Challenge: Cold Crimean War

I recently made a map, with a POD in the Crimean War, resulting in a stalemate and the consolidation of Europe into two main power blocs, and included a basic summary of the timeline for this world until 1901:

The Era of Conflict began with the outbreak of the Crimean War in 1854. The ensuing stalemate divided Europe into two camps - the trilogy of Britain, France and Prussia on one side, with the Austrian Empire and Russia forming the other. With the Fourth American War in 1859, the British camp backed the fledgling Confederacy, prompting Russia to join forces with the Union, to its detriment - Alaska was ceded to Britain at the war's end.

The Fourth American War ended in 1864, with victory by default for the Confederacy, which managed to retain its independence, though many of the most influential slave states - Virginia and Maryland among them - remained in the Union. The Gadsden Purchase (Baja California and Sonora Territory) was split between the two nations, and the Indian Territories were granted de facto independence by the Treaty of Atlanta.

Following the end of the war, the two camps formally established defensive alliances: the Atlantic Bond, with Britain, France, Prussia and the Confederacy; and the Pact of Seattle, constituting of the United States, Russia, and Austria, with Nippon joining in 1871.

The German Unifications dominated the early 1870s, with Prussia's dominance over the North German Confederation being recognised as fact by its members, who joined in personal union with Prussia. Austria in turn annexed southern Germany, granting them suzerainty (but not sovereignty). After protests from Hungary, they were also granted this autonomous state of governance.

The most influential book of the century was published in the Netherlands in 1876, entitled Derde Weg (Third Path). The book, by Martin Van Rijn, proposed the abolition of current government, and its replacement with a company that would henceforth govern the state. Van Rijn cited the example of the East India Companies, noting that their power had grown so large over time that their states could not bear to see them become so powerful, and disestablished them. The message evidently got across to the Dutch population, who deposed then-King William III, establishing the Dutch Union, presided over by the United Netherlands Company.

Within months, more lands had fallen to this pernicious ideology, with the added twist that each race should have its own company, prompting the Dutch reconquest of Belgium in 1879. Denmark, Norway and Sweden united into the Nordic Union, governed by the Amalgamated Scandinavian Company, while Spain and Portugal became the United Iberian Company. An attempted rebellion in the Kingdom of Italy was forcefully subdued by France, with Sardinia being fully occupied by the Napoleonic government "until the end of the current emergency".

The majority of the Iberian possessions in the Caribbean voted to be annexed into the British Empire, keenly aware that without this protection they would be vulnerable to conquests by the United Iberian Company, while Prussia took on the Philippines.

The United Netherlands Company agreed to the rekindling of a Dutch Company in the East Indies, and the TIO (Trust van Indische Oceaan) quickly began to regain lands in Africa, much to the disgust of rival Britain, which declared all trade with the TIO to be illegal. This had about as much effect as you might it expect it to.

At sunrise in Beijing, on August the 8th, 1895, China was a relatively peaceful Empire. By sunset, the Unified Catai Corporation had taken the city. Within two months, the majority of Han China had been taken by the UCC, while Tibet became a British protectorate, and East Turkestan fell apart quickly.

The year is now 1901. Tension is brewing between the two Americas, while Europe is doing all it can to quash the Derdeweg nations. The question is no longer if war will occur, but when, and where...

Well, how plausible is this at all?
 
Its very interesting

Are you sure the POD is in the Crimean War - I can see what the 1st and 2nd American Wars would be (ARW and 1812) but what would the 3rd have been ?

Also, how to have such a huge addition to the Gadsen Purchase ? I doubt Santa Anna would have ceded anywhere near that much, so he can't be the one in power, and for the USA to want to BUY that much there would have to be some added impetus.

But as a timeline in its own right, and with these things, rightly IMHO remaining as mysteries, I like it !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Its very interesting

Are you sure the POD is in the Crimean War - I can see what the 1st and 2nd American Wars would be (ARW and 1812) but what would the 3rd have been ?

I'd assume Aroostook/Patriote went hot. This would have some very interesting results in the timeline...

For a start, it would stop the pennypinching in the Army Budget in the 1840's that degraded the British Army so much, leading into Britain having a larger, more effective army in the 1850's. The horrors of the Crimean winter become the horrors of the Canadian Winter....
 
I would point out that should Virginia fall, the chances of North Carolina staying in the Confederacy are much reduced. Unlike South Carolina, which was the birthplace of secessionism, North Carolina only barely voted to join the Confederacy, and much of that because of Virginia.

But I'd be interested to see how a war would go between USA and CSA, considering that Virginia had a majority of the CSA's production, wealth, and rail network. While forty years is a good long time to build up industry, even ignorring the substantial barriers/burdens to the CSA effectively industrializing, but ITTL they will be doing so without their primary source of industry and capital, while the US will in large part gain it. And since having two neighbors with whom you have had wars/tensions is generally a convincing argument to having a standing army, it would be a mite trite to suggest that the US has let its army go to the dogs (while the CSA would undoubtedly maintain a first-class military :rolleyes:). Unless the US for some reason is forced into war with both Canada(Britain) and the CSA at the same time, I have a hard time seeing how the CSA can really survive unless you want to pull a repeat of Turtledove, in which the US ignores everything west of the Appalachians (such as the Mississippi River) and instead gives the CSA a single narrow front.



