AHC: Mirror the fate of rival nations in the 19th Century

So, just for something a little less serious and in-depth, I had this idle thought that could make for an interesting alt-history excersise. With a POD of 1800, can you create a set of realisitic, mutually-reinforcing circumstances that would result in the following set of circumstances for these sets of "Rivals" throughout the 20th century that would result in them being in roughly the same situation as their opposite in 1900? To give a list...

  • Britain suffers a "Long 19th century" of turmoil, with periodic outbreaks of political instability that end in moderate reforms in a liberal direction, and sputtering economic and demographic growth. While they still have an international Empire, their growth is frustrated by their rival in France and they're stuck with the "second string" territories in this round of Imperialism. Generally, looks as close to OTL's 1900 France as possible
  • France enjoys a period of commerical dominance and steady industrial growth, enjoying a period of relative peace and prosperity while slowly reforming its oligarchic political system peacefully and in steps towards something more democratic while sheding merchantalism. They are the most prolific colonial power in "New Imperialism", though by the end of the century have many areas of the Empire pushing for more autonomy or represenation in Paris. Generally, looks as close to OTL's 1900's Britain as possible
  • Prussia ends up slowly losing influence in Southern Germany and faces internal division within itself, as its economy slowly loses ground to competition and its budget suffers constant shortfalls. Forced to withdraw from pushing its interests in international affairs out of poverty and failing at attempts at Absolutism, Brandenburg is forced to compromise and make a Duel Monarchy system with either the Poles or creating a two-nation system with the Rhineland under a seperate administration to "Old Prussia" and have no colonial Empire. Generally, looks as close to OTL's 1900's Austria as possible
  • The Habsburgs modernize and rationalize, forming an industrial economy and an "Alliance of Rye and Iron" between the Aristocracy and new industrial class. They win the battle for hegemony in the Germanic world, though keep Prussia out, and are generally considered the "Big Bad" on land. Have a 2nd rate Colonial Empire having entered the race for Empire later in the game. Generally, looks as close to OTL's 1900's Germany as possible.
  • Russia is considered the "Sick man of Europe", deep in debt, facing strong seperatists sentiments, retarded economic development, constant forgein meddling, and with an outdated military and corrupt civil service system. Basically looks like OTL's Ottomans
  • Ottomans are a rising power under an authoritarian system; still not considered very advanced or educated by very... "Bulky" in terms of population and power and modernizing fast in form if not substance. Part of the "Great Powers" club and slowly advancing on land in many directions, but no overseas Empire of note. Basicaly looks like OTL's Russia.

Bonus points if...

  • You can produce a reverse US Civil War
  • Italy ends up with a Clerical, Southern-dominated regieme with an impoverished North.
  • Japan dosen't pull a Meiji, but some other minor Asian power (Not China) does.
 
I feel like my timeline could have produced most of that, had I chosen some different directions here and there. Some sort of Napoleonic victory where he invades Russia and wins seems like a decent starting point.
 
I feel like my timeline could have produced most of that, had I chosen some different directions here and there. Some sort of Napoleonic victory where he invades Russia and wins seems like a decent starting point.

I think even a limited Napoleonic victory would work here with France taking limited to no gains. Basically anything that avoids the map reshuffling of the Congress of Vienna.

One of the major impacts of the gains handed out in the Congress of Vienna was to make Prussia much more of a German nation and Austria much less of one. Without the gains Prussia made (the lands Prussia got OTL were fairly unimportant at the time but became economic powerhouses once the industrial revolution started) they'll likely not become the power of central Europe and I can easily see them focused more on expansion into Poland which would put them at logger heads with Russia.
Russia meanwhile has taken a severe blow to their reputation over the course of the war and has no gains to show for it.
Austria, as long as they didn't suffer too badly would still be in a good position to gain influence in Germany. Without Vienna's peace they'll be a contender for uniting much of southern Germany under them.
The Ottomans are a bit tougher as their problems were often self-inflicted and internal but as long as Russia remains comparatively weak they should keep more of their territory than they did OTL.
Britain is much more difficult with at POD of 1800 without an outright (and fairly unlikely) French victory on the seas.
 
I think even a limited Napoleonic victory would work here with France taking limited to no gains. Basically anything that avoids the map reshuffling of the Congress of Vienna.

I agree that the house of Bonaparte could probably achieve more stability than the Bourbons and could see Napoléon II (who probably takes the throne pretty young) evolve into a constitutional monarch.

