Canada Wank (YACW)

Status
Not open for further replies.
For a spoiled brat like Fernando, that is a bit out-of-character but understandable - though I would doubt that the Queen would be any more liberal than Fernando. Plus, I doubt that whatever remained of the partido Fernandista would have the end of it vis-à-vis the liberals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-nineteenth_century_Spain said:
In 1830, at the advice of his wife, Maria Christina of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Ferdinand decreed a Pragmatic Sanction that had the effect of fundamental law in Spain. As a result of the sanction, women were allowed to accede to the Spanish throne, and the succession would fall on Ferdinand's infant daughter, Isabella, rather than to his brother Carlos. Carlos - who disputed the legality of Ferdinand's ability to change the fundamental law of succession in Spain - left the country for Portugal, where he became a guest of Dom Miguel, the absolutist pretender in that country's civil war.
Ferdinand died in 1833, at the age of 49. He was succeeded by his daughter Isabella under the terms of the Pragmatic Sanction, and his wife, Maria Christina, became regent for her daughter, who at that time was only three years of age. Carlos disputed the legitimacy of Maria Christina's regency and the accession of her daughter, and declared himself to be the rightful heir to the Spanish throne. A half-century of civil war and unrest would follow.
[edit] The Carlist War and the Regencies (1833-1843)

See also: First Carlist War



Carlos Maria Isidro, Infante of Spain, the leader of the Carlist cause and pretender to the Spanish throne.


After their fall from grace in 1823 at the hands of a French invasion, Spanish liberals had pinned their hopes on Ferdinand VII's wife, Maria Cristina of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, who bore some marks as a liberal and a reformer. However, when she became regent for her daughter Isabella in 1833, she made it clear to the court that she intended no such reforms. Even still, an alliance of convenience was formed with the progressista faction at court against the conservatives, who backed the rebel Infante Carlos of Spain.
Emphasis added. The reformers have the same hope of ATL's Maria Carlota as they did of OTL's Maria Cristina. Those hopes might well have been dashed in the same way had she been Regent, but with Carlos as regent...

As for Ferdinand and his ministers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_VII_of_Spain said:
During his last years Ferdinand's energy was abated. He no longer changed ministers every few months as a sport, and he allowed some of them to conduct the current business of government. His habits of life were telling on him. He became torpid, bloated and horrible to look at.



That, of course, leaves open one question: now that the Infante Carlos is legit in terms of succession, what becomes of the Infante Francisco de Paula? Yes, he was basically so much of a sleazebag that some people in the Escorial believed that he was Godoy's son (I'm not joking - compare the portraits of Godoy and the Infante and you'd see the resemblance), but he would probably have some use somehow.
I have no clue. I didn't even know who you were talking about when I first read this. Googling "Francisco de Paula" I got far more hits on a Columbia statesman than the Infante, and the Wiki article says little to nothing about him.

Oh. Besides which, he was born 1794, which is just after the PoD, so he'll be some different anyway.

We have a legitimate heir, with Carlos (the brother of the dead king) being a (probably more competent than his brother) ruler as regent. I think that IF the liberals had decided to revolt, they would have done it in the name of the young king, with the intent of installing one of theirs as regent. I don't THINK there's really room in the political landscape for a successful revolt by a younger son/uncle. If that's what you meant?

Honestly, if he valued the alliance with the UK during the Napoleonic Wars, I'd doubt he would let relations sink that low, let alone cancelling an alliance that would be potentially valuable.
Britain at this time is actively supporting 'liberal' governments. I haven't posted anything on Portugal yet, but the War of Two Brothers goes differently, and Portugal is a liberal constitutional monarchy, partly as a result of British military support. She's also providing a safe base for liberals who fled Spain. Taking all that into account, and the fears that Spain has about British intentions re: Florida, AND that Spain doesn't want to get dragged into an Anglo-American war they see coming, and the cancelling of an alliance makes all the sense in the world to me.

Spain is not at the moment actively hostile to Britain, but relations are at a low ebb.

I don't know pro or con what Carlos's opinion of Britain was during the Napoleonic wars, but I do know that a lot of Spaniards were very prickly about their relationship. ...



It wouldn't be that much of a win-win if some of them managed to escape to México - which would make things very interesting, for sure. But yeah, sounds like Carlos to me.
I don't think Mexico is where many go. Even if they went during a time when the government was relatively liberal, it could literally change over night.
 
