A Plethora of Princes - (Thread 4) : Twisting in the sun

[Grey Wolf]

Sorry it took me awhile...as to north south tensions...

Senate balance is going to be key here. So far, there are 14 slave states. I'm uncertain how where your POD effects some states admission, but there were 13 free states prior to 1945 or so. Iowa is going to gain statehood in 1846, Wisconsin in 1848, Minnesota in 1858, Oregon in 1859, and Kansas in 1861. Kansas *might* be able to go slave as a compromise, but it won't have enough people for quite awhile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1844

The US in OTL 1844

This is the departure point for the USA in the ATL more or less, despite earlier events. Its the states they don't get and the territories that they don't acquire that are important.

By 1852 OTL we have this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1852-Large.png

Thus you can see Iowa and Wisconsin as states

By 1856 OTL it is at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1856-Large.png

now, the questions which come to mind about the earlyt 1850s are :-

1. Without the boon of ex-Mexican territory would some of the statehood movements in other territories be speeded up, or were they going as fast as they could ?

2. With Northern Oregon (British Columbia), in play how does this affect things, or does it not alter things at all really ?

3. What is the population level required for statehood and when was this achieved in the various territories ? Did they move for statehood straight away, or were there delays ? I know Utah/Deseret had a long battle, did others not move as fast as was possible ?

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Bright day
Okay, my book says monday, March the 13 about thousands people converged before the Lower House of Council (how to translate?) because petition of liberal burghers was on as topic of day. Part of the crowd entered, whereas Adolf Fishhof (doctor at Common Hospital [ah those translations] had a rousing speech and one student read week old Kossuth's speech. After that when people started dispersing, Archduke Albrecht attacked with troops attacked , killed five, and what zou wrote happened.

Buit first constitution was not enough, it was not good as all power was in hands of ruler and ministres only barely checked by Royal Concil (composed of House of Lords and House of Commons, with only wealthy being able to vote). Because of that another revolution happened. Results: One chambred Council of Realm(? Ugh hates terminology) that was elected with wide-spread lections wer ordered to made it. Also Austrians were allowed to go to Frankfurt. And also Ferdinand left Vienna for Olmutz.

It is question, if this does not happen at all, there were some tensions that had to be resolved, be it Kolowrat, Auersperg or Taafe. But I very much dount that we will see Bach in this timeline.
Argh, I will think about it more, promise...

Removing the Paris 1848 stimulus I don't see events in Vienna going down the OTL path. Oh, they MIGHT do, but in this ATL one has to gamble with possibilities rather than probabilities (as decided by whom anyway ?)

I don't think this means that the mini-shake up does not come at all. Metternich is getting old, Ferdinand is not exactly a top-drawer ruler, and Austria may well begin to feel a bit left out of things. A shake-up in the Eastern Mediterranean could well impact on Austria as they could be seen to be weakening in their position

Grey Wolf

 

[Gladi]

Removing the Paris 1848 stimulus I don't see events in Vienna going down the OTL path. Oh, they MIGHT do, but in this ATL one has to gamble with possibilities rather than probabilities (as decided by whom anyway ?)

I don't think this means that the mini-shake up does not come at all. Metternich is getting old, Ferdinand is not exactly a top-drawer ruler, and Austria may well begin to feel a bit left out of things. A shake-up in the Eastern Mediterranean could well impact on Austria as they could be seen to be weakening in their position

Grey Wolf

I fully accept that, no hard feelings, right?
The probabilities are there because you only removed the spark, the people fighting in the strees were butterflied away right now, but not all reasons why they were fighting. It will certainly be interesting to watch it all unfolds.

 

[Grey Wolf]

India - 1836 the year of decision

I've been trying to work out India, oh my fluffy rabbit !

The key players are :-

Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Lahore
Gulab Singh who becomes his jagirdar in 1803 and lives several decades
Zorawar Singh Kahluria, Gulab Singh's talented general.

