Age of War

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan (were you someone else once?) you definitely raise some good points

Thank you, and yes, in a previous life I was Queen Xabuta of the Bantu peoples.

I like the scenario you have created, it puts both alliances on pretty equal footing, and creates a good, major war in the mid-1800s. I have no critiques, just things to consider;

A) The first proposal for a trans-continental railway to congress were around 1845. With an Anglo-American War in 1848, I could see the USA saying "Oh shit we need this railroad" and having it built before 1858, which would vastly help the Californian cause. Then again, if there is no major British intervention, then the Californians could probably hold their own against the Mexicans.

B) IOTL, there was an Indian Mutiny around 1857, which started due to the(I think) military practices that violated Hindu religious laws, which sparked the general animosity which the Indians had for the British. If this happens in this ATL, with the Russians on the Northern border, I could see the British Empire losing India.

C) The Platine War, the Uruguayan War, and the Chincha Islands War(which involved Spain) occurred in South America were around this time. Could this be involved in your world war somehow?

D) The Ottomans staying neutral is no fun. I want to see Czargrad! To put this in more practical terms for your TL, why should the Austrians join with Germany? It was the Russians who came to the aid of the Hapsburgs while the evil Hohenzollerns were stealing all of Germany. I could see Austria join Russia, while, which pushes the Ottomans into the British camp. It is your TL, and up to you, but I think this is a possibility.

E) Post-war world. This could really go either way, and I could see this war end on a stalemate. CSA exists, but Britain loses India. Many possibilities. What I just thought up was that in the ATL Congress of Berlin (some time after the war)when Africa is divided up, both the CSA and USA could be invited due to their participation in the war.Same with the Austrians and Spanish. This all depends on who wins, of course, but it'd be cool to see CSA African holdings.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Replacing the parts lost by file corruption

- - - - - - -

New York State

The Union armies are driven back upon Syracuse, and a desperate flanking manoevre by General Sherman fails in the face of heavy British reinforcements. General Burnside is killed in the main line, attempting a general counter-attack, and the British break through towards Albany

President Douglas has come up by train to co-ordinate the defence in the face of British breakthroughs, but by the time he is able to exercise his powers, Syracuse is reported to be falling to the enemy, and the Union armies are in disarray

At the same time comes news of an intensification of Confederate pressure on Washington, a build-up in forces, additional gun batteries blasting away at the city, and British ironclads in the Potomac

From the West, Generals Grant and Buell report that their positions are under assault from a strong Confederate force under Jackson, headed West across the Appalachians, and from a new Anglo-Confederate army, mustering in the South and advancing on the disputed states.

- - -

All this is going on at the same time as the French plans are put into operation

The French fleet is split into two, the older warships heading out West, as if back to the Caribbean after a refit, and the bulk of the new forces, including the ironclads, picking up ships as they pass ports, heading into the Channel. Some units from the Meditteranean have, additionally, come around Iberia to form up with them, and it is a veritable armada that heads towards the Eastern Channel, drawing out the British fleet formations and bringing about a general engagement East of Kent

The British squadrons of th reserve join up, and in a two-day battle it is the staying power of the new untested ironclads which swings the battle the way of the British. Losses are heavy on both sides, but by the end of the engagement, few French ships remain to seek sanctuary in Calais or Boulogne, or in neutral Belgium and Holland, whilst the British warships staggering into Dover, Chatham etc are as soon as possible outfitted for a return to sea

For whilst this battle has been going on, the second French force has landed a large French army, under the Duc de Joinville, in Cornwall and Devon, brushing aside what squadrons of British forces they met in the Western Approaches, and delivering the army to England as per the operational plan

- - -

London orders all naval vessels to resupply and be back at sea immediately, at the same time ordering the volunteer units into military districts, each one backed by regular forces, albeit ones mainly in training

As the volunteer regiments begin to converge on London, King Albert gives permission for MPs and lords to form up with their (often putative) regiments.

These harry the French advance, but a landing at Weymouth, supported by the secondary French fleet bosts thge Duc de Joinville, and although only a couple of aged relatives of the British monarch are captured, he is able to portray the fall of a royal residence as a major victory

As the French army advances through Oxfordshire and Berkshire, volunter regiments in the military districts attack along the line, but skilful defence drives them back

However, the British fleet engages and destroys the French covering naval forces in a pitched battle off the Lizard.

