It's alive!!!I cannot wait for more
Oh Happy Day
I'm so stoked to see this is back.
Thanks for the encouraging words, guys.
Canada Wank (YACW)
- Thread starter Dathi THorfinnsson
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for the encouraging words, guys.
Bavarian Raven
Banned
Would it be possible to get a map of N.A. along with the next updates? Hope I am not being too greedy here
Europe, 1831-1847 (part 1)
The Germanies
The effects of the revolts of 1830, followed by the Prussian invasion of Hesse, Braunschweig and Hannover, caused significant changes in the Germanies. Firstly, of course, the Prussian invasion made everyone in the Germanies wake up to the rising threat of Prussian power. Prussia was clearly the largest and most powerful individual German state (if one considers Austria's power to lie largely out of Germany), and its intent to USE that weight had now become obvious. Thus the other states became very wary of Prussian efforts to tie them up in military and economic nets (like customs unions). The attempt to force the other German states to her will (in the crushing of the Belgian revolt) resulted massive LOSS of Prussian power, both in the loss of Belgium and Rheinprovinz as parts of the empire, but also in loss of prestige. Moreover, the Prussian propensity for naked aggression had been exposed, and they made enemies of all their neighbours (except Russia). The treaty at the end of the war even required they limit their army size.[1]
The second major effect that followed from the Prussian threat was on domestic politics in the other states. Several of the Rhein states had had minor uprisings, too, demanding reforms. But to meet the Prussian invasion effectively, the governments made far greater concessions to the liberal reformers than they would have liked[2]. Even Austria, who would normally have strongly supported repression of the reformers, had to accept them (in other states, of course) as the lesser of two evils, in the face of Prussian militarism.
The third major result was the increased rapprochement among the various non-Prussian German states. While Austria wasn't about to make any liberal reforms, they did work well with the other German states in repelling Prussian aggression, and that laid the groundwork for further amicable relations and increasing trade ties. In fact, the Netherlands and Denmark, normally not part of the German sphere, increased their discussions (political, economic and military) with the German Confederation. Not only had those countries taken part in the fighting against Prussia, but the kings of both countries were actually part of the German Confederation (although as rulers of Ostfriesland, and Schleswig and Pomerania, respectively).[3]
A fourth result, as an extension of the last, was the increasing economic ties between between the various Trade and Customs unions. While there wouldn't be any immediate move toward unifying them all, various minor irritants were removed, the South German measures were adopted more widely, and the Gulder and (Nord)Thaler became legal units of account all along the Rhein, not just in their own trade groups. While the three major trade associations didn't merge, they did try hard to find common ground on anything they could, and to increase inter-blok trade. In particular, they made massive strides to reduce the number of local systems of weights and measures, and to unify various petty regulations.[4] When railways arrived, they very quickly adopted a uniform gauge. One future effect of these reduced barriers and hence increased trade, was a small increase in wealth, an increased influence of merchants and the middle class, and increased travel between states, which would lead to an increased sense of a common German nationality.
Fifthly, to prevent a recurrence of the troubles with coordination of the various anti-Prussian forces, they created a pan-Confederation military force, of units seconded to the Bund[5]. This at least got units of the various State militaries working together, and, nominally, under the command of the Bund. While this is not anything like a Bund army, which would need more changes to the constitution than can be agreed on, it's a start. Because it's voluntary, you rarely see Prussian units taking part, and Austrian units aren't common – but do coordinate.
Sixthly, the rest of the Bund managed to pass small changes to the Bund's constitution to strengthen it. Not many, as, even though Prussia has temporarily been suspended, Austria was leery of being tied down, and, in fact, most of the rulers of the small powers didn't want to give up any more sovereignty than they had to. Moreover, everyone wanted Prussia back, if they'd behave, so measures that would gratuitously annoy Prussia were to be avoided. Prussia's suspension was to to get her to play nicely, not to make her leave.
Seventhly, the coalescing Rhine-based trade groups are increasingly friendly to Britain. Not only were most of the royalty related by blood, but the increased emphasis on trade and industrialization in these groups made Britain a natural partner. Especially as almost all external trade would go down the Rhein and out to or at least past Britain.
The one major negative result of all these changes was that growing anti-Prussian group lent itself easily to Prussian propaganda. The League of English Princesses[6], The Confederation of the Rhine (referencing the hated Napoleonic imposed state – which works because of the similar areas involved, and French influence and presence, with 2 French princes on Bund thrones); French lapdogs, English lapdogs (Schoßhündchen). The biggest problem for Prussian propaganda was actually narrowing the focus of their insults. As it happened, the scattershot nature of the mutually inconsistent accusations lessened the sting of them.