But on the economic side, France really needs the 1802 borders to provide the coal resources of Belgium and the Rhineland. Without them it is at a disadvantage.
 
Britain is much more difficult with at POD of 1800 without an outright (and fairly unlikely) French victory on the seas.

Perhaps this is a poor theory,but would it be possible to get a series of political logjams in the 1800's by having a sharp divide over several key policies between the Lords and Commons, combined with a King (George III had some inclination in this direction) towards stronger Royal authority and using the ability to create Peers of the Realm as a prop to build up the former as a hedge in Parlamentry politics? I'm not sure exactly how you'd fumble into this... maybe something over the Corn Laws and government funding? Some dispute combining the Charterist issues with how to apportion representation (Perhaps with Conservatives pushing for seats to be apportioned to geographic areas based on traditional divisions,not population, which would over franchise the rural voters?)
 
Perhaps this is a poor theory,but would it be possible to get a series of political logjams in the 1800's by having a sharp divide over several key policies between the Lords and Commons, combined with a King (George III had some inclination in this direction) towards stronger Royal authority and using the ability to create Peers of the Realm as a prop to build up the former as a hedge in Parlamentry politics? I'm not sure exactly how you'd fumble into this... maybe something over the Corn Laws and government funding? Some dispute combining the Charterist issues with how to apportion representation (Perhaps with Conservatives pushing for seats to be apportioned to geographic areas based on traditional divisions,not population, which would over franchise the rural voters?)

You had rumblings of something like that around the OTL debates concerning Emancipation and the 1832 Reform Act, the latter of which only passed after William IV threatened to appoint a bunch of Whig Lords if the Lords blocked it for the fourth (I think) time. If you contrived some way of replacing him with Ernest Augustus, then that'd be the reactionary king you'd want.
 
If you contrived some way of replacing him with Ernest Augustus, then that'd be the reactionary king you'd want.
If the PoD is a Napoleonic victory, wouldn't it be pretty easy to use butterflies to get Ernest Augustus on the throne? At minimum just keep Victoria from being born/living to adulthood.
 
You had rumblings of something like that around the OTL debates concerning Emancipation and the 1832 Reform Act, the latter of which only passed after William IV threatened to appoint a bunch of Whig Lords if the Lords blocked it for the fourth (I think) time. If you contrived some way of replacing him with Ernest Augustus, then that'd be the reactionary king you'd want.

If the PoD is a Napoleonic victory, wouldn't it be pretty easy to use butterflies to get Ernest Augustus on the throne? At minimum just keep Victoria from being born/living to adulthood.

Very true. If Hannover is permenantly lost, he also has a fresh crop of noble supporters he can justify the Peerage too without the overt apperiece of legally dubious court stqcking, addin to the possability of deadlool/reactionary pushes towards a somewhat stronger executive. This would be especially true if France takes steps to lock down more Continental commerce, decreasing the relative tax importance of the merchant-paid customs relative to others. He also could be a solid target to get Charles Xed, if we want a proper reflection, though who would be their Louis-Napoleon?
 
I been talking to @Joshua Ben Ari about this, and here...

1: Keep that damn idiot Charles X out of France and out of power, or even keep the Bourbons out of France. At the very least, have Louis Philippe I become King and not Charles X and give way to the House of Orleans. ( The Bourbons where almost doomed from the start. Louis XVIII at least understood a return to 1789 was impossible and his rule was all about trying to find a balance, and at least accepting or tolerating of the reality of the Revolution. (While others went basically in "lalalalala I can't hear you" mode) Charles X was a idiot, who tired to turn back the clock and act like the Revolution never happen....which cost him and the Bourbons France...again.)

Or have a Napoleon victory at Waterloo. Much of Britain's hard-earned martial confidence will have died at Waterloo along with its leading role in the Coalition and Prussia takes a hit. Russia and Austria goes on to beat Napoleon and are able to place Napoleon II with Maria Louise as a regent in power.

Or a very short live Bourbon Restoration. How does that happen? Easy: Make Charles X King at the start of Restoration. He goes on to piss off everyone in France as he try to turn back the clock at the very start, and make himself a Absolute King in every way possible. In this, the Freach higher ups would beg Wellington (Who would have a harder time fighting the returning Napoleon thanks to Charles X.) to remove Charles X and give them a foreign prince (Infante Francisco de Paula of Spain comes to mind.) that would see the rise of other liberal monarchist like Lafayette and the like.

