Canada Wank (YACW)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dathi

Going to be an interesting situation in Tejas and Mexico. The Mexicans are going to be reluctant to give up Tejas, either officially or in reality, but are going to pay an increasing cost to try and hold it. Could easily see them lose further territory in both north and south and possibly even a civil war before this is over.

Tejas is going to be a mess by the time this is over.:( However, although the British may not realise this yet it looks pretty clear that Louisiana is safe, at least from the west. May still be attacks from the east but the Americans have suffered some heavy losses and are going to see a lot of demands on other fronts.

Steve
 
Hmm... are you perhaps setting things up so that Tejas is so damaged from the war that can no longer support itself independently and needs to be placed under the protection of the Viceroy of BNA? ;):)
 
Indiana theatre, part 3

Indiana theatre, part 3

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Ohio border[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]US continues to make raids on the rail connexion between Ft.Wayne and Ft. Tecumseh, occasionally cutting it, but it is always quickly repaired. This line is not as secure as the Maumee defensive line, but it suffices. One problem the US had was that when the Ohio troops besieged Ft. Tecumseh, they brought much of their stockpiled supplies forward – as that's where they'd be needed. When the British managed to relieve the siege, much of those supplies were left behind, and thus the troops on the Ohio border have to get ammunition and food brought forward. This is not easy – and not as much as hoped is available, since most of what WAS available was forward based.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Ft. Francis.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The siege of Ft. Francis does not go nearly as well as hoped. The US simply doesn't have the experience with siege warfare that e.g. the British developed during the Napoleonic Wars. Nor were they expecting to have to do a classical siege. Oh, they knew it was a theoretical possibility, but proper pre-planning wasn't done in any kind of detail. So, for instance, they don't have all the picks and shovels they really need, and many are requisitioned from locals, and more have to be made. The surface is rock hard by now, and so digging is slow until the diggers get through the frozen layer. Moreover, such experience as did exist was Napoleonic – before the days of shells. Back then, once trench diggers got deep enough to get out of line-of-fire, they were safe. Now, shells can burst overhead, raining death on even a completed trench. So every trench within cannon range needs a roof – but getting a roof in place first means being exposed to shrapnel, and then rifle fire. Work starts several times, then stops until a work-around can be found, and then is picked up and continued. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Also, several times the protective shields and roofs are successfully set on fire (either by sorties from the fort or by incendiary cannon fire). These have to be replaced before work continues.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]By the end of January, the siege of Ft. Francis is well under way – but only about half way towards the point where they could actually hope to take the fort.[1] The situation at the other forts is even less advanced.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In the meantime, the usual problems of wartime sieges are present. Typhus and dysentery run rampant, and the US besiegers lose more men to disease than they are currently losing to enemy action. The defenders inside the fort are actually slightly better off, as the British/Canadian sanitary regulations are very strict. OTOH, they have way too many people inside too small a space, and while they started with adequate shelter, the continued rocket bombardment has destroyed much of the housing. So, they aren't entirely well off either. Note: because the planned sanitary facilities are massively overwhelmed, the sewage is carried up to the top of the wall, and dumped over. This is not a problem now (in freezing weather), but it will be come spring. Still, it beats having the sewage become the new ground level.... [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Half of the US besiegers are at Ft. Francis, working there, finding the worst problems, and sending work-arounds/solutions to the besiegers at Ft. Brock [in OTL Illinois] and Ft. Liverpool [OTL Terre Haute, basically]. The smaller number of besiegers means those sieges progress more slowly, but faster than ½ speed because they don't have to resolve all the problems. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]US occupied Protectorate[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]By mid-January or so, much of refugee crisis is undercontrol. Certainly, they don't have new homes for everybody, but the initial wild panic is calming, temporary shelter is arranged and supplies are found for most of the refugees. This isn't to say that they are warm, comfortable or well fed, but they are no longer freezing or starving. With the women, children and old folk no longer in immediate danger, the men (ranging from teenagers to men in their 60s) sign up en masse to fight the invaders. Some of them are fed into the British advance along the rail line toward Indianapolis; others help defend settlements like Prophetstown [in OTL Indiana], Prevost [OTL Peoria] and the coal mines south of Chicago; others are put to work with sleds and such draft animals are available to move supplies to those sites to support the increased number of defenders needed; and others take the fight back to the Americans. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Working in small groups (supply is still a problem), the Indianan marauders retake the initiative. They know the land intimately (enough intelligence is used to make sure there are locals from the area of every target picked), they know the people (not everyone fled), and they often know where village caches might be, hidden from the Americans. One or two raids are even made on the fortlets the US has put up to hold the territory down. When the ground was sufficiently frozen and snow covered, they were able to drag a small field cannon to help take down the first fortlet. Then, later, they used some of the Maceroni rockets taken from the supplies around Ft. Tecumseh. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As the US has several of these fortlets, taking 2 or 3 is not really a significant deal militarily – but it does add to the guerilla problem the US has to deal with. Soldiers don't want to hold a fort that only has a dozen men, so the US has to consolidate, up the sizes of the forts they keep and abandon some of the others. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Meanwhile, most of the Indianan raiders are doing classical guerilla warfare, hitting sentries, supply trains and communication. And, of course, every time they hit a supply train, they not only hurt the American invasion force, but they can use the supplies themselves to stay out longer. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Again, the guerilla warfare is, at the moment, not that much of a problem for the US forces in one way, there aren't THAT many sentries killed or supply trains captured. Probably the US occupation force lost as many men due to illness, accidents and exposure as they did to guerillas in the month of January (although the organized effort wasn't in full swing for the early part of the month). Still, morale is affected. Especially in the small fortlets, men with little to do except 'hold the countryside down' and wait for their supplies and to be relieved, the worry that behind any bush could be an Indian sniper eats at them. And if their supply train is one of the ones hit and never arrives, that obviously just makes things worse. [/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 For comparison, Wellington's Siege of Badajoz took 21 days with the accumulated siegework skills of the British sappers, with local help, with lots of cannon, and without the defenders having shells for their cannon, nor many rifles. With the frozen ground here, less skills in the US army, etc., it's taking rather more than twice as long. Note that many people today suggest that Wellington was usually too impatient with his sieges and went in before he should have.[/FONT]
 