–
1 this analysis 'naked Prussian aggression' is obviously from a non-Prussian standpoint. Prussia maintained she was just attempting to put down a revolt within her own internationally agreed borders, and that Hesse and Braunschweig were the ones violating understood rules. And that the other German states attacked Prussia, she didn't attack them. Objectively, there is some truth to both sides, but the fact of the matter is that Prussia was the first one to cross someone else's border with armies.
2 OTL, those same protests occurred, but were crushed (eventually) due to a lack of an external threat.
3 OTL the German Confederation for a while had 3 foreign monarchs until 1837, as Hannover was in personal union with Britain until Victoria took power. Here, there's only 2. Well, 3 if you count Austria...
4 see the post 4 back about finances, weights and measures. They had already started that work, this increases the effort.
5 like OTL's European Reaction force, perhaps.
6 League of English Princesses (see list below);
The English connexions:
The Germanies
The effects of the revolts of 1830, followed by the Prussian invasion of Hesse, Braunschweig and Hannover, caused significant changes in the Germanies. Firstly, of course, the Prussian invasion made everyone in the Germanies wake up to the rising threat of Prussian power. Prussia was clearly the largest and most powerful individual German state (if one considers Austria's power to lie largely out of Germany), and its intent to USE that weight had now become obvious. Thus the other states became very wary of Prussian efforts to tie them up in military and economic nets (like customs unions). The attempt to force the other German states to her will (in the crushing of the Belgian revolt) resulted massive LOSS of Prussian power, both in the loss of Belgium and Rheinprovinz as parts of the empire, but also in loss of prestige. Moreover, the Prussian propensity for naked aggression had been exposed, and they made enemies of all their neighbours (except Russia). The treaty at the end of the war even required they limit their army size.[1]
The second major effect that followed from the Prussian threat was on domestic politics in the other states. Several of the Rhein states had had minor uprisings, too, demanding reforms. But to meet the Prussian invasion effectively, the governments made far greater concessions to the liberal reformers than they would have liked[2]. Even Austria, who would normally have strongly supported repression of the reformers, had to accept them (in other states, of course) as the lesser of two evils, in the face of Prussian militarism.
The third major result was the increased rapprochement among the various non-Prussian German states. While Austria wasn't about to make any liberal reforms, they did work well with the other German states in repelling Prussian aggression, and that laid the groundwork for further amicable relations and increasing trade ties. In fact, the Netherlands and Denmark, normally not part of the German sphere, increased their discussions (political, economic and military) with the German Confederation. Not only had those countries taken part in the fighting against Prussia, but the kings of both countries were actually part of the German Confederation (although as rulers of Ostfriesland, and Schleswig and Pomerania, respectively).[3]
A fourth result, as an extension of the last, was the increasing economic ties between between the various Trade and Customs unions. While there wouldn't be any immediate move toward unifying them all, various minor irritants were removed, the South German measures were adopted more widely, and the Gulder and (Nord)Thaler became legal units of account all along the Rhein, not just in their own trade groups. While the three major trade associations didn't merge, they did try hard to find common ground on anything they could, and to increase inter-blok trade. In particular, they made massive strides to reduce the number of local systems of weights and measures, and to unify various petty regulations.[4] When railways arrived, they very quickly adopted a uniform gauge. One future effect of these reduced barriers and hence increased trade, was a small increase in wealth, an increased influence of merchants and the middle class, and increased travel between states, which would lead to an increased sense of a common German nationality.
Fifthly, to prevent a recurrence of the troubles with coordination of the various anti-Prussian forces, they created a pan-Confederation military force, of units seconded to the Bund[5]. This at least got units of the various State militaries working together, and, nominally, under the command of the Bund. While this is not anything like a Bund army, which would need more changes to the constitution than can be agreed on, it's a start. Because it's voluntary, you rarely see Prussian units taking part, and Austrian units aren't common – but do coordinate.
Sixthly, the rest of the Bund managed to pass small changes to the Bund's constitution to strengthen it. Not many, as, even though Prussia has temporarily been suspended, Austria was leery of being tied down, and, in fact, most of the rulers of the small powers didn't want to give up any more sovereignty than they had to. Moreover, everyone wanted Prussia back, if they'd behave, so measures that would gratuitously annoy Prussia were to be avoided. Prussia's suspension was to to get her to play nicely, not to make her leave.
Seventhly, the coalescing Rhine-based trade groups are increasingly friendly to Britain. Not only were most of the royalty related by blood, but the increased emphasis on trade and industrialization in these groups made Britain a natural partner. Especially as almost all external trade would go down the Rhein and out to or at least past Britain.
