Hi everyone,
I'm asking about what should be done with the Holy Roman Empire because while I don't be discussing it next chapter, it will probably show up within the next few chapters depending on how this "Balance of Power" war plays out as that could affect things in the future depending on if other European powers join in other than the main four of OTL.

So far, it's France/Spain vs England/Portugal like OTL plus Russia on an undetermined side.
No collapse. Maybe a change in the power dynamic between the larger and mid-sized German states, but DEFINITELY NO COLLAPSE
(sorry for the large letters, but wanted to be sure my vote was clear)
 
I wonder if the Five Civilized Nations in the South would at some point petition Britain for some kind of self-rule status in exchange for their association with the greater British Empire, as a means of controlling the UAC settlers' drive for more land to settle...and potentially against a resurgent Spain (or France assuming Napoleon plays a major role ITTL)? Could it possibly lead to a joint Native-British-UAC offensive against Spain and/or France to secure the lands stretching to the Rockies?
I don't think that will be the case but the Trail of Tears only happened by one vote IOTL and that was under President Andrew Jackson. With the British in charge, I wouldn't expect anything like that here. And even if it were, expect it that the Five Civilized Tribes to receive some degree of immunity against that as they would likely be a relatively tolerated minority due to them integrating Anglo culture into their own and being British allies. It helps that the British are still here. And as far as securing land stretching to the Rockies goes, anticipate that attempt to be sooner than later (and part of a much larger conflict).
 
Last edited:
I know that I originally said that the Second and Third Partitionings of Poland weren't going to happen, but I've been thinking about it and doing some research and now I'm not sure anymore. Any input here would be appreciated. And while it's a little early to be sure, the results of the HRE poll are close and look interesting.
 
Last edited:
I know that I originally said that the Second and Third Partitionings of Poland weren't going to happen, but I've been thinking about it and doing some research and now I'm not sure anymore. Any input here would be appreciated. And while it's a little early to be sure, the results of the HRE poll are close and look interesting.
I would offer a suggestion that maybe the Second Partition happens...
BUT...based on the testimony Frederick the Great made about how Empress Maria Theresa handled the first partition ("the more she wept, the more she took"), Austria realizes the danger in allowing Russia to get closer to their interests in collusion with Prussia and decides to forge an alliance with the Poles to guarantee their remaining territory. As France and Austria are also still allies (maybe) at this time, the fact that Austria is resolved to guarantee Poland would also be in France's interests. Its been suggested that the failure of France to defend their Polish allies in the late 1770s is what eventually led to the Revolution.

In any case, because of this move by Austria-backed by France and possibly Spain as well, the Third Partition doesn't happen because Prussia would not risk losing Silesia and Russia would be concerned that Austria could make common cause with the Ottoman Empire and present them with a multi-front war
 
I would offer a suggestion that maybe the Second Partition happens...
BUT...based on the testimony Frederick the Great made about how Empress Maria Theresa handled the first partition ("the more she wept, the more she took"), Austria realizes the danger in allowing Russia to get closer to their interests in collusion with Prussia and decides to forge an alliance with the Poles to guarantee their remaining territory. As France and Austria are also still allies (maybe) at this time, the fact that Austria is resolved to guarantee Poland would also be in France's interests. Its been suggested that the failure of France to defend their Polish allies in the late 1770s is what eventually led to the Revolution.

In any case, because of this move by Austria-backed by France and possibly Spain as well, the Third Partition doesn't happen because Prussia would not risk losing Silesia and Russia would be concerned that Austria could make common cause with the Ottoman Empire and present them with a multi-front war
Interesting will consider that as I write. I'm welcome to other suggestions too from other people and will probably look to make a hybrid out of them.
 