The OTL timeline is of course knocked off track by the British Civil War of 1832-1836. I have India generally static in that period, consolidated and not at all adventurous, but loyal to King Ernest I Augustus. Of course, this causes a major shock to the system in 1836 with the Radical-Reformist victory in the UK. I see a convulsion within India, with the new commanding officiers and government officials running up against entrenched old-style Royalists. I see rebellions, often involving native rulers, mutinies of troops who remain loyal to the old king, and general disharmony. This is nothing like OTL's late-1850s Indian Mutiny because it is instigated by and waged by recalcitrant white officers and soldiers who do not take well to the drastic changes thrust upon them. I see the new regime eventually win, but Britain is thus hamstrung in this period, and the clash with the USA occurring at the end of the 1830s does not help the situation as the new government in London has no time or money for unexpected Indian adventures.

In OTL, Gulab Singh (who would eventually emerge as ruler of Jammu and Kashmir as a vassal of Lahore) achieved the following :-
1821 - conquest of Kishtwar
1834 - conquest of Ladakh
1841 - conquest of Baltistan

However, in OTL, Gulab Singh wanted in 1836 to continue after the conquest of Ladakh with an invasion of Tibet and a grab for those provinces between Ladakh and Nepal, with the three-fold aim of
-1- establishing a line of forts between Ladakh and Nepal and preventing British encirclement
-2- establishing a defensive alliance with Nepal
-3- ensuring a supply of shawl wool vital to Kashmir's economy

The Maharaja of Lahore vetoed his action in 1836 for fear of Chinese, and especially British reprisals. In OTL, Gubal Singh was to try it again in 1841, after China had been weakened by the Anglo-Chinese War.

However, ATL's exist in order to change things and people do not always make the best decisions. In OTL the 1841 invasion ended in dramatic defeat, but the situation was saved by a Tibetan defeat in Ladakh.

In the ATL, I have the Maharaja taking advantage of British weakness in 1836 and sanctioning the invasion. OTL one of its main reasons for failures was Zorawar Singh Kahluria's contempt for the Tibetans which led to his deploying inadequate forces, the fight dragging on into Winter where his troops were ill-prepared and his eventual death.

I propose for the ATL that five years earlier he is more cautious. Events of OTL that may have gone to his head (including his remarkable turn-around of the Baltistan campaign) have not occurred, and both he himself and the state he represents are thus that bit less than in OTL. In addition, Tibet is going to be rocking from seeing Ladakh just immediately previously conquered.

Its certainly not out of the bounds of possibility that in 1836 Zorawar Singh Kahluria's army can defeat Tibet and impose a settlement. I would expect Nepal to jump in at the scent of victory and demand restitution of the provinces lost to Tiebt in 1792.

Thus, with Britain at its weakest Lahore/Jammu-Kashmir (however we define these states) has established a land link to Nepal, forged an alliance and stands strong on the Himalayas.

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

The Sino-Sikh War 1842-1845

My initial thoughts were

-1- Baltistan survives longer
-2- The causes of the First Afghan War and the First Sikh War are altered

But...

Without Palmerston, I see British fear of Russia in the immediate post-civil-war period as more or less an irrelevance. After the convulsions of 1836, the British in India are far more concerned at hanging on and stabilising the current situation than in acting aggressively against potential Russian threats. In addition, with the quasi-war against the USA in progress, there is no money for more than maintaining the status quo.

http://www.jmhare.com/history3.htm
for OTL

The Earl of Auckland btw never gets to India in the ATL - the year of his OTL arrival was slap-bang in the middle of the ATL British civil war which is where he remains, rises to some prominence and will eventually become Prime Minister for a few years before his death in 1849.

What looks likely is an enlarged Russo-Persian War, which leaves Ranjit Singh with Peshawar and brings a decade of instability to Afghanistan. To be honest greater detail risks one getting bogged down in every part of the world !

But when we come to the causes of the First Sikh War we have a different story. Britain can sit out the First Afghan War because their strategic imperatives have been completely altered by the British Civil War and the 1836 chaos in India, but the underlying causes of the First Sikh War bring one thing to the fore :-

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/19cen/sikhwar1.html

The EIC was in financial difficulties and had entered a policy of aggressive expansion, trying to fill its deficit with the riches of the conquered provinces.