The one major negative result of all these changes was that growing anti-Prussian group lent itself easily to Prussian propaganda. The League of English Princesses[6], The Confederation of the Rhine (referencing the hated Napoleonic imposed state – which works because of the similar areas involved, and French influence and presence, with 2 French princes on Bund thrones); French lapdogs, English lapdogs (Schoßhündchen). The biggest problem for Prussian propaganda was actually narrowing the focus of their insults. As it happened, the scattershot nature of the mutually inconsistent accusations lessened the sting of them.
–
1 this analysis 'naked Prussian aggression' is obviously from a non-Prussian standpoint. Prussia maintained she was just attempting to put down a revolt within her own internationally agreed borders, and that Hesse and Braunschweig were the ones violating understood rules. And that the other German states attacked Prussia, she didn't attack them. Objectively, there is some truth to both sides, but the fact of the matter is that Prussia was the first one to cross someone else's border with armies.
2 OTL, those same protests occurred, but were crushed (eventually) due to a lack of an external threat.
3 OTL the German Confederation for a while had 3 foreign monarchs until 1837, as Hannover was in personal union with Britain until Victoria took power. Here, there's only 2. Well, 3 if you count Austria...
4 see the post 4 back about finances, weights and measures. They had already started that work, this increases the effort.
5 like OTL's European Reaction force, perhaps.
6 League of English Princesses (see list below);
The English connexions:
- Elizabeth, 3rd daughter of George III married Frederick of Hesse-Homburg
- Sophia 5th daughter of George III married William II of Hesse-Kassel iTTL. OTL he married a Prussian princess. iOTL she never married, but ended up having an illegitimate child.... (iTTL, the princesses have a bit more chance to escape.)
- The Black Duke of Brunswick/Braunschweig is a son of Augusta (sister of George III)
- Hannover is ruled by William, an English royal duke.
- The recently deceased (1828) Queen of Württemberg was Charlotte, aunt of the new Queen of GB, her namesake.
I also missed it; I was going to comment but I'm being overworked this week and was exhausted.
Your "Germany" is evolving in an interesting, perhaps fundamentally non-Westphalian sort of way. It struck me that what the confederation, or conglomerate of overlapping federations, is, is highly dependent on different points of view of its different members. With Prussia, Austria, and even Denmark and the Netherlands in some sense all more or less members, the two great German powers and the two that strike us as non-German see it as a vehicle for their ambitions. But the smaller German principalities see it as a confederation to leverage each little state some of the status of a great power of Germany more or less united. Kingdoms like Bavaria are somewhere in the middle on this.
If the confederation(s) only wind up serving to divert rivalries between these far-flung states away from open warfare and toward diplomatic and political intrigue, that alone is quite a good accomplishment. And we know there is more than that alone.
OTL, nations like the Netherlands or Denmark had to be in or out, they couldn't exist in some shadowy quantum indeterminacy. The Westphalian paradigm of what a nation is made them indigestible by Germany as it were; both had distinct peculiar identities going back centuries or in Denmark's case the better part of a thousand years that prevented their being merged into some overall ideal German identity; for them to join the German Reich that evolved OTL would have required them to give up too much and could only have been the result of bloody conquest and severe repression for generations. Here though there seems to be some sort of softer boundaries, more room for them to be partly in and partly out. I wonder if even say Bohemia could wind up attached just as closely as either of these countries, despite the non-Germanic language and identity of the Czechs.
The more the confederation takes on some solid meaning of its own, even if it remains shadowy compared to a "proper" nation-state, the more confusing the lives of the timeline's cartographers is going to be!
Your "Germany" is evolving in an interesting, perhaps fundamentally non-Westphalian sort of way. It struck me that what the confederation, or conglomerate of overlapping federations, is, is highly dependent on different points of view of its different members. With Prussia, Austria, and even Denmark and the Netherlands in some sense all more or less members, the two great German powers and the two that strike us as non-German see it as a vehicle for their ambitions. But the smaller German principalities see it as a confederation to leverage each little state some of the status of a great power of Germany more or less united. Kingdoms like Bavaria are somewhere in the middle on this.
If the confederation(s) only wind up serving to divert rivalries between these far-flung states away from open warfare and toward diplomatic and political intrigue, that alone is quite a good accomplishment. And we know there is more than that alone.
OTL, nations like the Netherlands or Denmark had to be in or out, they couldn't exist in some shadowy quantum indeterminacy. The Westphalian paradigm of what a nation is made them indigestible by Germany as it were; both had distinct peculiar identities going back centuries or in Denmark's case the better part of a thousand years that prevented their being merged into some overall ideal German identity; for them to join the German Reich that evolved OTL would have required them to give up too much and could only have been the result of bloody conquest and severe repression for generations. Here though there seems to be some sort of softer boundaries, more room for them to be partly in and partly out. I wonder if even say Bohemia could wind up attached just as closely as either of these countries, despite the non-Germanic language and identity of the Czechs.