<shameless self promotion>In my TL, Britain's alliance with New England and Portugal has expanded into the 'Neo-Delian League' of allied maritime powers. While it is not exactly British, it is certainly British influenced/not quite controlled. And it remains to be seen just where it is going. BUT. Pretty soon any country with significant maritime aspirations is going to have to be a part of the League, and it will probably remain the absolute ruler of the 7 seas up to the modern day. One option is that it ends up becoming a (loose federal) global empire, that will be seen by most outsiders as a British+ Empire... And even within the League, the British Empire will be the largest naval power by far.</shameless self promotion>.

Dathi

I don't know about the league becoming a monopoly for any state with maritime aspirations. More likely I would have thought that some counter block builds up, at least unless the League members play it cautiously to avoid being too dominant.

However that is a good example of the sort of thing I was thinking of, although the degree to which Canada is growing by ~1900 it could be less of a British than a Canadian empire. Mind you, you are terming it a Canada wank;) Most examples I've thought of Canada isn't as overwhelming as I think its likely to be in TTL.

Steve
Posts from a different thread.

Basically, right now you have the League states and the Netherlands as maritime powers, with Spain as a maritime colonial power. France has a few minor colonies overseas at the moment, but isn't really anything like a maritime power. The League does not currently have an effective global maritime monopoly, but it is inching in that direction, and the more power they have the harder they're likely to make it for the competition. IMO.
 
That's surprising regarding France, who rebuilt its navy rapidly after the Napoleonic wars after the object lessons of British naval supremacy, and was the comfortable number two for most of the century. They certainly have a heck of a lot more expertise and resources than Spain anyway.

A maritime monopoly (rather than hegemony) would be a really bad thing in the long run for Britain, I can't think of anything more likely to produce an Franco-Russian-American-German opposition bloc to interfere with the Delian-Britain entity in world affairs (whilst still bickering among themselves in local clashes)...and thats a power play Britain will lose on.

Also if they Delian league thinks it can tell Britain what to do it might be in for a surprise - the Little Englanders that today rail against the EU had counterparts in the 19th century that railed against the Empire just as much.
 
That's surprising regarding France, who rebuilt its navy rapidly after the Napoleonic wars after the object lessons of British naval supremacy, and was the comfortable number two for most of the century. They certainly have a heck of a lot more expertise and resources than Spain anyway.