- - -

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Initial skirmishes occur near Northolt, and proceed into Acton and at Ealing and at Hounslow pitched battles occur, with heavy losses on both sides, but still the main body of the French push on.

The main battle occurs on Blackheath, spilling several miles in each direction, the French army assailed by forces gathered from several directions, including Marines and sailors brought up from Dover and Chatham by trains, and led in many instances by distinguished lords and men. Balloons play a role in spotting whilst telegraphs keep dispersed commands in contact with one another, and railways transport units quickly across distance, whilst the few steam land vehicles frighten and awe the locals but perform something of a service in dragging around artillery, especially those guns caught in the rains of Spring

After a couple of days it is obvious that the French have failed to break through, the core remnant retreats, at first to Oxford and then to the railway junction at Castle Cary where it is assailed afresh by regiments out of Bristol, transported from Ireland
- - -

May 1861

The French army surrenders at Castle Cary

The British army breaks through at Syracuse, NY State

US attempt to rally the line fails

News reaches President Douglas of the disasters to the French, the fleet and the army

A last-ditch attempts by generals Sherman and Burnside to turn the British flank fails, and British forces, pushed to the point of exhaustion, penetrate to Albany

Generals had got younger and younger as the forces of war developed in less central theatres. Sherman may have been just forty, but the general in charge of the advanced vanguard towards Albany is not yet even thirty, is unknown even to most of his command. Given a field commission after the ferocious battles of the frontier, it falls to Charles Gordon to accept the request for an Armistice from President Douglas, who has travelled to Albany, initially intending to oversee the counterattack

President Douglas sends command over the telegraph to his Secretary of War in Washington and a general armistice is agreed

France is in the worst situation, with uprisings and revolutions after the defeat in Britain, and Royalist forces fighting back

The war is a victory for the Confederacy, enough of a win for Britain for them to claim victory.

In the West, the German-British advance is dented by the armistice and the peace grants certain forts and borderlands to Germany, but sees Orleanist France free to fight back against internal forces

- - -

Best Regards

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

There was more detail in the bit I had to write again, but its always the same - when you write it a second time, you can't remember all that was in it before, and now lost.

I definitely had a bit in there about the French ironclads finding that the British, whilst slower, were more sturdy and able to survive under fire longer.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Streuth, France invades England and no one bats an eyelid !

AH drain, that's what this is, we need the Danes or better yet the Belgians to invade...

Beast Rearguards
Grey Wolf

 

[corourke]

It was good! I think everyone is holding their breath to hear what the peace treaty will entail... It seems like the US was beaten pretty soundly

 

[stevep]

Streuth, France invades England and no one bats an eyelid !

AH drain, that's what this is, we need the Danes or better yet the Belgians to invade...

Beast Rearguards
Grey Wolf

GW

Give us a chance. I've been at work and just catching up after tea.

Interesting developments and the French landed further west than I expected but pretty much as I suspected it would go.

Depending on the commucations I might have wondered if the victories would have encouraged the British to reject an armistice, at least not without some concession to prevent the Americans just using it as a breathing space to regroup.

When I 1st read it, it sounded like the US agreed an armistice in N America. However the later components of the post suggests that the armistice was alliance wide? [From the comments about an armistice preventing the allied forces penetrating deep into France]. I would have thought that the US President would only really have been in a position to make an offer for the US. That would leave the allies free to close in on France and Russia, or at least make them give further concessions. Similiarly would the British have been in a position to negotiate on behave of the CSA.

Going to be some interesting tensions when it comes to the peace conference. In N America Mexico will probably want California back but I suspect is unlikely to get it. The debates over their border between the CSA and union will probably be bitter. What will Britain demand [or get] in return for withdrawing from the occupied region and removing the blockage?

In Europe it will be interesting the details of the peace in the east. Could Poland become an [semi] independent buffer between Germany and Russia? What will be the borders in Asia as well?

I can't see a mutiny in India during the war as there is plenty of demand for soldiers. However after it, with the position secure but probably heavy debts there will be a lot of demand to cut costs, which could trigger something nasty. Especially since the less aristocratic government in Britain is probably going to be less willing to support the EIC.

Just a question. Would Britain have secured a protectorate over the Hawallian islands? Both to prevent the US getting a base there and as a useful stepping stone linking British positions in Asia/Australia and western Canada.

The mass moblisation during the French invasion will probably further enhance the power of the mass of people who took up armies and hence increase development towards a broader spread of the franchise and of political [and more the moment economic perhaps?] power.