Probably not as quickly as many "Yankee Dominion" timelines do it, especially with the land south of the 36°30′ north line still being here and serving as the major cotton belt just like OTL. I can buy the UAC going along with the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade in 1807 but not so sure about the outright abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire in 1834 due to having greater autonomy than the rest of the empire. Slavery wasn't effectively criminalized in the British Raj until 1862 under the Indian Penal Code and even then there was a slavery-like indenturement system that lasted until the 1920s or so. Heck, even after OTL American Civil War, convict leasing by the state (which I consider a good analog to slavery in a scenario where the Confederacy wins the Civil War) lasted until the last state abolished it in 1928. So, even if the Union of American Commonwealth goes along with the British Slavery Abolition Act, I would possibly expect that to be in name only and a sharecropping system (along with a nasty Jim Crow or Apartheid analog) takes its place and last through the 1920s or so when the Boll Weevil comes into full effect like there was in OTL southern USA.
Not to mention that the slave population in the U.S. IOTL was already far larger than the slave population in the British Empire in 1833 (850,000 in the British Empire, compared to two million in the American South). In addition, slavery in the Caribbean (where most of the British Empire's slaves were) had no more room to expand (aside from Guyana, which was a minor part of the Empire), whereas slavery in the American South was still growing right up to the civil war. The British compensated the slave owners to the tune of 20 million pounds (something the U.K. didn't fully pay off until 2015), so assuming they would do the same in the American South, that would add tens of millions of pounds to the bill (although they'd likely leave that part of the bill to the UAC). I don't think it's particularly likely that the UAC would abolish slavery in 1833, and I can't help but find the idea that slavery would've ended earlier and peacefully in a world where the American Revolution either fails or never happens to be unlikely, if not bordering on wishful thinking.
 
Not to mention that the slave population in the U.S. IOTL was already far larger than the slave population in the British Empire in 1833 (850,000 in the British Empire, compared to two million in the American South). In addition, slavery in the Caribbean (where most of the British Empire's slaves were) had no more room to expand (aside from Guyana, which was a minor part of the Empire), whereas slavery in the American South was still growing right up to the civil war. The British compensated the slave owners to the tune of 20 million pounds (something the U.K. didn't fully pay off until 2015), so assuming they would do the same in the American South, that would add tens of millions of pounds to the bill (although they'd likely leave that part of the bill to the UAC). I don't think it's particularly likely that the UAC would abolish slavery in 1833, and I can't help but find the idea that slavery would've ended earlier and peacefully in a world where the American Revolution either fails or never happens to be unlikely, if not bordering on wishful thinking.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts. A more progressive America is one thing but the South willingly abolishing slavery in 1833 with little resistance not only seems unrealistic but borderline Mary Suetopia-ish. And another cliche that comes hand in hand with that is much less institutionalized racial oppression in North America, which wasn't even true in OTL pre-Civil War North which was basically pro-Jim Crow by that point. Even if slavery were abolished in 1833 willingly, expect some kind of black serfdom to continue possibly through the 1920s.
 
Once again, I'm ahead of schedule and over halfway done with the next chapter, which should be posted no later than this weekend. Expect a major shift in the course of history to begin. And if there is no majority in the poll by the time the next update is posted, the options will be narrowed down to the top 2. But I'm not sure how I could make a Holy Roman Empire that still exists to this day work. I'll figure something out if that is the case.
 
Last edited:
This pretty much sums up my thoughts. A more progressive America is one thing but the South willingly abolishing slavery in 1833 with little resistance not only seems unrealistic but borderline Mary Suetopia-ish. And another cliche that comes hand in hand with that is much less institutionalized racial oppression in North America, which wasn't even true in OTL pre-Civil War North which was basically pro-Jim Crow by that point. Even if slavery were abolished in 1833 willingly, expect some kind of black serfdom to continue possibly through the 1920s.
I don't think the question of the timeline of slavery's abolition in Anglophone North America is a question of whether it becomes independent, but whether the cotton gin is still invented. One of the reasons the founding fathers pussyfooted around slavery so much was (aside from a united country being the top priority and around half of them owning slaves) was that the common expectation just after the American Revolution was for the institution to slowly fade away over time. However, the cotton gin suddenly made cotton (one of the crops grown in the Deep South, alongside rice and indigo) extremely profitable, and the nascent industrial revolution in Britain (and later The North and France) made its growth last throughout the 19th Century. Had the cotton gin never been invented, I'd expect the Upper South to abolish slavery around the 1830s (Virginia came close to abolishing it around then IOTL), with the significantly less powerful and wealthy than IOTL Deep South being dragged along soon after (1840s-50s), whether by Constitutional Amendment in the U.S. or by Imperial Decree in a British America.
 