I think I see where you're going with this - a bit different than what I plan on doing with Kuando el Rey Nimrod. Oh, and the Infante Carlos was no different from Fernando - all three of them were as spineless as their father, and all three of them were also incompetent to varying degrees. Of course, we might not have Godoy boinking their mother in TTL, but you never know. I guess for TTL the Infante Francisco de Paula could be butterflied away.
 
Britain at this time is actively supporting 'liberal' governments. I haven't posted anything on Portugal yet, but the War of Two Brothers goes differently, and Portugal is a liberal constitutional monarchy, partly as a result of British military support. She's also providing a safe base for liberals who fled Spain. Taking all that into account, and the fears that Spain has about British intentions re: Florida, AND that Spain doesn't want to get dragged into an Anglo-American war they see coming, and the cancelling of an alliance makes all the sense in the world to me.

Spain is not at the moment actively hostile to Britain, but relations are at a low ebb.

That makes a lot of sense and I rather like the idea of Portugal staying liberal. [Was going to have this in the TL I started a few years back, although it has nasty consequencies for Portugal and Britain]. Do see now why you mentioned having to research Portugal and Brazil. If the liberals stay dominant then links with Brazil will be a lot closer I suspect. Also it will be at odds with Spain and the other conservative powers.


I don't know pro or con what Carlos's opinion of Britain was during the Napoleonic wars, but I do know that a lot of Spaniards were very prickly about their relationship. ...

That's what I've read as well. While many were grateful there were others hostile to the idea of relying so heavily on Protestant heretics and also probably the factor that the country needed British help embarrassed them by highlighting Spain's weakness.

Steve
 
I do know that in my case with Kuando el Rey Nimrod - spoiler alert - I'm planning on having the Infante Francisco de Paula as Emperor of México, yet because of the British presence, he basically has the British as an ally against the Americans. This is not taken as a sign of weakness in México's case, but more like an alliance of necessity which could potentially boom into a long-term, positive relationship. As with Carlos - due to the three-way civil war in Spain, once Carlos becomes King, he basically has to maintain the alliance with the British since his mind is mainly on reconstruction and economic recovery - thus putting Spain in a weaker position than TTL. Just showing you where I'm coming from, because Latin America will be different in my TL (for obvious reasons).
 

Glen

Moderator
Checking something. Please go about your Canadian Wanking without paying any attention to me....
 
steamships

Sheesh! I thought I'd have this post out about 2 days ago. Oh well. Here it is.