Anyway my thoughts on the situation after the war. Britain especially will probably be secured as the primary naval power after this although it will need to rebuild a lot and depending on the degree of disruption in France will have to consider a renewed Franco-American alliance.

Steve

 

[Grey Wolf]

Additional Details and Replies etc

Part of what I had in the original version of the French landing, and what I then remembered to put in the rewritten version (after the first got corrupt somehow) was information about the advance, and the forces faced during that advance.

I specifically noted that the government's response to the landing was to (either create or activate, depending on what was there in OTL) group volunteers and regulars into military districts for muster and co-ordination, and that the forces in the Gloucester region were able to reinforce Bristol and drive off half-hearted French probes towards the port.

- - -

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan, I suppose one thing about any potential trans-continental railroad is that there is no Southern New Mexico here, so its going to be going through Nevada/Utah, and whilst not impossible, is this not the route where they basically had to blow the mountains apart from San Francisco ?

In addition, the Nevada/Utah area is likely to see CSA-USA clashes, and even if the railroad has been completed by this time, it may not be actually usable to any significant degree

I've always viewed the Indian Mutiny as being the result of a combination of several things at once, and in this timeline have taken the view that different events from 1841 onwards, and that the Global War being the analogue to the Crimean War (during which the Mutiny did NOT take place) probably points to no widespread Mutiny in this timeline. One thing to remember is that there were other smaller incidents of mutiny over the years and that none of these blew up into a general mutiny such as you saw in OTL 1857

The Indian subcontinent of this ATL is notably different in that some of the conflicts of the 1840s were not pushed to their conclusion, due to British involvement in the American War at that time. Thus the Sikh Empire, whilst defeated, remains independent and in full possession of its territories, and the Burmese (of Asa IIRC) retain control of their interior, even if the British have stolen their coastal provinces.

The war in India is not a cohesive one, being fought on two levels - one against the Russians, and one against the French. The former include Russian influence in and penetration into the Sikh Empire, but would also see Russian manoevrings in Afghanistan and towards Tibet during the war. The second front would be that of French holdings being besieged, and French machinations amongst princes and states unhappy with the British, or fearful of them.

- - -

I was thinking that Spain's aggressive tendencies in this period are being directed by their alliance with France - their protective reaction over Cuba, their aggression against Mexico etc, all this probably takes up the vast majority of their offensive spirit. In addition, the Spanish army really only has one major land front - Gibraltar, and it is this fact which is why I said that they manage to take it. It may be a massive bloody drain, but once the British navy has been driven from the Mediterranean, and morale is low after the fall of Malta, Gibraltar's fate becomes increasingly uncertain. I was imainging that it falls in late 1860.

Regarding Austria, I don't see Vienna seeing any gain at all from being involved in the war. Sure, they are reluctantly greatful to Russia over Hungary in 1848, but in OTL this did not prevent them from siding with the Anglo-French and presenting an ultimatum to Russia in late 1855.

Austria's main aim is to maintain what they have, and in this timeline that includes Venetia, but not Lombardy, and also includes seondary control over Modena and Tuscany. The creation of a Kleindeutsch Germany in 1848-9 was a blow to Austrian prestige, but not in practical terms a blow to Austria itself. There is little point in a war to reverse this decision, because the follow-up makes no sense - the German states are not going to accept a reversion to Austrian leadership, and Vienna has no purpose in trying to impose its will on them.

Austrian interest in expanding into the Balkans was mainly a reaction in OTL to their loss of power both in Italy and in Germany. Here, whilst they lost the latter a decade ago, they retain the former, and in fact could even see benefits from neutrality, especially with regards to Milan or the Papacy, as French distraction by war could well lead to opportunities for France's main rival to increase their influence

I do agree it COULD go the other way - that Vienna would resent the Hohenzollerns for stealing Germany from them, and be grateful instead to Russia, who aided them. But I don't see sentiment as such as driving Austrian policy in this period.

- - -

Regarding the Ottomans again, sure neutrality may be no fun, but its not eternal, and its a single war we're looking at here.

They've not got anyone to fight - oh, perhaps they could resent Russian dominance, but the idea of fighting them requires nearby allies, and that's one thing they would not get in this conflict

Besides, the Ottomans have always impressed me by willing to wait out and see in better times

- - -

Postwar is...intriguing, because will it really be postwar ?

