Search results

I know a guy who used to be in the "Swiss navy".... But yes. It is very feasible. The trouble is the timing; all those events unfolded in Italy at the same time as Napoleon III was in charge in France. Had there been a less imperialist, more democratic and UK friendly government in France...

The big thing that interests me and I wish I had the knowledge to develop would be buddhism's westwards spread. It would be quite interesting to see how much of it would be took on board by European cultures to merge with the native faiths. I'm not so sure on the no christianity->no islam-> no...

A true liberal is very much against gun control. Militaries...of course not everyone in the army is the same but generally they're rather traditionalist conservative nationalistic places. And I really fail to see what any of this has to do with the question at all.

Yes, I don't think level of development would be significantly different. Though severely reducing religion as a motivation for bad shit would be interesting- people will find other excuses to go to war with each other of course but still, intruiging.

Leopold didn't have he resources of a state behind him actually. It was a private enterprise, nothing to do with the Belgian state. Most of the investors weren't even Belgian. It was purely out of embarrassment that Belgium later took it over And the EIC didn't take "well over a century to...

Ask Leopold, he managed it with a significant chunk of central Africa. The East India Company managed it with much of India, a far more developed and wealthy place.

Africa is fucked. The Congo was one of the few areas that escaped the scramble for Africa.....and the corporate interests came in without a central government to moderate them leading to one of the worst regimes the world has ever seen. Much of the continent would fall under Congo Free State...

What's the obsession with the word liberal here? The internet was a military project...about as unliberal as you can get. Kind of decentralised by design but very centrally ordered and controlled. Anyway. It would likely be the UK. They had a similar project anyway at about the same time as the US.

As is said every time someone suggested Germany having jets at the start of ww2- nothing happens in a vacuum. One side gets something new and amazon that could change things... The other side soon copies it (for less effort than the original took) and/or invents a counter measure.

Thats not really true though. IOTL it was developments in steel making that meant steam engines- a pretty simple and not at all unknown theoretical concept- a far more useful and practical concept. Though it is big flashy machinery that gets all the attention it was rather more simple and...

Yes. Even before that....the lack of cannon would change a lot. Castles would remain very difficult to take and you wouldn't get nations beginning to blob. Feudalism would remain strong and centralised nations a joke.

Yes, I'd think British immigration is the only real way to do it. Some sort of war or series of wars that totally screws up Britain pushing people to seek new opportunities and depopulates broad swathes of Germany?

Gunpowder and moisture are not a good mix. SE Asia is famed for its moistness.

I'm not sure how true it is but I have heard that some British commander during the Napoleonic wars once moaned about/absently suggested that long bows would be better equipment for his troops. It wasn't a serious thing if it even ever was said. Though it certainly would have been an improvement...

Well that poll isn't biased at all ..... Pre 1900- of course. After the British Empire has taken over in India? No. The timescale is too short. Britain was at its peak at the time and was capable of taking on at least any two other powers.

I'd point the finger at the massive decline in urban culture. Its no surprise that republics tended to be city-states. That's where the middle classes can thrive and republican ideas really take root. Also to consider was the nature of the Germans. Though they did have strong...

err what? That's pretty rude. This is the way successful threads work.

It is the mistake of the reader, not the map. It is technically true that a country can control a huge chunk of land but have all its power in one city. And that its equally strong rival controls nothing more than a county. Its the reader's mistake to look at the map and assume more land=more...

Pre 17th-19th century most of the world was largely unused and pretty much in its wild state. The historic foundation of power was in cities, i.e. towns that would be considered big if they surpassed 20,000 or so. This is how you get places like Venice and Bern being such major powers going up...

I'm not familiar with any concrete sources dictating their plans but thinking logically I cannot see why they would be too interested in Belgium. Bringing it into the German sphere but otherwise largely leaving it alone/giving it French Flanders (with some excuse of the war being France's fault...