A maritime monopoly (rather than hegemony) would be a really bad thing in the long run for Britain, I can't think of anything more likely to produce an Franco-Russian-American-German opposition bloc to interfere with the Delian-Britain entity in world affairs (whilst still bickering among themselves in local clashes)...and thats a power play Britain will lose on.

Also if they Delian league thinks it can tell Britain what to do it might be in for a surprise - the Little Englanders that today rail against the EU had counterparts in the 19th century that railed against the Empire just as much.
Hegemony. Yes, that's surely a better word for what I meant than monopoly. Thank you.

Yes, Germany and Russia and the US may well form a competing block, I suppose, as time goes on.

Do you have any figures on French maritime trade in the period? I have been assuming it was relatively small, and if not I need to revise my thinking. Yes, the French have a significant navy, but I didn't THINK they had much in the way of trade...
 
That's surprising regarding France, who rebuilt its navy rapidly after the Napoleonic wars after the object lessons of British naval supremacy, and was the comfortable number two for most of the century. They certainly have a heck of a lot more expertise and resources than Spain anyway.

A maritime monopoly (rather than hegemony) would be a really bad thing in the long run for Britain, I can't think of anything more likely to produce an Franco-Russian-American-German opposition bloc to interfere with the Delian-Britain entity in world affairs (whilst still bickering among themselves in local clashes)...and thats a power play Britain will lose on.

That is basically my fear as well. As Disraelli said the world wouldn't permit us to be the workshop of the world and they will be unwilling to let us totally monopolise maritime trade. Other nations can introduce Navigation Acts as well.

Also if they Delian league thinks it can tell Britain what to do it might be in for a surprise - the Little Englanders that today rail against the EU had counterparts in the 19th century that railed against the Empire just as much.

At 6'3" and ~14 stones I object to the little!:p

Steve
 
piker! You're thinking much too small:)

KingByng

I was thinking a similar thing but also that there is considerable unrest in the relatively thinly populated northern parts of Mexico, both over central control and the way the war is affecting them. Wondering if the 1st Canadian Trans-continental railway would be from say Houston to San Diego.;)

Steve
 
League deliberations

Since we were talking about the League...

League deliberations

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Shortly after the start of the war, the Neo-Delian League met in emergency session. Items on the agenda include[/FONT]

  • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]accepting the applications of Ireland, Canada and Norway[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]agreeing on a status for the war[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]increasing the various port fees and tariffs to help fund the war[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]creating war-emergency exemptions[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]creating a new category of 'friendly' nation[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]defining 'neutrality' and outlawing 'piracy'[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]We've already discussed the new members earlier.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Britain and Portugal (and new member Canada) want the League to declare war on the US or at least to make some statement that it is 'the League's war'. New member Norway protests strongly, as she CAN'T declare war on her own (that would be part of the Swedish/Union prerogative), and once the issue is raised, countries like Brazil, Uruguay and Chile decide that they don't want to be forced into future British wars, and side with Norway. Britain then proposes the language 'League sponsored war', but that hits most of the same problems. Everyone agrees that there should be SOME status, and the language 'League sanctioned' is finally accepted.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Because of the war, and to raise more money, the various tariffs and port fees charged to non-League shipping are increased, and interpretations of cabotage are strengthened. (Many of these charges will stay after the war – there's nothing so permanent as a temporary tax increase<g>.) This action will have repercussions down the line – France and the Netherlands are annoyed at the further restrictions on their merchant fleets (but see below).[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]However, given the massive increased need for shipping, the League also creates a special exemption. War materiel for League members for a League sanctioned war can be carried by any ship as if it were a League vessel, as long as over half of the shipment is war related. This mollifies the French and the Dutch for the moment, as they can actually ship more goods duty free. Still, they'll watch carefully what happens when the war is over, and consider their options.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The other thing that happens is that a new category of 'friendly' nation is created. This basically is created at this time to allow Spain to get the benefits of being an 'associate' member of the League without the 'junior' status that carries. The original thought was to specifically exempt Spain by name as a co-belligerent (or to make it a 'co-belligerent' status), but Britain, looking ahead, sees advantages to getting non-maritime minor powers (like some of the German states, say) associated with the League. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The League formally issues a statement saying that they deny the existence of privateers and will treat all such as pirates. Because of slow changes in general opinion, the international community doesn't complain. They also issue a statement redefining 'neutrality' in war, which prohibits goods from embargoed nations from travelling on even neutral ships.[1] This makes Russia very annoyed, but Britain also orders all the excess grain that Russia has to offer (due to disruption in the Canadian grain supply with the war, and all the the Allied mouths to feed), so Russia's actions, for now, are limited to a strong protest. She does start exploring other options.[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 compare the 1856 Declaration of Paris. Unlike OTL, the two aspects are issued in two separate documents, as the League recognizes that many more nations will be prepared to sign onto the 'piracy' issue than the 'neutrality' one – especially since the neutrality provisions are SO weighted in Britain's favour...[/FONT]
 