Failing that, you have a far more earlier, bigger, bloodier July Revolution that gives the idiot the boot and from that, you can have dear old Lafayette lead France that would focus on finding a new monarch. (One he can force a true constitution onto him as Lafayette himself was by large a major supporter of a constitutional liberal monarchy.)

2: Ernest Augustus becomes King, and pretty much screws everything over. He would be openly despised by the Radicals, cordially detested by the Whig leaders, and viewed as a burden and a liability by the leading Tories, if not by the bulk of the party. Ernest is kick out of power and see the rise of William, King of Wurttemberg, to become king of the UK.

3: Biggest roadblock in Austria uniting South Germany: They don't have much interest in unifying the German states in the 19th Century, not after the Seven Years War. (And Northen Germany industry would crush their own businesses.) And then Hungry and all thw Non-Germans. Hungary could be an independent Kingdom in Personal Union with Germany or perhaps given to another Habsburg to create an Hungarian Branch for the family.

Even a weaken Prussia, with the Poles, can still be a great power. At the very least, you see a Austria-lead Confederation. Block Prussia out of South Germany, and you have something.

4: Another Meiji...Vietnam. (Screw China over real hard with a ealry downfall of the Qing and chaotic stage of China.) You would need strong Vietnamese Leadership that can put down all the civil strife and frequent political infighting, and get a friendship with France (Or in this case the British.) to help train the army and open up commercial opportunities, agree to be in they sphere of influence to get it done. (If not them, Thailand.)

5: Reverse US Civil War. You need things to really galvanize the Northern states into leaving. Have Lincoln lose the 1860 election and John C. Breckinridge win, the Republicans vow to take the White House in '64. The Supreme Court hands down the Lemmon v. New York decision in favor of the Slaveholders, that free states cannot either prohibit slaveholders from bringing their property (slaves) into free states, nor can free states deprive slaveholders of their property (so the free states cannot go around and emancipating slaves). (probably 1862-63), and it now becomes a massive issue.

However, I doubt there be a Civil War. The North would still have the greater population and the greater industry to dominated the South and I doubt the South/USA rump would fight the North to get them back. (Missouri would be WV, split at the Missouri River and Delaware stays within the Union. Maybe the southern third of Illinois and Indiana seceding too if Kentucky stays in the South. )

6: Stop the Serbian revolution and Greek War of Independence, but keep the religious leadership and the Janissary corps in power. You have Christian and Non-Turks ruling the Ottoman Empire. (They be holding back reforms, and they have huge advantages, such as relatively higher education rate that was less focused on religious dogma in education than their Muslim counterparts.)

7: Have Murat stay in power in Naples, you be avoiding years of extremely expensive paying of the Austrian occupation force and the exile or sacking of most reformers and competent statesmen in the Kingdom's administration. The South will now come from a stronger basis with far greater growth and reform to unite Italy.
 
Korea could work as your Meiji, in OTL the two big powers fighting over them were Japan and Russia; both of them are out of the picture here. The might be able to take the lead on modernization if the Intransigents are kept out of power. Plus given how many times Korea has been invaded it is pretty easy to imagine how they could fall to the same sort of mission creep, siege mentality that Japan had. They could come to view Manchuria as the noose around Korea's neck or Japan itself as the venomous hornet that waits off of their shores. Justifying colonizing it and then on to Siberia or maybe Alaska (Canada and America would most likely be weaker too ITTL).
 
Due to the question over slavery, the northern States seceed from the union in the mid 1840s. These New England States declare themselves an abolitionist republic with Daniel Webster as its first president. The southern and western states and the remaining northern states (Pennsylvania/New York/New Jersey/Ohio) declare the succession illegal. The NES fires upon the US fleet in Boston harbor. This, while no casualties, sparks the American Civil War.

General McClellan of the American Army loses repeatedly to the NES General John Brown. McClellan is eventually replaced by Robert Edward Lee at the beginning of US President Jefferson Davis's term in 1850. The war continues to stalemate for a while, major Naval engagements near Martha's Vineyard happening and a failed push by NES general William T. Sherman.

The United States recognize the need for more troops and bus pushed for the Emancipation bill; a bill that would guarantee the freedom of any slave and his family it he would fight for the United States government against the New England States. 1852 was the first appearance of Ironclad warships: the New English N.E.S Massachusetts and the U.S.S Monitor.