As for Africa, the main question is how does the war affect the balance of power there ?

- - -

Steve, I think your evaluation of the French chances etc in their invasion of Britain is spot on - they have to win, and if they do then its good, but is even the taking of London a victory ? I understand your reservations but suspect that in this scenario it would be - morale would be catastrophic, the whole point of fighting a war on foreign fronts disappearing if the French sit in the capital etc.

As it is, of course, the French fail, and I think a naval failure is a particuarly likely one. The British and the French are both building ironclads, and both have a decade or so of accelerated use of steam power over OTL, but only the British ever actually saw action. The French ironclads are built on the basis of speed and that a smaller size means a smaller target, but the British have more experience, understand the need for greater resilience, survivability etc, and the ability to still operate effectively after taking damage.

In the battle in the Eastern Channel, it is these latter qualities which win through

- - -

Best regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Mid 1861

I am seeing the end of the war as not being the end of the war

Above all, there seems little reason for Russia to give in - in fact, if Germany decides to end its participation, then the end of the Russo-German war may well mean that Russia has forces available to concentrate on the ongoing war with Britain

Aleksandr II may well believe that he is leading Russia in a mission of some sort - not as definably Christian in ethos as Aleksandr I believed, but certainly with a more intellectual backing to it than Nikolai I really managed. He has some enlightened views for a Russian, even yet some liberal ones, and could well see himself as leading a new Russia towards a modern destiny. Why should British imperialists stop him ? Why should British diktats decide the boundaries of his empire ?

Of course, it could be just as much a calculation of strengh by his generals - how can Britain win? Or perhaps - how can Russia lose ? Unlike the OTL Crimean War, even if British naval forces raid and land harrying forces in the White Sea, the Baltic and the Sea of Okhotsk, the main Russian army is going to remain viable and active

- - -

I'm thinking that there is a general peace, on France's and the USA's part an Armistice, on the others' a negotiation, but that Britain and Russia remain at war

In essence, Tsar Aleksandr II says to Britain - accept your losses, or fight on, and Britain with its semblance of victory elsewhere chooses to fight on

It is essentially in India, where the British have been pushed back - not so much losing ground, as failing to prevent the Russians from establishing their control over the Sikh Empire, Kabul and Ladakh, as allies and vassals in equal measure. Other Russian forces in the rest of Afghanistan and in Tibet proper have established a degree of influence

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

GW

Give us a chance. I've been at work and just catching up after tea.

Sorry, wasn't directed at my loyal readers, was just more of a comment that even a French invasion of England failed to attract new readers to the thread

Interesting developments and the French landed further west than I expected but pretty much as I suspected it would go.

I mentioned in the original lost version of the landing part that there was some harking back to 1470-71, but didn't put that in the rewritten part

I'm also not 100% sure that Joinville is the right man - IIRC now he was a naval officer, so it could well be one of his older brothers who commands. Not a huge change that, tho !

Depending on the commucations I might have wondered if the victories would have encouraged the British to reject an armistice, at least not without some concession to prevent the Americans just using it as a breathing space to regroup.

When I 1st read it, it sounded like the US agreed an armistice in N America. However the later components of the post suggests that the armistice was alliance wide? [From the comments about an armistice preventing the allied forces penetrating deep into France]. I would have thought that the US President would only really have been in a position to make an offer for the US. That would leave the allies free to close in on France and Russia, or at least make them give further concessions. Similiarly would the British have been in a position to negotiate on behave of the CSA.

I intended it to be that two things coincide on the two fronts - that the USA is facing a very tough time with a British breakthrough, and that the French try their gamble in Britain. When news of the failure of the latter reaches the USA (presumably by fast trans-Atlantic steamship...whatever would be available in this period, tho with concomittant advances in technology) the US President realises he doesn't have any hope now that Britain would be knocked out of the war, and even less hope for French relief.

In turn, the USA's request for an Armistice impacts upon Europe, where France, after the twin setbacks has been in a very unstable position. Seeing the USA dropping out, they too do so

Going to be some interesting tensions when it comes to the peace conference. In N America Mexico will probably want California back but I suspect is unlikely to get it. The debates over their border between the CSA and union will probably be bitter. What will Britain demand [or get] in return for withdrawing from the occupied region and removing the blockage?