The more the confederation takes on some solid meaning of its own, even if it remains shadowy compared to a "proper" nation-state, the more confusing the lives of the timeline's cartographers is going to be!
I also missed it; I was going to comment but I'm being overworked this week and was exhausted.
Your "Germany" is evolving in an interesting, perhaps fundamentally non-Westphalian sort of way. It struck me that what the confederation, or conglomerate of overlapping federations, is, is highly dependent on different points of view of its different members. With Prussia, Austria, and even Denmark and the Netherlands in some sense all more or less members, the two great German powers and the two that strike us as non-German see it as a vehicle for their ambitions. But the smaller German principalities see it as a confederation to leverage each little state some of the status of a great power of Germany more or less united. Kingdoms like Bavaria are somewhere in the middle on this.
If the confederation(s) only wind up serving to divert rivalries between these far-flung states away from open warfare and toward diplomatic and political intrigue, that alone is quite a good accomplishment. And we know there is more than that alone.
OTL, nations like the Netherlands or Denmark had to be in or out, they couldn't exist in some shadowy quantum indeterminacy. The Westphalian paradigm of what a nation is made them indigestible by Germany as it were; both had distinct peculiar identities going back centuries or in Denmark's case the better part of a thousand years that prevented their being merged into some overall ideal German identity; for them to join the German Reich that evolved OTL would have required them to give up too much and could only have been the result of bloody conquest and severe repression for generations. Here though there seems to be some sort of softer boundaries, more room for them to be partly in and partly out. I wonder if even say Bohemia could wind up attached just as closely as either of these countries, despite the non-Germanic language and identity of the Czechs.
The more the confederation takes on some solid meaning of its own, even if it remains shadowy compared to a "proper" nation-state, the more confusing the lives of the timeline's cartographers is going to be!
Note: Denmark and the Netherlands are not members of the Confederation/Bund. Their kKINGS are. Iotl, not only were they members, but so was the the king of Britain until 1837 when Victoria took Britain and Ernest August Hannover. Here, of course, there is an increasing move toward constitutions, so the Union of Crowns will hopefully be less and less of an issue over time.
But, yes, it is a bit of a mess.
And yes, the Wilsonian concept of selfdetermination and neat nation states is not going to happen. Many national/ethnic aspirations are going to hit brick walls/or hopefully find other outlets.
Otoh, in much of central Europe there were few neat ethnic divisions anyway, so we might be able to avoid otls procrustean 'nation' states.
Glad to see the updates have returned!
What's happening in Central America (seeing as it hasn't fracutred apart like OTL), Mexico (with all dem extra rebels), and Canada (since post war wasn't covered quite extensively yet)?
What's happening in Central America (seeing as it hasn't fracutred apart like OTL), Mexico (with all dem extra rebels), and Canada (since post war wasn't covered quite extensively yet)?
dziękuję
Actually, it'll take a while to get there. I covered the 40s war in North America, and then realized that I had to go back to the 30s in Europe to figure out what would happen in '48 (Springtime of the Nations).
So, we've got a couple more update in Eurasia. Italy. The Ottomans and Egypt. The Far East. Whether I get to come back to the Americas before 1848 comes around, I don't know. We'll see. Probably a couple of posts, anyway.
as for what's already been discussed:
The building of the Nicaragua canal, and the generation of revenues therefrom, are helping hold the United (Kingdom, now) of Central America together. It's a VERY federal union, but the ties are currently stronger than the forces separating them.
Mexico had all those rebels iOTL. While they've lost Rio Bravo, they have kept a huge chunk of the interior. They, too, will settle down some. My intention is that they do do better than OTL. They had a LOT of potential that got squandered iOTL in incompetent dictatorships, revolts, etc. They won't do so incredibly well, but BNA/Canada is a lot less threatening as a neighbour than OTL's US was.
Mon Dieu! C'est incroyable, cette uchronie vive encore! Merci très beaucoup!
So, I went through and reread all 72 (!!) pages (mainly so that once I get a spinoff going, I can see what PODs I can use - it's been a while, can't you tell?), and I still like it. Glad to see you're still updating it, even with your son's medical issues - which I hope things have been getting better on. Can't wait to see more of what you're concocting, especially once you get back to North America.