The downfall of the New England states came after the Second Battle of Ticonderoga when General Ulysses Grant meds to take the fort and cement control over Vermont. Lee's Army of the Hudson cornered Brown in Lexington. Brown died in a firefight near the old Federal arsenal on Beacon Hill.

William T. Sherman and his beloved (by the troops) Second in Command Joshua Chamberlain continued to fight on against the now numerically Superior United States Army. New English president James G Blaine (Webster died in 1852) was at his wit's end: after the Trent incident, the United Kingdom refused to grant diplomatic recognition to the failing republic.

1854, the final nail in coffin came with the fall of Boston and the surrender of Sherman to Lee at Old Boston state house. The capital of the NES was quickly moved to Hartford, Connecticut. On April 7th, 1854, both president Blaine and general Chamberlain surrender to the United States.

But all was not well. While he lived long enough to see the end of the war, US President Jefferson Davis was assassinated in Ford's Theater Washington DC while attending the play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare. Davis was shot and killed by Henry David Thoreau. The successor to Davis was Stephen Douglas.

Douglas implemented the reconstruction program in effort to reintegrate the northern states. The Whig party decried that his efforts were too lenient on the Traders and that harsher treatment was called for. Douglas was almost impeached but stayed in office by a matter of two votes. General Robert E Lee was drafted by the Whig party during the election of 1860 to run against Democrat John C Breckinridge.

The north would resent the occupation and create a number of anti American groups such as the Blue Calvary, who targeted carpet baggers and black federal troops still occupying. The blue Calvary with also go on to attack and Lynch Irish Catholics (who were opposed to succession) and free blacks upon the grounds of " you sided with your masters instead of your liberators". The majority of the latter half of the nineteenth Century and early part of The 20th century would be dominated by The Whig party until 1914.
 
@Historyman 14

1. Hm... that's hard to pull off if you still have Louis XVIII take the throne and not go with the untimely "Fall off the horse" cliche. He's certainly keen on establishing a lasting vs. pure regeime, but he's getting a little lon in the tooth to be likely to have a kid, and Charles would make a push for regency and be backed by the Royalists even if he did (Not enough time for the kid to grow up). Maybe a No Hundred Days scenario where Louis integrates the Bonapartists and lays the foundation for a robust state structure that Charles will have difficulty undermining? Or perhaps you end up with crisis of Charter in 1815 by having Louis refuse to appoint an ultra-royalist ministry despite the elections, creating this weird scenario of the ultra-royalists being stuck with trying to say the King shoulden't be allowed to act on his perogative. A failed palace coup to try to be Charles on the throne could result in him being forced to renounce his place in the line of succession, putting the Orleans at the front, allowing for a steady path of reform rather than revolution.

2. Would that really screw Britain over though? The key problem with Ernest in my opinion is if he pushes too hard on Reaction without getting a strong domestic support base you won't be seeing him on the throne or effectively acting for long, nor the emergance of a strong Royalist/Hyper-Conservative faction pushing for the retention of noble power, so its a just speed bump at best.

3. Austria just needs to be hegemonic; she dosen't have to united the Germanies per say. Bash Prussia over the head with a stick a couple of times, and I don't think its too hard given there really isen't any other alternative pole to a Habsburg dominated Confederation even if it far guranteed to be far more decenteralized than Bismark's system.
 
Korea could work as your Meiji, in OTL the two big powers fighting over them were Japan and Russia; both of them are out of the picture here. The might be able to take the lead on modernization if the Intransigents are kept out of power. Plus given how many times Korea has been invaded it is pretty easy to imagine how they could fall to the same sort of mission creep, siege mentality that Japan had. They could come to view Manchuria as the noose around Korea's neck or Japan itself as the venomous hornet that waits off of their shores. Justifying colonizing it and then on to Siberia or maybe Alaska (Canada and America would most likely be weaker too ITTL).

I doubt Korea could do it. democracy101 has some good points, here and here.

Vietnam, or Thailand your best bets.
 