I can see California going one of three ways :-
-1- A slight improvement in the Mexican border
-2- A call for a resumption of Californian independence
-3- Nothing at all since the Californians organised their own defence successfully

Mexico might be more successful in readjusting the border in New Mexico to their advantage.

Britain will certainly demand the destruction of the US fortification line on the North-Eastern border. They may also require artillery etc in the theatre to be handed over or destroyed. Possibly a border readjustment in a few areas, but I doubt there would be much major. The US will probably also have to demilitarise the Great Lakes

In Europe it will be interesting the details of the peace in the east. Could Poland become an [semi] independent buffer between Germany and Russia? What will be the borders in Asia as well?

I can't see a mutiny in India during the war as there is plenty of demand for soldiers. However after it, with the position secure but probably heavy debts there will be a lot of demand to cut costs, which could trigger something nasty. Especially since the less aristocratic government in Britain is probably going to be less willing to support the EIC.

I'm trying to see if Russia can continue at war (qv that). Your views on India are very interesting, thank you!

Just a question. Would Britain have secured a protectorate over the Hawallian islands? Both to prevent the US getting a base there and as a useful stepping stone linking British positions in Asia/Australia and western Canada.

A very good point, and I could certainly see an arrangement - I'll check Hawaiian history, as my memory has been a bit eradicated there!

The mass moblisation during the French invasion will probably further enhance the power of the mass of people who took up armies and hence increase development towards a broader spread of the franchise and of political [and more the moment economic perhaps?] power.

Anyway my thoughts on the situation after the war. Britain especially will probably be secured as the primary naval power after this although it will need to rebuild a lot and depending on the degree of disruption in France will have to consider a renewed Franco-American alliance.

Steve

I am not 100% sure what will happen in France in detail; a royalist holding onto power makes sense but it would be with a more constitutional constitution

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[stevep]

GW

In terms of the continued Anglo-Russian war. I'm a bit doubtful about this because the Russians have very difficult supply lines. Even with an advance over OTL they still have to get through a lot of difficult and probably only fragily held territory, cumulating in Afghanistan. As such any actual Russia forces, as opposed to supported allies, are going to have serious problems maintaining themselves in the region. Especially since once people know that France and America are out of the war, and will be seen by many as having been defeated, and Britain can now concentrate on the area a lot of waviers are likely to come down on the British side. Possibly also a few factions that had sided with the Russians might be looking to switch sides or find a safe way out of the conflict. Russia might still be able to field massive armies but very few of them will be able to reach the front.

Also if the war with Russia continues, with a lot of troops in N America I can see Alaska becoming a British target. Not critical for the Russians but the fact they can't protect the region will be obvious and it will secure Canada's NW border.

Might also see an interest by Britain in opening up either/both of Japan or Korea as possible bases and partial counters for Russian influence in the region. Or depending on the situation in China support for China in maintaining/restoring the border and keeping the Russians out of the trans-Amur region. [OTL we were having the 2nd Chinese war and also China was in the midst of the Tai-ping rebellion at the time but we're obviously not seeing Britain and France joining up to fight China]. Actually given that America, France and Spain will have seen their influence outside Europe reduced and possibly now Russia Britain is likely to be even more dominant in China than OTL. [Could be a trap here as this could both incite jealousy in the other colonial powers and more resentment in China if Britain starts being too dominant]. Presumably Germany will seek to establish influence in the region and even Austria historically had trade contacts and may seek to expand them this time around. [Not saying the defeated powers will be completely excluded but they will be less influential for a while].

On the US peace, if any territory in the east is transferred possibly the key regions would be those relating to access to the great Lakes, especially the section of New York bordering the St Lawrence, which presuming its safely held in a future conflict would allow Britain to reinforce the Lakes from the Ocean - weather and canals permitting. In the west depends on the circumstances but given how thinly the region was populated much of the northern tier of territories could become a British protectorate, giving Canada important defencive depth.

A lot would depend on how much actual damage, in terms of deaths, material destruction and disruption, the French invasion caused as it could be a hell of a lot of reconstruction is required.

With California the fact they managed their own defence, coupled with the US defeat and probably a worsening financial position for the US could actual help a Californian independence movement. They could decide they are better off on their own than governed from distant Washington and dragged into its wars. Not saying this will happen but it might be a factor.

