerland has an old claim on Valtellina, and the locals might feel that becoming Swiss has some advantages over being swallowed by Austria.

As for the Pope, I really doubt that he could obtain any basis whatsoever to participate, even temporarily, in the actual administration of any part of Northern Italy except the areas that used to be Papal States in the past. No claim. Basically no popularity at all (some areas there are amongst the ones where local popular feeling is markedly anti-clerical). And probably no willingness from the powers who actually shed blood to take those areas to share. Of course, Austria or France might be willing to let Papal Legion regiments take a specific part of the front and occupy the conquered areas in that sector- again, Ferrara is probably the area where this makes most sense.
At this point, the Pope is not going to be felt as "Italian" any more... though very probably the current Pope is somebody from Italy.