Last edited:
@Historyman 14

1. Hm... that's hard to pull off if you still have Louis XVIII take the throne and not go with the untimely "Fall off the horse" cliche. He's certainly keen on establishing a lasting vs. pure regeime, but he's getting a little lon in the tooth to be likely to have a kid, and Charles would make a push for regency and be backed by the Royalists even if he did (Not enough time for the kid to grow up). Maybe a No Hundred Days scenario where Louis integrates the Bonapartists and lays the foundation for a robust state structure that Charles will have difficulty undermining? Or perhaps you end up with crisis of Charter in 1815 by having Louis refuse to appoint an ultra-royalist ministry despite the elections, creating this weird scenario of the ultra-royalists being stuck with trying to say the King shoulden't be allowed to act on his perogative. A failed palace coup to try to be Charles on the throne could result in him being forced to renounce his place in the line of succession, putting the Orleans at the front, allowing for a steady path of reform rather than revolution.

2. Would that really screw Britain over though? The key problem with Ernest in my opinion is if he pushes too hard on Reaction without getting a strong domestic support base you won't be seeing him on the throne or effectively acting for long, nor the emergance of a strong Royalist/Hyper-Conservative faction pushing for the retention of noble power, so its a just speed bump at best.

3. Austria just needs to be hegemonic; she dosen't have to united the Germanies per say. Bash Prussia over the head with a stick a couple of times, and I don't think its too hard given there really isen't any other alternative pole to a Habsburg dominated Confederation even if it far guranteed to be far more decenteralized than Bismark's system.

1: Anything would be better then Charles X and all those idiots who tired to turn back the clock.

2: It be a starting point.
 
1: Anything would be better then Charles X and all those idiots who tired to turn back the clock.
.
Agreed. However, to fit the criteria you'd need to avoid an overly violent or contentious political crisis, which requires dancing Charles out of the line of sucession without giving a bloody shirt to the reactionaries. Otherwise, you run a high risk of the historical "Two Frances" social divide
 
Due to the question over slavery, the northern States seceed from the union in the mid 1840s. These New England States declare themselves an abolitionist republic with Daniel Webster as its first president. The southern and western states and the remaining northern states (Pennsylvania/New York/New Jersey/Ohio) declare the succession illegal. The NES fires upon the US fleet in Boston harbor. This, while no casualties, sparks the American Civil War.

General McClellan of the American Army loses repeatedly to the NES General John Brown. McClellan is eventually replaced by Robert Edward Lee at the beginning of US President Jefferson Davis's term in 1850. The war continues to stalemate for a while, major Naval engagements near Martha's Vineyard happening and a failed push by NES general William T. Sherman.

The United States recognize the need for more troops and bus pushed for the Emancipation bill; a bill that would guarantee the freedom of any slave and his family it he would fight for the United States government against the New England States. 1852 was the first appearance of Ironclad warships: the New English N.E.S Massachusetts and the U.S.S Monitor.

The downfall of the New England states came after the Second Battle of Ticonderoga when General Ulysses Grant meds to take the fort and cement control over Vermont. Lee's Army of the Hudson cornered Brown in Lexington. Brown died in a firefight near the old Federal arsenal on Beacon Hill.

William T. Sherman and his beloved (by the troops) Second in Command Joshua Chamberlain continued to fight on against the now numerically Superior United States Army. New English president James G Blaine (Webster died in 1852) was at his wit's end: after the Trent incident, the United Kingdom refused to grant diplomatic recognition to the failing republic.

1854, the final nail in coffin came with the fall of Boston and the surrender of Sherman to Lee at Old Boston state house. The capital of the NES was quickly moved to Hartford, Connecticut. On April 7th, 1854, both president Blaine and general Chamberlain surrender to the United States.

But all was not well. While he lived long enough to see the end of the war, US President Jefferson Davis was assassinated in Ford's Theater Washington DC while attending the play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare. Davis was shot and killed by Henry David Thoreau. The successor to Davis was Stephen Douglas.

Douglas implemented the reconstruction program in effort to reintegrate the northern states. The Whig party decried that his efforts were too lenient on the Traders and that harsher treatment was called for. Douglas was almost impeached but stayed in office by a matter of two votes. General Robert E Lee was drafted by the Whig party during the election of 1860 to run against Democrat John C Breckinridge.

The north would resent the occupation and create a number of anti American groups such as the Blue Calvary, who targeted carpet baggers and black federal troops still occupying. The blue Calvary with also go on to attack and Lynch Irish Catholics (who were opposed to succession) and free blacks upon the grounds of " you sided with your masters instead of your liberators". The majority of the latter half of the nineteenth Century and early part of The 20th century would be dominated by The Whig party until 1914.
Was tgis sufficient for reverse ACW?
 