One other possible factor might be the situation in Ireland. The ongoing rebellion will be crushed now, possibly fairly harshly as tempers will be running high. However likely to still mean a burden for Britain, both in terms of continued unrest and because the bulk of the population are likely to be in a very bad way. [Even if the potatoe blight has been butterflied you still have a heavily overpopulated land which has seen prolonged and heavy fighting and also blockaging of many areas so a lot of destruction and poverty with all the problems that will result].

No problem on the comment. I did put a wink in there.

Steve

 

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

The American nationalist in me wants to see a strong USA curb-stomp the CSA...but the warlike sadist in me tells me the more nations in North America, the more possibilities of war! Let California go independent, more chance to fight Mexico! And I think it would be cool if the CSA gets Maryland, but not D.C. The USA would move the capital, but we could see 'fortress city' of DC!

As for Europe, I doubt that Russia and the British would keep fighting. The supply lines are too thin, making it a tough war to fight with little to gain. For the immediate post-war, a German-British hegemony now controls Europe, with Russia as a threat. In order to get another major war, we are either going to have to split the German-British axis, which could be done if Germany leaves the war after France is defeated but the British fight on--'stabbed in the back' style. Or have a more powerful Russia, which is also doable. A Russia that fears future wars may put more emphasis on industrialization and militarization, which makes Russia the giant of Europe by the 1890's(about). The ATL partition of Africa, if done sufficent time after the war, could include the defeated powers, but most likely it will just be Germany and Britain.

On to East Asia...what happens with the Taiping revolt? Does it happen? Who wins? Also, I assume Japan is going through roughly OTL development? With a more tenuous British hold on India, we may see less colonies in East Asia.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Steve and Leistungsfähiger Amerikan, thank you very much for your comments

I understand what you are saying about Russia, and it could well be that the continued war simply peters out in late 1861, albeit several months after the cessation of the war between the other powers.

Perhaps it is the very things suggested as British counter-measures which convince Russia that trying to fight on is pointless without allies - landings in Alaska, British rising influence in Peking.

It is the time of the Taiping, and I don't plan on changing MUCH of what is going on in China in these next few years - it wasn't only the Taiping rebellion, but others across the Western and Southern provinces. The only real difference here would be in Tibet where Russia has made penetrations (including in Tibet's own vassal of Ladakh) and where things will continue to diverge.

Japan may be more complex as the death of the Bakufu came from internal forces, whilst its last-ditch stand was more down to the ability for the Shogunate to fight back with French assistance. There's something like a decade of internal struggles to go, so no rushing to judgment here.

I can certainly see momentum for the California independence movement, and perhaps after the Union attempts to be heavy-handed and reimplement direct control, pro-independence forces come to power during the treaty negotiations, and force it through.

I agree that the riverine coast in New York going to Britain, and Maryland ending up part of the CSA make sense. In addition, the Confederacy may end up with more of the Western Territories, and Kentucky, Tennessee and perhaps Missouri ?

I certainly think its quite right to look at the effect of the French invasion on the British economy and body politic, and I could see a growing sentiment several months down the line that questions why Britain is still at war with Russia over Alaska, India and influence in China. Tie this into growing Russian alarm at British counter-thrusts and both sides would be happy for a late peace

I also think that "bad things" are in line for Spain, especially if forced to hand back Gibraltar. Many thousands are dead, huge amounts of money has been spent, and for what ? Isabella will be increasingly unpopular and a popular uprising is probably more likely than a military coup, although the general who captured Gibraltar will have a certain fame to him, and no doubt be voiciferous when Spain hands it back. Both could combine - popular anger and a charismatic military commander (who would probably be a name unrecognised by OTL history)

As part of the rest of the peace, Britain would be certain to press its claims for Malta, but has probably lost the Ionian Islands for good, which end up Russian rather than Greek.

In India, Britain can't force Russia to back down and this is probably simply traded against Russian acceptance of Britain's position in Peking, which could well be a strong one against the risings happening across the empire. I think its a bit late to affect the transfer of the Amur-Maritime provinces (1858 wasn't it ?) but Britain in Peking is going to rankle highly with Tsar Aleksandr II.

Britain could probably attain an advantageous readjustment (or final agreement) of the Alaskan border, in return for evacuating their conquests there. Russian claims below the main land-body will probably be abandoned in returning for security of the rest

- - -

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

I can't see a mutiny in India during the war as there is plenty of demand for soldiers. However after it, with the position secure but probably heavy debts there will be a lot of demand to cut costs, which could trigger something nasty. Especially since the less aristocratic government in Britain is probably going to be less willing to support the EIC.