Dathi

As Nugax and I said above I would expect this would bring some reaction from the other powers, either now or later. I can't see them being happy with the league increasing its domination like this and also increasing expenses for non-members, especially since there will be a fear that those costs won't go down after the war is over. Not saying its something that Britain and the league won't do but that I think it will prove to be counter-productive in the longer run. Could see something like the neutrality blocs that occurred in the past to seek to limit/prevent British access to various areas.

Given the knowledge of classical history and especially the Hellenistic period I would expect a few people will start drawing parallels between this league and the original Delian one. I.e. a pack between a number of states for mutual support and defence increasingly becomes an empire controlled by the most powerful state in it.

Steve


Since we were talking about the League...

League deliberations

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Shortly after the start of the war, the Neo-Delian League met in emergency session. Items on the agenda include[/FONT]

  • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]accepting the applications of Ireland, Canada and Norway[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]agreeing on a status for the war[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]increasing the various port fees and tariffs to help fund the war[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]creating war-emergency exemptions[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]creating a new category of 'friendly' nation[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]defining 'neutrality' and outlawing 'piracy'[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]We've already discussed the new members earlier.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Britain and Portugal (and new member Canada) want the League to declare war on the US or at least to make some statement that it is 'the League's war'. New member Norway protests strongly, as she CAN'T declare war on her own (that would be part of the Swedish/Union prerogative), and once the issue is raised, countries like Brazil, Uruguay and Chile decide that they don't want to be forced into future British wars, and side with Norway. Britain then proposes the language 'League sponsored war', but that hits most of the same problems. Everyone agrees that there should be SOME status, and the language 'League sanctioned' is finally accepted.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Because of the war, and to raise more money, the various tariffs and port fees charged to non-League shipping are increased, and interpretations of cabotage are strengthened. (Many of these charges will stay after the war – there's nothing so permanent as a temporary tax increase<g>.) This action will have repercussions down the line – France and the Netherlands are annoyed at the further restrictions on their merchant fleets (but see below).[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]However, given the massive increased need for shipping, the League also creates a special exemption. War materiel for League members for a League sanctioned war can be carried by any ship as if it were a League vessel, as long as over half of the shipment is war related. This mollifies the French and the Dutch for the moment, as they can actually ship more goods duty free. Still, they'll watch carefully what happens when the war is over, and consider their options.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The other thing that happens is that a new category of 'friendly' nation is created. This basically is created at this time to allow Spain to get the benefits of being an 'associate' member of the League without the 'junior' status that carries. The original thought was to specifically exempt Spain by name as a co-belligerent (or to make it a 'co-belligerent' status), but Britain, looking ahead, sees advantages to getting non-maritime minor powers (like some of the German states, say) associated with the League. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The League formally issues a statement saying that they deny the existence of privateers and will treat all such as pirates. Because of slow changes in general opinion, the international community doesn't complain. They also issue a statement redefining 'neutrality' in war, which prohibits goods from embargoed nations from travelling on even neutral ships.[1] This makes Russia very annoyed, but Britain also orders all the excess grain that Russia has to offer (due to disruption in the Canadian grain supply with the war, and all the the Allied mouths to feed), so Russia's actions, for now, are limited to a strong protest. She does start exploring other options.[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 compare the 1856 Declaration of Paris. Unlike OTL, the two aspects are issued in two separate documents, as the League recognizes that many more nations will be prepared to sign onto the 'piracy' issue than the 'neutrality' one – especially since the neutrality provisions are SO weighted in Britain's favour...[/FONT]
 
Dathi

As Nugax and I said above I would expect this would bring some reaction from the other powers, either now or later. I can't see them being happy with the league increasing its domination like this and also increasing expenses for non-members, especially since there will be a fear that those costs won't go down after the war is over. Not saying its something that Britain and the league won't do but that I think it will prove to be counter-productive in the longer run. Could see something like the neutrality blocs that occurred in the past to seek to limit/prevent British access to various areas.