I don't think the question of the timeline of slavery's abolition in Anglophone North America is a question of whether it becomes independent, but whether the cotton gin is still invented. One of the reasons the founding fathers pussyfooted around slavery so much was (aside from a united country being the top priority and around half of them owning slaves) was that the common expectation just after the American Revolution was for the institution to slowly fade away over time. However, the cotton gin suddenly made cotton (one of the crops grown in the Deep South, alongside rice and indigo) extremely profitable, and the nascent industrial revolution in Britain (and later The North and France) made its growth last throughout the 19th Century. Had the cotton gin never been invented, I'd expect the Upper South to abolish slavery around the 1830s (Virginia came close to abolishing it around then IOTL), with the significantly less powerful and wealthy than IOTL Deep South being dragged along soon after (1840s-50s), whether by Constitutional Amendment in the U.S. or by Imperial Decree in a British America.
The cotton gin would likely be invented with or without American independence. It's more so a matter of when it's invented. Maybe instead of seven years before 1800, it's invented 7 years after 1800 (not the case in this TL). That would be a bigger difference-maker than independence from the Crown, although I feel like independence did make the difference between Civil War or no Civil War. That's just my two cents.
 
This pretty much sums up my thoughts. A more progressive America is one thing but the South willingly abolishing slavery in 1833 with little resistance not only seems unrealistic but borderline Mary Suetopia-ish. And another cliche that comes hand in hand with that is much less institutionalized racial oppression in North America, which wasn't even true in OTL pre-Civil War North which was basically pro-Jim Crow by that point. Even if slavery were abolished in 1833 willingly, expect some kind of black serfdom to continue possibly through the 1920s.
On the other hand the key event in British History (or process )was the growing power of middle class opinion and the relative weakening of the power of the West Indies Lobby. Whilst a British Empire would include more slavers conversely BNA would contain more abolitionists with Canada adding to the numbers against the South.. It is unlikely that BNA would have the absurd admit one slave state and one free state as the balance is already tilted , allow a Supreme Court that imposes slavery or allow the Fugitive Slave Act.. The overall result might be a delay from 1833, but maybe not by as much as all that.
 
On the other hand the key event in British History (or process )was the growing power of middle class opinion and the relative weakening of the power of the West Indies Lobby. Whilst a British Empire would include more slavers conversely BNA would contain more abolitionists with Canada adding to the numbers against the South.. It is unlikely that BNA would have the absurd admit one slave state and one free state as the balance is already tilted , allow a Supreme Court that imposes slavery or allow the Fugitive Slave Act.. The overall result might be a delay from 1833, but maybe not by as much as all that.
I've heard that argument before, and while I understand it, I'm not fully sold on it. While the Caribbean slave lobby was in decline, the American South slave lobby would only be gaining in influence throughout the first half of the 19th Century, and would likely (or almost certainly) become political allies with the Caribbean slave lobby to protect their interests. A lot of other countries abolished slavery after Britain IOTL (France in 1848, Netherlands in 1863 and Spain in 1870), so I could see it being delayed for decades, and likely being gradual and paying off the slave owners once it does happen. Even if Britain does abolish slavery in 1833, they might just exempt British America from it, as they did with India IOTL.
 
I've heard that argument before, and while I understand it, I'm not fully sold on it. While the Caribbean slave lobby was in decline, the American South slave lobby would only be gaining in influence throughout the first half of the 19th Century, and would likely (or almost certainly) become political allies with the Caribbean slave lobby to protect their interests. A lot of other countries abolished slavery after Britain IOTL (France in 1848, Netherlands in 1863 and Spain in 1870), so I could see it being delayed for decades, and likely being gradual and paying off the slave owners once it does happen. Even if Britain does abolish slavery in 1833, they might just exempt British America from it, as they did with India IOTL.
To be fair, India was under company rule before 1857 and even then they abolished slavery in 1843, with it only being considered criminal under the British Raj with the Penal Code enacted in 1862.
 