The East India Company still exists, still rules a substantial portion of India and its strategic imperative will most certainly match this - financial hardship. I can see its policy of adventurism as a reaction to official British retrenchment.

That is probably the only area where there is convergence. I doubt the EIC in the ATL is strong enough to conquer Sindh, but even so another factor raises its head...

In the early 1840s China was hamstrung by the war with Britain (known as the Opium War or the First China War or numerous other things, 1839-1842) which seriously weakened it, especially as regards its ability to deploy armies to its extremities. But this war has not occurred in the ATL. Instead, China has been smarting over Tibet's defeat in 1836 and in the corresponding period it launches an invasion into the lost territories

This will completely change things in India and from here on most of OTL will simply be unobtainable. One could postulate rising Anglo-Sikh tensions due to the activities of the EIC, perhaps in Sindh where conquest has not occurred but equally unsubtle blunt tactics are trying to bludgeon the state into acquiescence.

Combine this with China on the frontiers in c1842, and we have a mega-war brewing... But this is not a Britain that wants to take a major part in a mega-war in Northern India. I will posit that British involvement is limited to threatening war, and gaining Sindh as the price of peace.

Instead, we have the Sino-Sikh War of 1842-45...

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

I guess no one's an expert on Egyptian or Indian history, lol, but by the read count I can see people are reading this anyway !

Anyone got any thoughts, however uninformed, about a Sino-Sikh war ?

Grey Wolf

 

[Nicole]

It's very interesting.. I'd post more, but my knowledge on the Himalaya region is basically limited to a few random tidbits on Nepal, and a few things on Tibet- None of which have anything to do with a possible war. Oh, and Mount Everest is really big.

However, I'm sill interested in seeing what will happen next. Sorry I can't give more help.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Mehmed Ali didn't go insane. He had always had very serious anger-management issues, and for the last several years of his reign he was just senile. He abdicated a year before his death.

There really isn't a capable successor until Ismail in the 1860s. If you want to have a stronger Egypt you will probably need to have it move towards having a strong minister of some sort spring up.

The Ottoman army that was crushed was a provincial force whose commander attacked without orders on his own initiative, against the wishes of the Sultan. I think you may be assuming this was the main Ottoman army. While different great power relations could lead to the retention of Syria, it will be dependent upon the French, who have very strong interests there, and the depth of their control is likely to be greater in this scenario. As the Egyptians were less adept than the Ottomans at juggling multi-sectarian environments, inevitable revolts are likely to bring French military intervention.

Another issue to remain aware of is that Egypt's military power vis-a-vis its neighbors will have to decline over the course of the 19th c as everyone else's militaries modernize. In the 1820s the Egyptians were able to sweep through the Sudan, and overmatched the Ottomans, whereas in the Crimean War, just 5 years after Mehmed Ali's death, Egyptian troops were considered worthless, albeit in an environment not terribly friendly to people far, far from home used to hot, arid climates.

The Ottoman Empire without the Hejaz in the long-term will be quite different, but I'm not sure if it would be less stable. Egypt's successes were a strong impetus for Ottoman reform, and that is accentuated in your TL, but on the other hand, losing most of the non-Turkish Muslim population and the legitimacy of the claim to the Caliphate will send the empire on a different trajectory. If Egypt retains its status as an autonomous part of the Ottoman Empire this change might be lesser, but if wholly independent, the Ottomans will have to look for new sources of legitimacy, this might lead to "Ottoman" nationalism.

What has been going on in the Eastern Mediterranean since the start of the 1840s ?

The Ottoman Empire remains under the terms of the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi

However, the bonds of this treaty will have been pressed sorely by the aftermath of the Syrian revolt where Ibrahim crushed an Ottoman army and re-established control. Mohammed Ali remained in possession of Syria, and France's proto-alliance with Egypt stabilised that state.