Given the knowledge of classical history and especially the Hellenistic period I would expect a few people will start drawing parallels between this league and the original Delian one. I.e. a pack between a number of states for mutual support and defence increasingly becomes an empire controlled by the most powerful state in it.

Steve
OK, what I'm thinking is this:
The League doesn't prevent anyone shipping from their home port to a League port, it just charges extra. It DOES prevent anyone else from shipping between League ports - and more and more of the world is becoming league ports. Almost all of India, the southern half of south America, etc. China (canton being the only open port ATM) is considered a League controlled coast for these purposes.

Yes, some of the other powers are going to be annoyed. I propose that France and Russia will, after the war's end, create a new version of the 'League of Armed Neutrality ' cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_League_of_Armed_Neutrality

which will set up alternate rules for 'neutrality' so there will be two distinct sets of rules. It will be called the 'Peloponnesian League' by the same wags who hung the tag 'Delian League' on the British/Portuguese commercial alliance. (Being a coalition of largely land based powers...) Let's call this group the Coalition, or the Peloponnesians.

Precisely who joins these two organizations will be interesting. Right now, the southern half of South America, all of Central America, almost all of India and parts of Africa are firmly in the Delian camp. China won't be given a choice except to join the League camp (in a minor role, or even the British and Portuguese declare China waters to be theirs). Similarly for Japan in another few years.

Russia has no colonies, and little shipping; France has few colonies at this time, and her merchant marine is at a low ebb.

Spain owns the Philippines and bits of Africa; the Netherlands holds Indonesia (basically). If both these two powers lumped for the Peloponnesians, they'd be able to do something, but if not, the Delians will have hegemonic power on the world's oceans.

Sure, France can impose similar tariffs and fees on 'non-Coalition' ships in its ports - but if that's only French and Spanish ships, that's not going to do much - ESPECIALLY if it means that goods are landed in e.g. Amsterdam and then transshipped to France....

Hmmm... I can see Spain staying out of both, and playing middleman with massive smuggling....

One of the reasons for the new 'friendly nation' category, is that Britain thinks it can talk Hanover into joining as that, and giving the League an in on the Continent. Whether that works or not, remains to be seen.


Anyway, none of this is set in stone, and if you guys really object things may go back to what they were before the war. But I'd like to see what you guys think the French/Russian/whatever reaction would be.

Part of the problem for the coalition, is that the League already has much of the world's commerce under their control...

Thoughts, please.
 
Interesting, Daði. At this point, if Norway is in the Neo-Delian League (at some point, someone is going to come along with a better name), it could be possible that Sweden would follow - so as to take advantage of the markets which the NDL has. That, too, will have some knock-off effect, as there is now basically a "triangle" within Europe which would dominate the NDL - the UK, Sweden-Norway, and Portugal. Hence, as the war would progress, Norway wouldn't have any objections as Sweden is next door and now part of the NDL. Now that I think about it (and this would have to be consulted with AHP), but maybe there could be a way to also get the Ottomans in on the NDL.

Other than that, things are going to be pretty interesting.
 
Interesting, Daði. At this point, if Norway is in the Neo-Delian League (at some point, someone is going to come along with a better name), it could be possible that Sweden would follow - so as to take advantage of the markets which the NDL has. That, too, will have some knock-off effect, as there is now basically a "triangle" within Europe which would dominate the NDL - the UK, Sweden-Norway, and Portugal. Hence, as the war would progress, Norway wouldn't have any objections as Sweden is next door and now part of the NDL. Now that I think about it (and this would have to be consulted with AHP), but maybe there could be a way to also get the Ottomans in on the NDL.

Other than that, things are going to be pretty interesting.
Actually, the British are in good with the Ottomans right now. A decade or so ago they helped the Ottomans retake Syria from the marauding Mohammed Wali, ruler of Egypt (French supported). [Different ruler of Egypt, this guy is probably not Albanian. otherwise much like OTL] Yes, the Brits would like to get the Ottomans to be a 'friendly nation'.
 
Since we were talking about the League...