Due to the question over slavery, the northern States seceed from the union in the mid 1840s. These New England States declare themselves an abolitionist republic with Daniel Webster as its first president. The southern and western states and the remaining northern states (Pennsylvania/New York/New Jersey/Ohio) declare the succession illegal. The NES fires upon the US fleet in Boston harbor. This, while no casualties, sparks the American Civil War.

General McClellan of the American Army loses repeatedly to the NES General John Brown. McClellan is eventually replaced by Robert Edward Lee at the beginning of US President Jefferson Davis's term in 1850. The war continues to stalemate for a while, major Naval engagements near Martha's Vineyard happening and a failed push by NES general William T. Sherman.

The United States recognize the need for more troops and bus pushed for the Emancipation bill; a bill that would guarantee the freedom of any slave and his family it he would fight for the United States government against the New England States. 1852 was the first appearance of Ironclad warships: the New English N.E.S Massachusetts and the U.S.S Monitor.

The downfall of the New England states came after the Second Battle of Ticonderoga when General Ulysses Grant meds to take the fort and cement control over Vermont. Lee's Army of the Hudson cornered Brown in Lexington. Brown died in a firefight near the old Federal arsenal on Beacon Hill.

William T. Sherman and his beloved (by the troops) Second in Command Joshua Chamberlain continued to fight on against the now numerically Superior United States Army. New English president James G Blaine (Webster died in 1852) was at his wit's end: after the Trent incident, the United Kingdom refused to grant diplomatic recognition to the failing republic.

1854, the final nail in coffin came with the fall of Boston and the surrender of Sherman to Lee at Old Boston state house. The capital of the NES was quickly moved to Hartford, Connecticut. On April 7th, 1854, both president Blaine and general Chamberlain surrender to the United States.

But all was not well. While he lived long enough to see the end of the war, US President Jefferson Davis was assassinated in Ford's Theater Washington DC while attending the play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare. Davis was shot and killed by Henry David Thoreau. The successor to Davis was Stephen Douglas.

Douglas implemented the reconstruction program in effort to reintegrate the northern states. The Whig party decried that his efforts were too lenient on the Traders and that harsher treatment was called for. Douglas was almost impeached but stayed in office by a matter of two votes. General Robert E Lee was drafted by the Whig party during the election of 1860 to run against Democrat John C Breckinridge.

The north would resent the occupation and create a number of anti American groups such as the Blue Calvary, who targeted carpet baggers and black federal troops still occupying. The blue Calvary with also go on to attack and Lynch Irish Catholics (who were opposed to succession) and free blacks upon the grounds of " you sided with your masters instead of your liberators". The majority of the latter half of the nineteenth Century and early part of The 20th century would be dominated by The Whig party until 1914.

This is probably... a little too paralell and unlikely
 
Here are some ideas for Prussia:

The double monarchy of Prussia-Poland consists at 1900 of the Kingdom of Prussia (Brandenburg, Pommern, Silesia, East-Prussia and Schleswig Holstein and Denmark or at least Jutland), and the Kingdom of Poland (basically Congress Poland + some territories in the east of that annexed from Russia). Prussia-Poland occupied the Baltic from Russia, but decided not to integrate it into on of the two kingdoms. Denmark was conquered during the Napoleonic wars, but Prussia faces here huge resistance, and danish nationalists want their own kingdom and the same rank as Prussia and Poland. Also Polish migration into the industrial areas of Silesia and the status of the Polish population in Eastern Prussia increases conflicts.

Prussia won a huge amount of influence over the German States after the Napoleonic wars, and is considered one of the main winners of the conflict. In the 1830ies Prussia enacted a couple of repressive laws against the catholic church, which increasingly lead to unrest in the Rhineland and Poland. During the 1848 revolutions Prussia barely managed to defeat a large Polish rebellion with Austrian help. But Prussia lost control over the Rhineland in the 1848 revolution which weakened its industrialization efforts and influence over Germany. Somehow Prussia should be unable to regain the Rhineland (similar to the loss of Austria in OTL of their Italian possessions). Most German nationalists begin to see Prussia as one of their main enemies. 10-20 years after that Prussia tries to regain influence over Northern Germany and collides with Austria. Prussia lost that war and tries to make a compromise with Polish elites. But Prussia fails to enact military reforms since the compromise make those reforms impossible to enact.
 
Top