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Steamships[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The use of steam boats on the rivers of North America during the War of 1812 was a real eye-opener, both for the military and for commercial merchants/shippers. While there is a big difference between a transatlantic steamship and a river boat that 1) runs on fresh water and 2) can stop every miles for more wood to fuel it, the future possibilities were clear (to some).[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The first transatlantic voyage by a steam assisted ship was in 1819 [one year earlier than OTL], while the first paddlewheel steam packet 1836 [2 years early][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Meanwhile, in 1832 Frédéric Sauvage demonstrated a screw-propeller steamboat which out-powered a similar boat with paddles [OTL]. Prince Consort Leopold hears about it and invites him to England to test out his ideas. Queen Charlotte encourages her husband in this, as he has been feeling a bit like a 5th wheel, being Prince Consort and not King. Having a useful outlet for him away from governing and politics makes for a happier Parliament and a happier marriage. Under royal patronage, Sauvage continues his experiments, and a small group of engineers accumulate around him, working on the device, including John Ericsson an inventor from Sweden who had recently arrived in Britain.[1] One of the artificers in the group (whose name wasn't recorded) broke a screw and didn't tell anyone. When the group found that this single turn screw was more efficient than the multi-turn ones first used, they moved to single turn screws. The artificer, however, seems to have been fired for carelessness[2].[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The group launches their first full sized steamship, the SS Archimedes in 1836 and she has her maiden voyage later that year. This is the first screw propelled steamship. [3][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Isambard Kingdom Brunel[4], seeing the operation and advantages of this ship, convinces the board of the Great Western Railway that their new steamship, the Great Western, should have its propulsion changed from paddle wheel to screw. This means that the ship's launch is delayed some, and leaves a clear field for the British North American Steamship Line to launch the first transatlantic steamship service with a borrowed England/Ireland packet ship, the paddlewheeler SS Rigel in 1836.[5] However the Rigel has to be massively overloaded with coal to make the trip, so it is not a commercial success. The Great Western, launched the next year was big enough to carry enough coal, and was the first commercially successful service. (Brunel had calculated the efficiencies and realized that a large ship would be relatively more efficient. The fact that screws are more efficient than paddles helped, too.)[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Again, the RN is not very interested in steam warships. At this point in time, steamships are VERY inefficient, and since the RN has to protect British interests around the entire globe, a warship with a range of only several hundred miles is almost worse than useless. As with Paixhans guns, the RN has more to lose by the introduction of the technology than they have to gain. It is only as they discover that other nations (in particular France and the US) are moving to the new technologies that they really take the plunge.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The RN does get its feet wet (as it were) with a few steam tugs for harbours in Britain (where distance doesn't matter). [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]One thing that the RN DOES pick up on quickly is that if they are going to be forced into steam, that screws are definitely the way to go. The advantages are manifold: 1) they're more efficient 2) screws can be raised out of the water for when the ship is powered by sail (depending on the design), 3) they are far less vulnerable to cannon fire. Paddlewheelers almost have to have their propulsion on the outside, where it's exposed to enemy fire. Moreover, with sidewheelers, if one a cannon hits one of the paddle wheels, the entire steam power system can be rendered useless, even if the other wheel and the engine are fine, 4) the machinery can be lower in the ship, making the ship more stable, and 5) paddlewheels (especially sidewheels) prevent cannon from being placed where the wheel is, reducing the throw-weight of a broadside.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]After the success of first the Archimedes and then the Great Western, they start investigating the idea of coastal defence vessels for North America. They hire John Ericsson from the commercial group, and send him to Halifax and Boston for a joint RN/New England steam development project. (Ericsson is having some personal conflicts with the other members of the group, so sending him across the Atlantic is a win-win situation. Britain gets to keep his skills, he gets to keep employed and keep playing with steamships.) [/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 This John Ericsson is not the same one as OTL, being born some 10 years after the PoD. However, OTL, both he and his brother Nils were engineers and inventors, and it is entirely plausible that iTTL the second son, probably named John as OTL, would take up with new-fangled steam engines, and work with boats, too. As for Francis Petit Smith (one of the OTL prime inventors), no doubt his parents have children, possibly even one with that name, but none of them have the same interests. As the OTL man started as a farmer, it is less likely that the ATL version would also develop the same mechanical and nautical interests.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2 the original screws were somewhat like Archimedes screws (without the sleeve). They were much longer than they were wide. The single turn version is more efficient, and a big step towards our modern screws (propellers for us North American readers). OTL, this accidental breaking of a screw was done by Smith, and recognized by himself as an advantage. ITTL, it's done by a clumsy worker, who is not able to convince anyone of the genius of his action, even if they do recognize the usefulness of the discovery. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3 due to the earlier start and royal patronage, the Archimedes is ready for trials 2 ½ years earlier than OTL. It probably has no particular resemblance to the OTL ship of the same name, but the name is the same, as Archimedes is the obvious name for an experimental screw ship.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]4 Again, Isambard Kingdom Brunel is a different person from OTL, being born after the PoD. He is actually 2 years older than OTL's version, being the middle child of three, not the youngest. However, given that his father was a prominent engineer, it seems likely that Isambard would follow in his father's footsteps. This IKB, however, is not the genius and fop of OTL. He is more like his father, and, while a great engineer, will not be the household name (among tech geeks) that IKB was iOTL. Note that his father was Marc Isambard Brunel, and his mother was Sophia Kingdom, so the name given to their first born son is likely to be the same. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]5 OTL, the rival line was “British and American”, but because the primary ports are Boston and Halifax rather than New York, the name is changed. Increased use of steamboats mean more development happens sooner. In particular, condensers that allow oceanic travel (reusing the original fresh water) are invented earlier, allowing earlier coastal packet ships, so the Rigel is available 2 years earlier than OTL. [OTL, the borrowed ship was the Sirius.] iTTL, the Great Western is started earlier, as part of the whole earlier steamship development, and even with conversion to screw is able to be launched a year earlier than OTL. [/FONT]
 
Question...


The size of ships has increased due to the need to pack coal as well as cargo. What does this mean to the canals that have been built...will they be upgraded or will transhipping of cargo become the norm.
 
Question...


The size of ships has increased due to the need to pack coal as well as cargo. What does this mean to the canals that have been built...will they be upgraded or will transhipping of cargo become the norm.


At the moment, you don't actually have any canals that handle full-sized ocean vessels. The St. Lawrence seaway handles rather smaller (still ocean going but on the smaller end) ships, and e.g. the Nicaragua canal isn't built yet.

True, the revolution in ship sizes will have to be taken into account, and I can imagine, now that you mention it, that some of the initial plans for Nicaragua will have to be ripped up and re-done. Probably the St. Lawrence system will get an earlier upgrade too. Hmmm...
 