Thats a good scenario for Britain entering into 1862, a crisis immediately upon the hoped-for end to crises (as ever there is)

In India, Russian influence in the Sikh Empire and Tibet remains, whilst Russian control over Kabul and Ladakh is initially more direct, but over time will fall away as the emergencies of war fall back and internal rivalries, power politics etc reasserts itself

Besides, Russia still has enough on its plate fully swallowing Khiva, Bokhara, Kokhand and Kazakhstan

- - -

It is a fair point that we ought to be looking at the governments of Britain, France and Germany in an ATL context

In Britain, you could well see a synthesis of King Albert;s popularity, young hero king who helped in the defence of London, with mass action, the volunteer regiments etc. Disraeli could well lose the election, especially if held in the wake of news of an Indian Mutiny, and some kind of populist leader emerging from out of the shadows of OTL history become Prrime Minister

In France, you could see the Orleanists hold onto power but declare they are stepping back from it, for the people to elect a democratic Prime Minister. Ferdinand might well have to abdicate for his son, Philippe, but a few years later when the fully-democratic government has proven unable to solve and deal with the problems assailing the French state, Ferdinand could well back a pseudo-democratic candidate he hopes to control, and if there is some military involvement then it could be presented as a young charismatic leader of a new way of viewing politics

Germany will have emerged as a winner without reservation, gaining land in the West and not losing anything against the Russians. The fact that the gains came in the theatre where Prussian influence was least, and the independent armies of the federated kingdoms/grand duchies proved their worth, may well give an increased balance of power to the parliament - although Prussia will argue that if its armies had failed against Russia, there would have been no war in the West at all. The clincher is probably the madness of Friedrich Wilhelm IV, the Regency and now the accession of his brother as Kaiser Wilhelm I. A mad king, a regent, and then a new old guy as king weakens the court against the parliament, so the result of the war is to strengthen Frankfurt and weaken Berlin

- - -

1862 will see a reckoning in all this, and by 1863 some answers will have become more definite

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

The early 1860s

Hawaii, I think has become a British protectorate

Korea, I think, is still well insulated at this time

There could well be a Polish Rebellion (almost analogous to OTL) after the withdrawal of German armies and the resumption of Russian rule - it wouldn't have any more chance of succeeding than OTL since it would be coming at the moment that Britain is making peace

- - -

Canada is an interesting question, and very diverse - in a way even more so than OTL, it will become the America that would have been without the ARW.

In addition to OTL possessions it now includes
- the Southern Alaskan strip
- Oregon to the Columbia River (or Snake River ?)
- Resumed rule over the N Dakota cession
- riverine New York state
- some small adjustments in Maine

This conglomerate is become a unity in post-war Canada, with the existing territories and the cessions coming under a federal dominion government

- - -

Regarding the Taiping, I think 1862 is probably worse for the Chi'ing than in OTL - the formation of the Western-officered forces occurred in OTL at a date that in this timeline is at the heart of the Global War. Not only can the Western nations not afford such commitments at that time, but its more likely that the British and French in Shanghai are at each others' throats.

In fact, Shanghai may well have fallen to the Taiping, and that could be the spur to direct British intervention which we see later on in 1861.

Ironically (or through the power of destiny) one of the British veterans most likely to end up in a posting such as commanding Anglo-Chinese forces against the Taiping is Charles Gordon... Having made a name for himself as the young brigadier-general who accepted the American request for an Armistice, its unlikely he would be reduced in rank come the peace and for someone with such newspaper-friendly credentials, a posting to Peking could be the best move for the British government.

After the Anglo-Russian peace at the end of 1861, the British army will be free to increase its commitment to China, and with the Taiping in a much stronger position than OTL, the power of the Chi'ing in negotiations with Britain is going to be less - not least, also, because of the absence of France in the theatre, and the outmanoevring of Russia.

One will probably see an increased role in China for the German Empire in this timeline, and possibly Austria also.

- - -

(Polk 44, Polk 48, Filmore 52, Fremont 56, Douglas 60)

I got a bit muddled over US politics in the course of writing the history of the 1850s and the war. I think the above makes sense - with Fremont maybe dying in office (either from stress-related illness or from artillery bombardment of Washington DC (OTL Lincoln watched at least one battle from the city, so its not impossible that Fremont exposes himself and gets caught in a blast)). Douglas then takes over the remainder of his term, and runs himself in 1860

Thus Douglas was re-elected in 1860 at the height of the war, but defeated he won't be standing for re-election in 1864. The Union has been stripped of a number of its border states, and California has gone its own way. In the face of all this, who would emerge as the candidates ?