At the same time, the death of Sultan Mahmud of the Ottoman Empire can be expected to have weakened that state, as its OTL boost from seeing Mohammed Ali beaten off by Britain and Austria has not happened. Despite Russia's distractions in the Caucasus, the death of Mahmud would usher in a degree of instability and Russia's obligations under Unkiar Skelessi would probably come into play. One can posit it either way, but doing so this way probably makes more sense for the long-term interest of this ATL.

One can also see the 1840s progressing without too much to mention. The problem comes in 1848 with Mohammed Ali's apparent insanity (temporary ?). Why did Ibrahim die in 1848 ? Had his life on campaign beaten him down ?

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Interesting comments, John, thank you

I think the extent of French interest and influence may well be under-stated and indeed generally not known until a crisis sets in when it becames apparent. Britain certainly has its eye off the ball, and Russia can make assumptions but not know the truth (a bit like British thoughts about Russian aims OTL)

One note about Egyptian arms is that the c1841 agreement required them to basically disarm the majority of thier fleet and disband the most important part of the arsenal. Without this they remain not only capable of building ships of the line on their own but of keeping up with a goodly number of technological developments (they coppered one IIRC). With French experts already in the arsenal in OTL this would grow in an ATL, and the arsenal would become the driving force of Egyptian military development

I really don't think this timeline can talk longterm as we are only just getting properly into the 1850s, and only when I've tied up loose ends in India and China.

Grey Wolf

 

[Tom_B]

I posted this idea elsewhere but will do here as well. I would see the Russians being very supportive of the Sikhs as it undermines both the British and the Chinese.

TOm

 

[Grey Wolf]

I posted this idea elsewhere but will do here as well. I would see the Russians being very supportive of the Sikhs as it undermines both the British and the Chinese.

Tom

Yes, me too as it happens

I am inclining towards the Sikhs getting a tactical draw and thus a strategic win from the Sino-Sikh War

I am thinking I can create some chaos in China, involve the European powers in a sideshow that nevertheless has repurcussions

Thus, I can greatly change Central Asia whilst putting China back on an OTL analogue from where the lack of the Opium War dislodged it

Grey Wolf

 

[Tom_B]

Yes, me too as it happens

I am inclining towards the Sikhs getting a tactical draw and thus a strategic win from the Sino-Sikh War

I am thinking I can create some chaos in China, involve the European powers in a sideshow that nevertheless has repurcussions

Thus, I can greatly change Central Asia whilst putting China back on an OTL analogue from where the lack of the Opium War dislodged it

Grey Wolf

The terrain would make that outcome plausible. Both sides fumbling in mountain warfare but the Sikh learning curve is a notch better. The Tibetans could be a factor in the outcome. Perhaps the Sikhs give them assurances and help them. Some possibility of the Sikhs reneging down the road. I can see there nation doing very well for a generation then succumbing to hubris and getting in big trouble.

Tom

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Egyptian and Ottoman industrial efforts were generally a large disappointment as they was no general rapid industrial development possible - I would not overestimate the importance of Egyptian arsenals, especially as technology becomes more sophisticated. The French also NEVER encouraged industry in the Mid East, and would likely do everything in their power to increase Egyptian dependence upon France - and are likely to be very successful without the British for the Egyptians to play them against. The French generally promoted the interests of Christian minorities, for instance the Maronites of Lebanon - and likely the Copts in Egypt itself.

This scenario will also likely make the Ottomans more dependent upon Russia, which is interesting.

At some point the British are going to have to engage as a virtual French dominion over Egypt is a serious threat to India, not to mention Russian protection of the Ottoman Empire.

Interesting comments, John, thank you

I think the extent of French interest and influence may well be under-stated and indeed generally not known until a crisis sets in when it becames apparent. Britain certainly has its eye off the ball, and Russia can make assumptions but not know the truth (a bit like British thoughts about Russian aims OTL)

One note about Egyptian arms is that the c1841 agreement required them to basically disarm the majority of thier fleet and disband the most important part of the arsenal. Without this they remain not only capable of building ships of the line on their own but of keeping up with a goodly number of technological developments (they coppered one IIRC). With French experts already in the arsenal in OTL this would grow in an ATL, and the arsenal would become the driving force of Egyptian military development

I really don't think this timeline can talk longterm as we are only just getting properly into the 1850s, and only when I've tied up loose ends in India and China.