Chapter Twelve: The Road to The Ten Years War
Chapter Twelve: The Road to The Ten Years War

640px-Konstytucja_3_Maja.jpg

The Union of American Commonwealths was a successful prototype for similar future experiments. The biggest of what became known as “Dominion Systems” was courtesy of Pedro Pablo Abarca de Bolea, the 10th Count Aranda of Spain. This could be traced back to 1783 as the Count anticipated the expansionist ambitions of the Anglo-Americans He hoped that this “Spanish Commonwealth” would challenge the British in North America. As minister of King Charles III, he presented to him a proposal that would divide the Spanish Americas into three Dominions comparable to the British UAC: Mexico (Mexico and Louisiana), Peru (Peru and Rio de la Plata), and Costa Firme (Granada and Venezuela). Like the UAC, each of these three dominions would be semi-autonomous and have their own kings, with the King of Spain serving as the unifying Emperor of all three kingdoms. Only the Caribbean would be directly ruled by Spain. For nine years, the plan was rejected and shelved. It was brought back in 1792 when the COunt became the Prime Minister of Spain under King Charles IV. With a narrow approval in the Cortes Generales, Abarca de Bolea got his wish. This left Russia and, more so, Britain, in anger. The Territory of Nutca, part of Mexico, was claimed by Russia and Britain alongside Spain, while the British were considering taking the empty southern half of Rio de la Plata, known as Patagonia.

In neighboring France, the transition into a Constitutional Monarchy began in 1793 following the Convening of the Estates-General. The surmounting debt of the French nation, the harsh winter of 1788, and peasant revolts left King Louis with no choice. But not everyone was happy with the decisions at Versailles. From the First Estate, the noble Bishops were not sympathetic to the commoners and feared that this would usurp the position of the Catholic Church in France. In the Second Estate, you had some nobles who believed that they did not get enough power from this meeting in a short enough time. The Third Estate still had the double representation issue where, despite having twice as many representatives as the other two Estates, each Estate had one vote and the first two could collectively outvote the Third. This says nothing of the peasants who were angry at no representation at all at Versailles despite being the majority of the country. The days of July 27-28, 1794 marked the height of liberal and monarchist mobs clashing with each other in the streets, with some republicans and anarchists even trying to overthrow the French government. This flared on and off until Prussia recognized the new government on April 5, 1795, and the Spanish recognition of it on July 22 followed by other European countries soon after. All riots and insurrection were put down by the King’s troops by the end of August 1795.

In Eastern-Central Europe was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was once the most prosperous state in the region, but by 1793 it looked like it would cease to be. The First Partition of Poland had taken place in 1772. This was engineered by King Frederick the Great of Prussia to prevent Austria from going to war with Russia, the former jealous of the latter having military success against the Ottoman Empire and to restore the balance of power in Central Europe. Austria, under statesman Wenzel Anton Graf Kaunitz, gained the Duchies of Zator and Oświęcim as well as parts of Little Poland. Austrian Empress Maria Theresa herself criticized the partitions, with Frederick the Great testifying that she cried when she took more land from the Poles, and the more she cried, the more she took. Austria refused to partake in the Second Partitioning of Poland (occurring between Prussia and Russia) in 1793, which was caused by the aftermath of the Polish-Russian War of 1792 and the May Constitution, which itself was inspired by the English Bill of Rights and the Constitution Act of 1777. Austria realized that Russian collusion with Prussia over Poland was dangerous and forged an alliance with the Poles (alongside France) to guarantee their remaining territories.

There were two sparks to the Ten Years War. The first was the Treaty of San Ildefonso, signed on August 19, 1796, between the Spanish Empire and the French Kingdom. It called for the renewal of the Franco-Spanish alliance and essentially declare war on the British. On January 29, 1797, Portugal received an ultimatum from France and Spain that it abandon its traditional alliance with Great Britain forged in the Treaty of Windsor, close its ports to the British and open them to the Spanish and French, surrender at least one of its provinces in exchange for Spanish territories held by the British, and pay war indemnities to France and Spain. If the Portuguese denied the ultimatum, they would be invaded. They refused to sever its alliance with Britain and declared war on France and Spain that February. The second spark occurred on January 26, 1797. Like the French and Spanish did with the Portuguese, the Prussians and Russians gave an ultimatum to Austria to abandon its alliance with Poland in exchange for Polish land or else face the threat of invasion. Austria refused and, also itching for the return of Silesia, declared war on Prussia on the Polish and Silesian fronts and Russia on the Polish front. The system of alliances had tied Austria, France, Spain, and Poland onto one side and Britain, Portugal, Prussia, and Russia on the other. This war would affect not only Europe but the Americas and the rest of the colonial world.