Neo-Delian League

Well... This wasn't going to be posted for a while, but it is done now, I think and the other posts aren't. So here goes.



Neo-Delian League

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]After the 1819 treaty that re-opened relations between Britain and the US, which had so shocked Canada, the Maritimes and New England, there was some serious discussion about how to prevent such 'insults' again. I have already discussed the initial provisions that were made with the colonies to allow Canada and the other colonies more input and insight into Imperial and trade policy.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Obviously, New England, as a sovereign nation, has to be dealt with differently. Over the course of the '20s and early '30s, various agreements and treaties are made between the two nations. This functionally moves New England inside Britain's commercial empire, although not her political one. New England and Britain agree to harmonize tariffs, and to remove most of those between their two countries. Britain still insists on cabotage provisions (goods carried between British ports, including colonies) are carried on British ships – but New England is largely allowed to get around that (e.g. a surprising number of 'Nova Scotian' ships are New England financed and even manned.) In the early '30s, Portugal starts trying to negotiate a similar set of deals – which is complicated by Portugal's own empire. Still, Portugal is a long-time ally and Britain is interested in encouraging liberal governments (like Portugal's – and wants her to stay that way). Thus Portugal gets some similar treaties. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]By the mid '30s, Chile and Brazil want similar arrangements (Brazil making noises about its connexion with Portugal), and the UPCA (Central America) and Argentina are expressing interest. Questions are even raised in the Norwegian Storting about joining this movement.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It quickly becomes obvious that bilateral treaties with Britain would subvert the smaller powers' sovereignty, while webs of bilateral treaties would be inconsistent and unwieldy. So, eventually a multi-lateral Commercial and Mercantile League is founded[1]. All members agree to harmonize most tariffs and some commercial practises. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]League members have to [/FONT]