League deliberations

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Shortly after the start of the war, the Neo-Delian League met in emergency session. Items on the agenda include[/FONT]

  • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]accepting the applications of Ireland, Canada and Norway[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]agreeing on a status for the war[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]increasing the various port fees and tariffs to help fund the war[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]creating war-emergency exemptions[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]creating a new category of 'friendly' nation[/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]defining 'neutrality' and outlawing 'piracy'[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]We've already discussed the new members earlier.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Britain and Portugal (and new member Canada) want the League to declare war on the US or at least to make some statement that it is 'the League's war'. New member Norway protests strongly, as she CAN'T declare war on her own (that would be part of the Swedish/Union prerogative), and once the issue is raised, countries like Brazil, Uruguay and Chile decide that they don't want to be forced into future British wars, and side with Norway. Britain then proposes the language 'League sponsored war', but that hits most of the same problems. Everyone agrees that there should be SOME status, and the language 'League sanctioned' is finally accepted.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Because of the war, and to raise more money, the various tariffs and port fees charged to non-League shipping are increased, and interpretations of cabotage are strengthened. (Many of these charges will stay after the war – there's nothing so permanent as a temporary tax increase<g>.) This action will have repercussions down the line – France and the Netherlands are annoyed at the further restrictions on their merchant fleets (but see below).[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]However, given the massive increased need for shipping, the League also creates a special exemption. War materiel for League members for a League sanctioned war can be carried by any ship as if it were a League vessel, as long as over half of the shipment is war related. This mollifies the French and the Dutch for the moment, as they can actually ship more goods duty free. Still, they'll watch carefully what happens when the war is over, and consider their options.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The other thing that happens is that a new category of 'friendly' nation is created. This basically is created at this time to allow Spain to get the benefits of being an 'associate' member of the League without the 'junior' status that carries. The original thought was to specifically exempt Spain by name as a co-belligerent (or to make it a 'co-belligerent' status), but Britain, looking ahead, sees advantages to getting non-maritime minor powers (like some of the German states, say) associated with the League. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The League formally issues a statement saying that they deny the existence of privateers and will treat all such as pirates. Because of slow changes in general opinion, the international community doesn't complain. They also issue a statement redefining 'neutrality' in war, which prohibits goods from embargoed nations from travelling on even neutral ships.[1] This makes Russia very annoyed, but Britain also orders all the excess grain that Russia has to offer (due to disruption in the Canadian grain supply with the war, and all the the Allied mouths to feed), so Russia's actions, for now, are limited to a strong protest. She does start exploring other options.[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 compare the 1856 Declaration of Paris. Unlike OTL, the two aspects are issued in two separate documents, as the League recognizes that many more nations will be prepared to sign onto the 'piracy' issue than the 'neutrality' one – especially since the neutrality provisions are SO weighted in Britain's favour...[/FONT]
League-sanctioned wars is a good way to say the members of the Delian League who don't want to participate to become Anglo-Britain leaning neutrals.
The concept of friendly nation can be further used for economic partnerships with less traditional allies.

Yucatan can be helped achieve independence and become a League member or at least a friendly.
 
League-sanctioned wars is a good way to say the members of the Delian League who don't want to participate to become Anglo-Britain leaning neutrals.
The concept of friendly nation can be further used for economic partnerships with less traditional allies.

Yucatan can be helped achieve independence and become a League member or at least a friendly.
Yucatan will be encouraged to join the UPCA, which is already an associate member and heading fast for full membership.
 
Actually, the British are in good with the Ottomans right now. A decade or so ago they helped the Ottomans retake Syria from the marauding Mohammed Wali, ruler of Egypt (French supported). [Different ruler of Egypt, this guy is probably not Albanian. otherwise much like OTL] Yes, the Brits would like to get the Ottomans to be a 'friendly nation'.

Sounds good - though having the Ottomans as a full-fledged member would be ideal. And as for Sweden?
 
Sounds good - though having the Ottomans as a full-fledged member would be ideal. And as for Sweden?
Not sure about Sweden. By themselves, they're probably as likely to want to join the Coalition as the League. Let's just say there'll be some Scandian peninsular tension.

The other thing is that the liberals in the UK got 'liberal constitution' written in as a requirement for full membership. As I mentioned at the time, IIRC, to get the devolvement of sovereignty that the League implies, the government put together an eclectic coalition of Parliamentarians, and the liberal Whigs demanded that as a condition of their support. Thus neither the Ottomans nor the Swedes currently qualify for full membership.

Yes, that means that the governmental structures of Norway and Sweden are quite different. OTL as TTL.