So, I went through and reread all 72 (!!) pages (mainly so that once I get a spinoff going, I can see what PODs I can use - it's been a while, can't you tell?), and I still like it. Glad to see you're still updating it, even with your son's medical issues - which I hope things have been getting better on. Can't wait to see more of what you're concocting, especially once you get back to North America.
ctayfor
Monthly Donor
Wonderful timeline which I have just finished reading. I like it very much and subscribed pretty much as soon as I began reading it.
We used pounds, shillings and pence in NZ until 1967 and the NZ pound was precisely equal to a pound sterling (although an Australian pound was of a lower value, but pegged precisely against the pound sterling, and from 1933 until 1948 the NZ pound had been the same as the Australian pound). We (and the Aussies) went decimal by dividing a pound in half and made it equal two dollars. For several more years, our dollar was worth ten shillings sterling, then 50 pence (after the UK went to decimal currency by using the other metric option of keeping the pound and re-dividing it into 100 pence). Eventually both the NZ and Aussie dollars were floated against other currencies and lost their direct relationship with the pound sterling.
Various banks in Australia had issued banknotes from the early 19th century, which were used in the several Australian colonies and in NZ. By the later mid-1800s New Zealand banks were doing the same. Government-issued banknotes took over from the bank-issued ones in the 1930s (although I believe there were some government-issued Australian banknotes earlier, but it became exclusively government notes in the '30s).
UK coins (plus Canadian, Indian, South African and Australian-minted gold sovereigns) were standard throughout the colonies and even after dominion status, until Australia introduced its own coins in 1910. Both Australian and British coins circulated in NZ until the introduction of New Zealand's own designs in 1933. In the same way that the pounds were equal to each other, British, Australian and New Zealand coins were the same denominations, weights and silver content and only differentiated by the design on the reverse (the portrait of the monarch on the obverse was, of course, the same). Minor changes crept in, such as the fact that NZ and (I think) Australia never had a farthing (1/4 penny) and the UK introduced a brass threepence, where NZ and Aussie kept the smaller silver one.
I can see a similar evolution in BNA with locally produced banknotes and eventually identifiably local coinage. I would expect that under most circumstances the pound (sterling area) currencies would tend to retain the same value until the local economies became large enough to exert pressure to (perhaps) force them apart.
We used pounds, shillings and pence in NZ until 1967 and the NZ pound was precisely equal to a pound sterling (although an Australian pound was of a lower value, but pegged precisely against the pound sterling, and from 1933 until 1948 the NZ pound had been the same as the Australian pound). We (and the Aussies) went decimal by dividing a pound in half and made it equal two dollars. For several more years, our dollar was worth ten shillings sterling, then 50 pence (after the UK went to decimal currency by using the other metric option of keeping the pound and re-dividing it into 100 pence). Eventually both the NZ and Aussie dollars were floated against other currencies and lost their direct relationship with the pound sterling.
Various banks in Australia had issued banknotes from the early 19th century, which were used in the several Australian colonies and in NZ. By the later mid-1800s New Zealand banks were doing the same. Government-issued banknotes took over from the bank-issued ones in the 1930s (although I believe there were some government-issued Australian banknotes earlier, but it became exclusively government notes in the '30s).
UK coins (plus Canadian, Indian, South African and Australian-minted gold sovereigns) were standard throughout the colonies and even after dominion status, until Australia introduced its own coins in 1910. Both Australian and British coins circulated in NZ until the introduction of New Zealand's own designs in 1933. In the same way that the pounds were equal to each other, British, Australian and New Zealand coins were the same denominations, weights and silver content and only differentiated by the design on the reverse (the portrait of the monarch on the obverse was, of course, the same). Minor changes crept in, such as the fact that NZ and (I think) Australia never had a farthing (1/4 penny) and the UK introduced a brass threepence, where NZ and Aussie kept the smaller silver one.
I can see a similar evolution in BNA with locally produced banknotes and eventually identifiably local coinage. I would expect that under most circumstances the pound (sterling area) currencies would tend to retain the same value until the local economies became large enough to exert pressure to (perhaps) force them apart.
Last edited:
^ That makes a lot of sense for coinage. However, in the case of BNA - like in OTL - there were three different ratings based on the piece of eight (1 peso, or 8 reales, in Spanish American currency), rather than on sterling. These were:
*the Halifax rating, where £1 = 5/- (so 6 d. higher than the actual silver content, so as to prevent people from melting the coins), which was dominant in most of the Canadas at the time
*the York rating, where £1 = 8/- (making it equivalent to a peso), which was brought over by UELs into Upper Canada, where it persisted despite the Government preferring the Halifax rating instead)
*the "Standard" rating (for lack of a better term), where $1 = 4/2 (so at the same equivalence as the silver content of a piece of eight, aka the "Spanish dollar"), used mainly in the Caribbean as well as Newfoundland before the banking crash in the late 19th century which saw the Newfoundland dollar pegged to the Canadian one until 1949
So here we have options. Most likely, the Government is going to use the Halifax rating, whilst Newfoundland goes its own way. That, of course, leaves open what to do with the York rating.