  1. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]have 'responsible' and 'stable' governments. This basically means sufficient democracy that the merchant class gets to vote<grin>, that elections are relatively free from violence, and that there isn't any serious danger of the government getting overthrown in a coup next month. Since Britain and Portugal are constitutional monarchies, they are more likely to believe in stability in other such monarchies – which gives Brazil an advantage here over e.g. Argentina.[/FONT]
  2. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ban slave-trading (and participate in anti-slavery patrols), and undertake to eliminate slavery. The slave-trading ban is what has teeth here. No one gets into the League without a ban on slave trade, and they have to provide some reasonable contribution to the anti-slavery patrols. However, the 'undertaking to eliminate slavery', at least initially, is a lot like the US and USSR's commitment to eliminate nuclear weapons in the non-proliferation treaties OTL - i.e. token efforts do, for now. Portugal, for instance, has banned slavery in continental Portugal, even if she still has has very active slavery in Africa. However, it doesn't take long before NEW members have to have effective abolition legislation in place before joining.[/FONT]
  3. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Harmonize tariffs and other commercial regulations. [2][/FONT]
  4. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]All disputes between League members are to be referred to League mediation, which is binding. (Britain agrees to this because she is the 800 lb gorilla here, and has much the largest representation on the League council. She (and especially Parliament) will be truly shocked the first time a major decision goes against her – but that's some time in the future). [/FONT]
    1. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Disputes between League members and countries outside the League are encouraged to use League resources for negotiation. (This is not a full-fledged alliance system. Yet. But if Spain is arguing with Portugal, or worse Argentina with Chile, and Britain shows up to take the smaller country's side - well, that's a huge advantage for Portugal or Chile. It's also a real incentive for e.g. Argentina to get into the system....)[/FONT]
  5. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Cabotage. Each nation-member may restrict commerce between her own ports to her own merchant vessels – but similarly goods carried between League ports are to be carried by League vessels. So, e.g. goods carried from Boston to Bristol could be carried by Portuguese merchant vessels – but not by US ones.[/FONT]
  6. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Voting rights are by financial clout, with complicated formulas that change over time. Direct contributions to the League (e.g. in terms of ships or money for the Anti-Slavery Patrols) count more than GDP or trade figures. Initially, the main expenses are the Anti-Slavery Patrols (which are mainly 'in kind' – e.g. ships contributed to the Patrols), a commercial tribunal and some clerical staff in the headquarters and various local offices. This will increase over time.[/FONT]
  7. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Associate members are allowed, with some of the rights and privileges and responsibilities. (This is meant for countries that aren't entirely stable, but that the League wants to tie up in its web. UPCA being one example. It quickly becomes a first step of entry on the way to joining the League.) You also have to have a certain size to be a full member.[/FONT]
  8. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]New members are accepted by a 2/3 vote of the Council (weighted by the rules mentioned in item 6 above), new associate members by a simple majority. Members can leave on one years notice. Members can also be expelled or demoted to associate members if they cease to meet the requirements for full membership. (This puts conservative forces in e.g. Portugal on notice that if they succeeded in a coup, they'd be turfed out and lose the benefits of full membership.)[/FONT]
  9. [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The monarch of Britain is the honourary League Patron. [but not ex-officio...][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]While not in the charter itself, part of the rationalization of tariffs and regulations is a tariff on (the cargo of) any non-League ship sailing from a League port. This gives League members a huge competitive advantage in international trade, as it suddenly becomes rather more expensive for an non-League (e.g. US or Spanish) ship to trade on any route that even enters a League harbour.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Wags start calling the group the “Neo-Delian” league, after Athens' alliance and then empire, with Britain playing Athens' role (obviously). The other members are very careful to make sure that history doesn't repeat itself. They absolutely insist, from day one, that the headquarters NOT be in London, for instance. Still, as with other groups over the years, such as Christians, Methodists, Whigs, or Tories, a joking (originally pejorative) name becomes adopted and official. It's helped by the fact that Neo-Delian League sounds so much less boring than “Commercial and Mercantile League”.[3] The Council (the League governing body) is renamed the “Boule” (Classical Greek for 'council', pronounced 'bool-ay').[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Founding members in 1839: Britain, Portugal, New England, Brazil and Chile.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Norway's application is held up because Sweden holds that this is politics/foreign affairs (which is a Union responsibility), not merely a commercial deal (which might be a Norwegian responsibility). This then raises the issue of whether Sweden should let Norway join, and whether Sweden should try to join too (or as the Union, not the two separate countries individually). [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Note that the League Cabotage and tariff agreements mean that much of the world is closed (or uncompetitive) to third-party shipping (e.g. American), and the advantage for League members just grows as the League does. Right now, an e.g. American ship wanting to ship goods from London to Columbia, for instance, is at a disadvantage compared to a British ship or even a Portuguese one, as there are export duties and harbour fees for non-League members. If Columbia should join the League, then that American shipping leg is not just at a disadvantage, but actually prohibited.[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 Note that the catalyst here is New England. OTL, Britain never had quite same relation with any other country, and the favourable arrangements New England negotiates are used by Portugal, as leverage in her negotiations. Then, once 2 countries have those advantages, the thing snowballs. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2 Britain, of course, sees this as everyone else adopting British rules, with minor tweaks. Initially, of course, that is the case. And as Britain's economy is so very much larger than any other member, she has the upper hand. However, she has accepted constraints on future changes, and as more members join, she won't be larger than all the rest combined. So, e.g. if a liberal government wanted to repeal the Corn Laws for instance, or introduce Free Trade, that's not going to be possible without some serious horsetrading. Of course, the increased cost of wars iTTL means that there is less incentive for the Brits to drop tariffs.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3 At least to my ears. And I'm the author. [So there, nyah!][/FONT]
 
as is the usage of "Vouli" (;)).
Yes, that's the modern pronunciation. But, because the people in charge are classicists, they'd be using the older pronunciation. (Not the modern reconstructed version, of course, but British schoolboy Greek, for which I THINK I've got the pronunciation correct:))
 
Dathi

Whoo!:D That's an interesting development. As you say, over time Britain will find other members coming to match it in power but at a period when Britain's already the most powerful and developed nation in the world its got even more influence and economic power. Although if they feel obliged to support other members in periods of crisis it could become a burden

As you say that will make free trade very difficult to achieve as there are a lot of closely interlaced markets that would be lost. Must admit its difficult to see that many other nations be willing to give up their own economic independence as the British merchant fleet is just about unmatched at this point and the loss of tariffs and prestige would be significant. However could see it happening with New England, both to get access to British markets and gain closer links politically with Britain and hence security against the US. Then things snowballing from there.

In terms of other members what's the status of Hanover? If that's tied into a British dominated world trading network that could make thing very interesting if/when German unification starts. Also I'm wondering about the Dutch empire. Got a lot of trading potential at the time, probably looks at Britain as a potential protector and at least in earlier times was a very efficient mercantile trader. [After all the Navigation Acts were imposed to prevent the Dutch dominating British trade.;)]. Won't be as overpowering now and likely to lose ground for a while at least as industrialisation develops but could find membership very attractive.

Steve
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top