As a reminder, what the Brits are really worried about is not 'democracy' in a modern sense, but a midling large electorate - basically merchants/middle class getting to vote. None of Britain, New England or Portugal, for instance has universal manhood sufferage.

And the League is very much set up on the principle of 'no representation without taxation', if you will:)
 
OK, what I'm thinking is this:
The League doesn't prevent anyone shipping from their home port to a League port, it just charges extra. It DOES prevent anyone else from shipping between League ports - and more and more of the world is becoming league ports. Almost all of India, the southern half of south America, etc. China (canton being the only open port ATM) is considered a League controlled coast for these purposes.

Yes, some of the other powers are going to be annoyed. I propose that France and Russia will, after the war's end, create a new version of the 'League of Armed Neutrality ' cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_League_of_Armed_Neutrality

which will set up alternate rules for 'neutrality' so there will be two distinct sets of rules. It will be called the 'Peloponnesian League' by the same wags who hung the tag 'Delian League' on the British/Portuguese commercial alliance. (Being a coalition of largely land based powers...) Let's call this group the Coalition, or the Peloponnesians.

Precisely who joins these two organizations will be interesting. Right now, the southern half of South America, all of Central America, almost all of India and parts of Africa are firmly in the Delian camp. China won't be given a choice except to join the League camp (in a minor role, or even the British and Portuguese declare China waters to be theirs). Similarly for Japan in another few years.

Russia has no colonies, and little shipping; France has few colonies at this time, and her merchant marine is at a low ebb.

Spain owns the Philippines and bits of Africa; the Netherlands holds Indonesia (basically). If both these two powers lumped for the Peloponnesians, they'd be able to do something, but if not, the Delians will have hegemonic power on the world's oceans.

Sure, France can impose similar tariffs and fees on 'non-Coalition' ships in its ports - but if that's only French and Spanish ships, that's not going to do much - ESPECIALLY if it means that goods are landed in e.g. Amsterdam and then transshipped to France....

Hmmm... I can see Spain staying out of both, and playing middleman with massive smuggling....

One of the reasons for the new 'friendly nation' category, is that Britain thinks it can talk Hanover into joining as that, and giving the League an in on the Continent. Whether that works or not, remains to be seen.


Anyway, none of this is set in stone, and if you guys really object things may go back to what they were before the war. But I'd like to see what you guys think the French/Russian/whatever reaction would be.

Part of the problem for the coalition, is that the League already has much of the world's commerce under their control...

Thoughts, please.

Dathi

The armed neutrality league was what I was trying to remember.

Its less that I object, i.e. say that the idea is unrealistic. More that I think the antagonism it is likely to cause will put a lot of backs up and encourage other groups to combine to form a counter block. If some of the large German states and after the war the US were to get together with the coalition and impose serious restrictions on league ships trading via their ports they would be hurt but so would the league and they might be angry enough to do something like that.

I know OTL most nations imposed high tariffs so their industries could complete with Britain. Fearing that you could see some form of trade block as well. You will probably get some of this anyway but likely to increase the probability and the speed and determination with which it is done if the league looks like its abusing its position of power.

A couple of comments/questions. If Britain is the leading power in opening up China, as OTL, then a counter block could make play of supporting China as a counter and seek preferential trade as a result.

Also you mentioned colonies. Has France move on N Africa TTL?

Steve

PS - How is a certain quartermaster doing in Canada? We don't seem to have heard about him since the shooting started.
 
The other thing is that the liberals in the UK got 'liberal constitution' written in as a requirement for full membership. As I mentioned at the time, IIRC, to get the devolvement of sovereignty that the League implies, the government put together an eclectic coalition of Parliamentarians, and the liberal Whigs demanded that as a condition of their support. Thus neither the Ottomans nor the Swedes currently qualify for full membership.

Hmm, let's say that thanks to butterflies due to your 1790s POD, Selim III manages to push through a massive set of reforms, starting with the military (after quashing several revolts) and working from there, due to the fact that Selim III actually has competent people around him in the Sublime Porte. Thus, when Mahmud II takes over, a bulk of the reform has already been done, and it's just the remainder (including a liberal constitution) that needs to be reformed. Hence, an earlier Tanzimat in which everyone benefits. That, alone, should get the Ottomans close enough for full membership.

Just saying this, since I'm using similar ideas in Kuando el Rey Nimrod - hence, this is a spoiler alert.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top