Grey Wolf

 

[Hierophant]

I like this TL Grey. Keep it up.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Patterns of Force

Patterns of Force

This is how I kind of see Alternate History, with events from different directions impacting on each other until history settles into a new stream and everything makes sense again.

The Sino-Sikh War 1842-1845 results in a strategic victory for the Sikhs. It is followed over the next few years by the conquest of Baltistan.

Britain, in the form of the East India Company, managed to fully acquire Sindh as compensation for Sikh gains but the inherent weakness in the EIC is obvious in London. The early 1850s sees Britain decide to wind up both the East India Company and the Hudson Bay Company and bring their assets fully under the crown. This provokes a crisis in Russell's government, with mercantile and conservative interests rebelling, and elections called which return a Radical majority. Returned to power, William Lovett completes the reforms begun by his predecessor.

This shake-up, whilst strengthening the British position in those parts of India already under their influence again sets in place a period of retrenchment, something which is exacerbated by a Radical government uninterested in extending British control on the sub-continent, and increasingly thrust into crisis by events in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Meanwhile, in China, the joint forces of the strategic defeat to the Sikhs, and Anglo-French probing on the commercial front produces upheaval and instability. Tibet is the most affected as both the Sikhs and Nepal have seized areas of its territory. But over the next decade it affects Dzungaria and Kashgaria (modern Sinkiang), but we will get to these in time. This is mainly to set China back on a course roughly analogous to OTL but with different causes and impetus.

Sometimes history gives one a headache !

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Winding up thread 4

To wind up thread 4 we must address California. The gold rush has been delayed in this ATL due to the non-conquest of the state, and of the New Mexico territories, by the USA. The fact that Mexico still holds them, and that much of the land in between California and the USA is now under Mormon rule, basically makes the only route in for imigrants that from the North. There has also been another pull on where these immigrants go, that being the fact that the USA owns Oregon up to the 54' 40"line, thus effectively adding what will become a new state to its territory over OTL. Vancouver would certainly be attractive. I am also thinking that this may well in a couple of decades advance the population sufficiently in this area that the Klondike gold rush occurs substantially earlier than OTL, but that is for the future.

However, there is gold in California and it is going to be found. I don't think a ten year delay is that unreasonable in the circumstances, so we're looking at events of the later 1850s and as we are still bogged down in the early 1850s I will leave the issue for a later time.

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

I like this TL Grey. Keep it up.

Thank you, I am trying to

One runs into the problem of the world being rather a big place, and that events in one area impact those elsewhere, so that eventually you find yourself having to juggle a dozen balls at once, especially true in trying to work out what decisions a government may make - you need to know all of its strategic situations around the globe, and also then take into account its political make-up. I see the Radicals in the UK as being primarily focused on things at home. Thus, when they are in power the empire doesn't so much stagnate as retrench. Bringing the EIC lands under crown control, and also abolishing the HBC and bringing Ruperts Land under direct control are reformist moves as well. Although started by Russell, the backlash of entrenched interests bringing down his government is more or less a goad to the Radicals to finish the job.

Grey Wolf

 

[DuQuense]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal

 

[Grey Wolf]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal

Yes, that's certainly a good point. France will be pushing this, trying to stabilise Egypt in the wake of Abbas' assassination etc. Of course Russian tensions, their machinations in Jerusalem and the state of things in Syria will all come into play too.

What will Lovett do ? He will realise that the canal will be the route to India in the future so that influence in Egypt would be useful. But more than that ? OTL Britain didn't do a great deal to interfere whilst it was being built under French auspices, and by the 1860s Said's successor Ismail was trying, with a lot of French (as well as British) money to make Egypt into a modern state.

Grey Wolf