*the Halifax rating, where £1 = 5/- (so 6 d. higher than the actual silver content, so as to prevent people from melting the coins), which was dominant in most of the Canadas at the time
*the York rating, where £1 = 8/- (making it equivalent to a peso), which was brought over by UELs into Upper Canada, where it persisted despite the Government preferring the Halifax rating instead)
*the "Standard" rating (for lack of a better term), where $1 = 4/2 (so at the same equivalence as the silver content of a piece of eight, aka the "Spanish dollar"), used mainly in the Caribbean as well as Newfoundland before the banking crash in the late 19th century which saw the Newfoundland dollar pegged to the Canadian one until 1949
So here we have options. Most likely, the Government is going to use the Halifax rating, whilst Newfoundland goes its own way. That, of course, leaves open what to do with the York rating.
Italy 1831-1847
Politics
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The revolutions of 1830 were disappointing - only mildly successful in achieving a few weak constitutions and other minor reforms, but almost totally unsuccessful at unifying Italy (the other goal of many of the demonstrations). And, indeed, some of the advances granted were effectively repealed, and the single 'unifying' step, the “Council of Italy” ended up being more a talking shop than a governing body[1]. However, despite the lack of progress, most of Italy was fairly quiet politically during this time. For example, mild discontent due to foreign rule in Austrian run Lombardy-Venetia was balanced by the growing economy there.[/FONT]
Change of Rulers
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Joachim Murat died in 1838, aged 71, and was succeeded by his son Achille in the Kingdom of Naples. This didn't change the direction of the Kingdom much, but did put a younger, less tired, less cynical king in power.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Pope Pius VIII died in 1845[2], and was succeeded by Pope Pius IX. Pius IX (often referred to as Pio Nono), was widely celebrated on his ascension to the Papal throne, as he was understood to be a liberal, and in favour of a united Italy. Indeed, immediately on ascending the throne, he freed many political prisoners, and followed that by handing the regional assemblies back some (local) power, which had been taken from them by Pius VIII once the crisis of 1830 was over.[/FONT]
Economics
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Economically, there was more movement. Industrialization started in the north (e.g. Turin and Milan) and in Naples[3]. Milan specialized in textile production, and got a head start in some ways, but by the 1840s factories were appearing in Naples and in multiple places in the north. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The prime showcase and example of the industrial revolution was, of course, the railroad. Even if Italy wasn't nearly as blessed with coal and iron ore as e.g. Britain, Belgium or Germany, buying rail and engines, and initially repairing them locally, and then building them, was entirely possible. The first rail laid in Italy was a short line south from Naples to Portici in 1839[4]. Naples then started construction on rail across the peninsula to its major Adriatic port of Bari[5] (completed in 1844), with connexions south to Taranto, north to Benevento (a Papal territory), and also heading north toward Rome. The second railroad in Italy was from Milan north to Monza the next year (1840).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Spurred by the Neapolitan rail effort, various other Italian states started building rail, too. Austria saw the value of rail for military use, and came up with a plan to connect Milan and Venice, her core Italian cities, by rail. Once the effort started for military purposes, merchants joined the push, wanting the connexion to improve trade. In 1842, the first leg of the Austrian project was completed - Padua to Venice (actually to Mestre on the landward side of the lagoon), and Milan-Treviglio started[6]. Also, in the same year, Rome started building south to meet the Neapolitan line, and northwest to Civitavecchia, its major port. This move was loudly criticized by the conservative Cardinal Capellari, who referred to railroads as “chemins d'enfer” (roads of hell), not “chemins de fer” (iron roads)[7]. In 1843, Rome started building (slowly) toward Ancona on the Adriatic coast to help tie the Papal States together, and the Milan-Treviglio segment was finished. In 1844 the Duchy of Parma started building from Parma east toward Bologna and west toward Piacenza, while the Papal RR's started moving out from Ancona both SW toward Rome and NW toward Bologna. Also, this year, Sardinia/Piedmont started building from Turin east to eventually connect to Genoa, which would connect their two major cities. And Pisa connected to Livorno, the coastal port. In 1846, the Parma-Piacenza rail was completed, and then work continued from there NW to Milan, and SW toward the Turin-Genoa line; and the Rome-Naples line was completed. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]By the end of 1847, there was continuous rail from Bologna to Piacenza; from Venice to Verona; from Milan to Bergamo and most of the way to Brescia; from Turin to Alessandria, whence it would turn south toward Genoa; from Pisa and Livorno to Florence; and from Civitavecchia to Taranto.[8][/FONT]
–
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 More successful than OTL, where the even fewer concessions were all clawed back. ITTL, they don't see that, and it's disappointing.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2 Remember Pius VIII is Bartolomeo Pacca, who was never Pope, iOTL. He actually lives a year longer as Pope iTTL than he did as cardinal iOTL. Pius IX (Pio Nono) is the same guy as OTL, [/FONT]Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti, just elected a year earlier. IOTL, he, too, freed political prisoners and instituted some (minor) political reforms on his ascension to the throne.