A/N: So this was sooner than I anticipated in all honesty despite having some school work to attend to. But, I'd like to thank all of you readers for supporting this timeline, as would not be possible without you guys. Special mentions go to @Leonidas and @GenghisKhanfan for helping me with this particular chapter.
 
There were two sparks to the Ten Years War. The first was the Treaty of San Ildefonso, signed on August 19, 1796, between the Spanish Empire and the French Kingdom. It called for the renewal of the Franco-Spanish alliance and essentially declare war on the British. On January 29, 1797, Portugal received an ultimatum from France and Spain that it abandon its traditional alliance with Great Britain forged in the Treaty of Windsor, close its ports to the British and open them to the Spanish and French, surrender at least one of its provinces in exchange for Spanish territories held by the British, and pay war indemnities to France and Spain
I don't really understand this. France has been in quite a debt and has only recently gone through a series of uprisings. Why would it pursue war against Britain? What is she to gain? Portugal is hardly a concern for France, they are a second-rate power at best. I think this needs a better casus belli to spark such a huge conflict.
 
I don't really understand this. France has been in quite a debt and has only recently gone through a series of uprisings. Why would it pursue war against Britain? What is she to gain? Portugal is hardly a concern for France, they are a second-rate power at best. I think this needs a better casus belli to spark such a huge conflict.
Yes, it is true that France has surmounted its debt since the Seven Years War but even though the Estates-General was declared, I don’t think that the debt would be quite as high thanks to no true American Revolutionary War (and its being managed better here). The uprisings, apart from two days in 1794, are nowhere near as violent and turbulent as OTL Storming of the Bastille and Reign of Terror.

And OTL French Revolution didn’t stop France from plunging into a series of wars from about 1790 to 1815, so why would that be the case here, given that a balance of power war between Britain and France occurred every 25-30ish years or so which there is no reason the cycle wouldn’t continue here. These wars are all about power, pride, prestige, and the chance to topple Britain as the dominant power of Europe and challenge them in the colonial sector.

As for Portugal, I figured they would’ve declared war sooner or later since their top ally was Britain and they got shoehorned into OTL Seven Years War and Anglo-Spanish war because of the Anglo-Portuguese alliance so I don’t see how that would change. I’m not exactly a military historian so these kinds of things aren’t my top strength per se, just doing the best I can with the knowledge that I do have.
 
Last edited:
And OTL French Revolution didn’t stop France from plunging into a series of wars from about 1790 to 1815, so why would that be the case here, given that a balance of power war between Britain and France occurred every 25-30ish years or so which there is no reason the cycle wouldn’t continue here. These wars are all about power, pride, prestige, and the chance to topple Britain as the dominant power of Europe and challenge them in the colonial sector.

I think that the difference is that revolutionary France had multiple military genius, and had highly competent and charismatic leadership atleast when Napoleon was around whilst Louis was a uncharismatic pushover.
 
I think that the difference is that revolutionary France had multiple military genius, and had highly competent and charismatic leadership atleast when Napoleon was around whilst Louis was a uncharismatic pushover.
Napoleon wasn't the ruler of France until 1799 and France was already in the midst of the coalition wars by then. Unlike OTL Coalition Wars, this war was triggered by imperialist competition more than anything else, much like the Seven Years War. With no revolution, France would arguably by the wealthiest country in Europe from what I've gathered. And France would have a much better and bigger Navy ITTL.
 
Last edited:
I think that the difference is that revolutionary France had multiple military genius, and had highly competent and charismatic leadership atleast when Napoleon was around whilst Louis was a uncharismatic pushover.
Hmm France was basically attacked by the Royalist counter revolutionary powers so its not really an aggressive war at first anyway. I wish the British would not back Prussia and Russia 2 powers whose power Should NOT INCREASE ONE IOTA. Far more dangerous than France in the long run.
 
Top