Union generals seem somewhat unlikely - since they lost. There also isn't the precedent of the Mexican War to go on here since Polk was re-elected in this timeline.

Would Lincoln be a candidate in 1864? A rival of Douglas' he could well have escaped being associated with the disaster that brought about Union defeat. Of course, he won't be the only strong candidate - suggestions ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

It was good! I think everyone is holding their breath to hear what the peace treaty will entail... It seems like the US was beaten pretty soundly

Thanks for the comment

Hopefully I've become clear about the various treaties that ended the war, and the position of the major powers in relation to each other afterwards.

One thing I note is that Britain (in India), Russia (in Poland), France (at home) and Spain (at home) all see revolt to some degree as a consequence of the war. They are not all occurring together, indeed the French comes first and more or less over by the time that India and Poland occur, whilst Spain takes the longest to brew.

I was wondering what the situation might be like in the rump USA ? There are certainly going to be a lot of dis-satisfied veterans around, a lot of weapons, and a lot of frustration. In addition, whilst they can deliver a resounding message at the Congressional elections in 1862 (I assume there were some ?), the people won't get a say on the presidency until 1864.

Thus, there may well be a background of uprisings, social unrest, even radical revolution in some cities, which the election of 1864 is being fought against.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[corourke]

I can see the USA in this timeline becoming a lot more centralized. I would expect to see states to have a lot less internal autonomy than they do in OTL even today. So we could see a reaction to this in more distant parts of the country.

I think there will be a lot of sentiment in the US to regain the lost territories, especially if the CSA has taken places like Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. I don't know how the USA's economy is going, but I imagine that many cities have been heavily damaged. It seems to me that the alt-USA might be a good place for a revolution...

 

[stevep]

GW

In India, Britain can't force Russia to back down and this is probably simply traded against Russian acceptance of Britain's position in Peking, which could well be a strong one against the risings happening across the empire. I think its a bit late to affect the transfer of the Amur-Maritime provinces (1858 wasn't it ?) but Britain in Peking is going to rankle highly with Tsar Aleksandr II.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

A mutiny in India with the Sikh empire still in existence and friendly to even a defeated Russia could be interesting. Especially since a lot of the local troops who stayed loyal and helped put down the rebellion were from the NW provinces that are no longer in the empire. Do we still have the Gurkhas? The link was established quite a while back, before the POD but with Russian influence in Tibet it could be awkward.

On the other hand my initial statement about possibly a lot of disgruntled sacked soldiers was based on the assumption that Britain drove the Russian presence from the region. If the Sikhs are still independent/under Russian influence then the EIC and/or British government would probably keep a substantially larger army force in the region.

In terms of China I didn't know whether the developing crisis in the west had butterflied the Amur region being seized by Russia. [Thought it was partly due to the crisis the Chinese government at the time was having with the Anglo-French powers during the 2nd Opium War, 1856-60 that Russia was able to seize control of the territory]. Since that wouldn't be happening here I wasn't sure whether Russia would have gained control yet.

Steve

 

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

I can see the USA in this timeline becoming a lot more centralized. I would expect to see states to have a lot less internal autonomy than they do in OTL even today. So we could see a reaction to this in more distant parts of the country.

I think there will be a lot of sentiment in the US to regain the lost territories, especially if the CSA has taken places like Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. I don't know how the USA's economy is going, but I imagine that many cities have been heavily damaged. It seems to me that the alt-USA might be a good place for a revolution...

I doubt it. Revolt why? Because they lost? The USA still does have a democratically elected government. As for president, go with Lincoln. Lets make him famous in this ATL too! By the way, how is the slavery issue in the USA? I assume they were freed?

 

[stevep]

I doubt it. Revolt why? Because they lost? The USA still does have a democratically elected government. As for president, go with Lincoln. Lets make him famous in this ATL too! By the way, how is the slavery issue in the USA? I assume they were freed?

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan

I would tend to agree but possibly GW thinking of more intense social striff. A bit like Oafaloaf's class war scenario. There's not only going to be a lot of recrimination over what went wrong but also with the defeats and territorial losses demands for reforms and strengthening of the country. The latter could mean different things to different people and result in some conflict.

Steve