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3 in the North, this is identical to OTL. In the south, it's a major change. The House of Murat was very interested in developing their land, and iTTL, their reign wasn't cut short, and are still in power.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]4 Amazingly, given the reactionary idleness of the Bourbons, this is as OTL. They built the first rail in Italy – and then no more for years. Here, the early start is followed up. The Milan-Monza line is as OTL, and, again, a bit of an orphan – the Milan-Venice rail will go elsewhere (iTTL and iOTL).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]5 Joachim Murat had started expanding Bari as a major city and port. This trend will only continue iTTL, with the Murat dynasty still in power.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]6 the Padua-Venice line is as OTL, and was the 3rd rail line in OTL Italy. TTL, the Neapolitan lines are expanding faster. The Milan-Treviglia line is 3 years earlier than OTL.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]7 OTL, this man was elected pope as Gregory XVI, and so no rail was built in Papal territory until after his death. ITTL, Pius VIII is a little worried where some of these newfangled ideas might lead, but is interested in bettering the lot of his people. Especially if they stay quiet and obey him. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]8 For comparison, here are OTL's rail maps of 1861 and 1870[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Italia_ferrovie_1870_09_20.png[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Italia_ferrovie_1861.03.17.png[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Rail by the end of 1847 iTTL is very different from either. These at least label many of the cities mentioned. Parma, Modena, Bologna, Piacenza, Alessandria, Milan, Venice, Treviso, Padua, Verona, Vincenza, Genoa, Naples, Bari, Taranto, Rome, Civitavecchia. Obviously, “Torino” is “Turin”, “Firenze”, Florence, “Venezia”, Venice, “Padova”, Padua, etc.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1847 iTTL looks like a much sparser version of the 1861 map in the north, and pretty much like the 1870 map in the south.[/FONT]
Politics
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The revolutions of 1830 were disappointing - only mildly successful in achieving a few weak constitutions and other minor reforms, but almost totally unsuccessful at unifying Italy (the other goal of many of the demonstrations). And, indeed, some of the advances granted were effectively repealed, and the single 'unifying' step, the “Council of Italy” ended up being more a talking shop than a governing body[1]. However, despite the lack of progress, most of Italy was fairly quiet politically during this time. For example, mild discontent due to foreign rule in Austrian run Lombardy-Venetia was balanced by the growing economy there.[/FONT]
Change of Rulers
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Joachim Murat died in 1838, aged 71, and was succeeded by his son Achille in the Kingdom of Naples. This didn't change the direction of the Kingdom much, but did put a younger, less tired, less cynical king in power.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Pope Pius VIII died in 1845[2], and was succeeded by Pope Pius IX. Pius IX (often referred to as Pio Nono), was widely celebrated on his ascension to the Papal throne, as he was understood to be a liberal, and in favour of a united Italy. Indeed, immediately on ascending the throne, he freed many political prisoners, and followed that by handing the regional assemblies back some (local) power, which had been taken from them by Pius VIII once the crisis of 1830 was over.[/FONT]
Economics
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Economically, there was more movement. Industrialization started in the north (e.g. Turin and Milan) and in Naples[3]. Milan specialized in textile production, and got a head start in some ways, but by the 1840s factories were appearing in Naples and in multiple places in the north. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The prime showcase and example of the industrial revolution was, of course, the railroad. Even if Italy wasn't nearly as blessed with coal and iron ore as e.g. Britain, Belgium or Germany, buying rail and engines, and initially repairing them locally, and then building them, was entirely possible. The first rail laid in Italy was a short line south from Naples to Portici in 1839[4]. Naples then started construction on rail across the peninsula to its major Adriatic port of Bari[5] (completed in 1844), with connexions south to Taranto, north to Benevento (a Papal territory), and also heading north toward Rome. The second railroad in Italy was from Milan north to Monza the next year (1840).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Spurred by the Neapolitan rail effort, various other Italian states started building rail, too. Austria saw the value of rail for military use, and came up with a plan to connect Milan and Venice, her core Italian cities, by rail. Once the effort started for military purposes, merchants joined the push, wanting the connexion to improve trade. In 1842, the first leg of the Austrian project was completed - Padua to Venice (actually to Mestre on the landward side of the lagoon), and Milan-Treviglio started[6]. Also, in the same year, Rome started building south to meet the Neapolitan line, and northwest to Civitavecchia, its major port. This move was loudly criticized by the conservative Cardinal Capellari, who referred to railroads as “chemins d'enfer” (roads of hell), not “chemins de fer” (iron roads)[7]. In 1843, Rome started building (slowly) toward Ancona on the Adriatic coast to help tie the Papal States together, and the Milan-Treviglio segment was finished. In 1844 the Duchy of Parma started building from Parma east toward Bologna and west toward Piacenza, while the Papal RR's started moving out from Ancona both SW toward Rome and NW toward Bologna. Also, this year, Sardinia/Piedmont started building from Turin east to eventually connect to Genoa, which would connect their two major cities. And Pisa connected to Livorno, the coastal port. In 1846, the Parma-Piacenza rail was completed, and then work continued from there NW to Milan, and SW toward the Turin-Genoa line; and the Rome-Naples line was completed. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]By the end of 1847, there was continuous rail from Bologna to Piacenza; from Venice to Verona; from Milan to Bergamo and most of the way to Brescia; from Turin to Alessandria, whence it would turn south toward Genoa; from Pisa and Livorno to Florence; and from Civitavecchia to Taranto.[8][/FONT]
–
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 More successful than OTL, where the even fewer concessions were all clawed back. ITTL, they don't see that, and it's disappointing.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2 Remember Pius VIII is Bartolomeo Pacca, who was never Pope, iOTL. He actually lives a year longer as Pope iTTL than he did as cardinal iOTL. Pius IX (Pio Nono) is the same guy as OTL, [/FONT]Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti, just elected a year earlier. IOTL, he, too, freed political prisoners and instituted some (minor) political reforms on his ascension to the throne.
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3 in the North, this is identical to OTL. In the south, it's a major change. The House of Murat was very interested in developing their land, and iTTL, their reign wasn't cut short, and are still in power.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]4 Amazingly, given the reactionary idleness of the Bourbons, this is as OTL. They built the first rail in Italy – and then no more for years. Here, the early start is followed up. The Milan-Monza line is as OTL, and, again, a bit of an orphan – the Milan-Venice rail will go elsewhere (iTTL and iOTL).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]5 Joachim Murat had started expanding Bari as a major city and port. This trend will only continue iTTL, with the Murat dynasty still in power.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]6 the Padua-Venice line is as OTL, and was the 3rd rail line in OTL Italy. TTL, the Neapolitan lines are expanding faster. The Milan-Treviglia line is 3 years earlier than OTL.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]7 OTL, this man was elected pope as Gregory XVI, and so no rail was built in Papal territory until after his death. ITTL, Pius VIII is a little worried where some of these newfangled ideas might lead, but is interested in bettering the lot of his people. Especially if they stay quiet and obey him. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]8 For comparison, here are OTL's rail maps of 1861 and 1870[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Italia_ferrovie_1870_09_20.png[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Italia_ferrovie_1861.03.17.png[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Rail by the end of 1847 iTTL is very different from either. These at least label many of the cities mentioned. Parma, Modena, Bologna, Piacenza, Alessandria, Milan, Venice, Treviso, Padua, Verona, Vincenza, Genoa, Naples, Bari, Taranto, Rome, Civitavecchia. Obviously, “Torino” is “Turin”, “Firenze”, Florence, “Venezia”, Venice, “Padova”, Padua, etc.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1847 iTTL looks like a much sparser version of the 1861 map in the north, and pretty much like the 1870 map in the south.[/FONT]
Italy and Germany will be 'sort of' unified by the end of the 1848 unrest. Germany will include neither Austria nor Prussia, what ive been calling a kleinstdeutsche lösung, at least for now. Otoh, its going to be a real federal empire, not just a greater prussia.
Similarly, Italy will get most of what she wants, but not all. Again, in 1848 rather than 1860 or 1871.
Since I have a horrible time keeping track of this TL, I'll bet you guys find it impossible.
So.... I've started work on a ToC in the Wiki entry for this TL, and hope that helps us all.
http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/doku.php/timelines/canadawank#toc
So.... I've started work on a ToC in the Wiki entry for this TL, and hope that helps us all.
http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/doku.php/timelines/canadawank#toc
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Though the ToC is much appreciated.
- Status