Things I do like, however: A different CSA border, apparently good US-Russian relations, the exact opposite of international communism (racial corporatism? Yeah!), and a more interesting Germany.

Look forward to more.
 
Its very interesting

Are you sure the POD is in the Crimean War - I can see what the 1st and 2nd American Wars would be (ARW and 1812) but what would the 3rd have been ?

The last French and Indian War is classed as an American War to the historiographers ITTL, since it was the first major conflict that featured the American identity as such, all previous conflicts being between French and British colonists in the eyes eyes of the historians of TTL.

Also, how to have such a huge addition to the Gadsen Purchase ? I doubt Santa Anna would have ceded anywhere near that much, so he can't be the one in power, and for the USA to want to BUY that much there would have to be some added impetus.

In which case, I'll retcon it to this: Remember that the OTL Gadsden purchase was just folded into a territory, so we can presume that any purchases made at the same time with have resulted in a fiddling of the territorial boundaries. However, if the Gadsden Purchase had folded because of increasing Mexican stubbornness at a time when Congress simply would not send America back to war when it could simply re-plan the route of a railway, then after TTL's Civil War, the Confederacy decides to buy its way to the Pacific, this could work.

(I know it's a bit of a cliché that Mexico will sell any of its territory for two beads and a packet of el crispos, but if Mexico was poor enough and the land was empty enough, and with no anti-slave-staters in the Confederate Congress opposing it...)

But as a timeline in its own right, and with these things, rightly IMHO remaining as mysteries, I like it !

Thanks, Jon. I'm glad you like it.

I would point out that should Virginia fall, the chances of North Carolina staying in the Confederacy are much reduced. Unlike South Carolina, which was the birthplace of secessionism, North Carolina only barely voted to join the Confederacy, and much of that because of Virginia.

I cheerfully admit my ignorance of the American Civil War, and the maps has been altered accordingly (By the way, Virginia was a Unionist slave-state ITTL, what with one thing and another. I've de-split it on my map to show this.)

But I'd be interested to see how a war would go between USA and CSA, considering that Virginia had a majority of the CSA's production, wealth, and rail network. While forty years is a good long time to build up industry, even ignorring the substantial barriers/burdens to the CSA effectively industrializing, but ITTL they will be doing so without their primary source of industry and capital, while the US will in large part gain it. And since having two neighbors with whom you have had wars/tensions is generally a convincing argument to having a standing army, it would be a mite trite to suggest that the US has let its army go to the dogs (while the CSA would undoubtedly maintain a first-class military :rolleyes:). Unless the US for some reason is forced into war with both Canada(Britain) and the CSA at the same time, I have a hard time seeing how the CSA can really survive unless you want to pull a repeat of Turtledove, in which the US ignores everything west of the Appalachians (such as the Mississippi River) and instead gives the CSA a single narrow front.

Oh, I completely agree. In my opinion, the Confederacy would be completely and utterly drenched in hypothetical urine in a US/CS pissing contest, and I can't imagine that Britain would be upset enough to declare war on the United States, let alone France, or even Prussia, especially as this would only give Russia the excuse it has been looking for to try and retake Alaska.

No, in the event of a Fifth American War at this point, I have to agree that the European powers would be quite happy to let the war remain just an American War, especially with the Derdeweg threat lurking around the corner. (Ironically, the "Third Way" might be exactly the thing that repairs the relations between the First and Second Ways...) That's not to say that they wouldn't help out their respective allies, merely that the help will be unofficial, secret, and above all, small. (The Kiev Pact doesn't exactly need to give the Union much to pwn the Confederacy, and the Atlantic Bond isn't going to pour money down the drain with the South when it's quite clear that it will lose.)

Things I do like, however: A different CSA border, apparently good US-Russian relations, the exact opposite of international communism (racial corporatism? Yeah!),

Thank you to Tony Jones for the inspiration in Gurkani Alam, with the politics of the Anglo-Danish Empire, and to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries for the marvellous idea that if your skin is a certain colour, you will naturally find a particular stretch of territory to be your homeland.

and a more interesting Germany.

Surely a contradiction in terms?

Look forward to more.

I will sort this out as soon as I've got some response to the background above, and thanks for commenting!
 
Last edited:
Two things I'll say.

One, it appears you dropped the reference to ethnicity-based corporate states from your first draft. While you still have nation-based corps, the idea of pan-ethnic unifying states was a good one; it has the appeals to race superiority, and would help support why people want to be a "employee" of their corporation. If the Dutch Company has the stated goal of running for profit as well for the betterment of the Dutch race, it could more easily justify colonialism and such as a way in serving in the shareholder (legally limited to ethnic Dutch) interest.


Second, a thought as to the Gadsden delimma. Perhaps it could be played out as thus, before the defensive alliances start coming into play.

Post 4AW, the Confederacy looks at itself and realizes what sort of shape it is in. It's poor, industry remains in the North, and its main source of wealth, cotton is increasingly unstable. And somehow, the apparent solution to the problems of being small and underpopulated is to expand South. The Caribbean isles are off limits, but Mexico is weak. And more importantly, Mexico has renenged on its debts with Britain, who has resolved to send in some forces to force payments and has asked the CSA for diplomatic support.

The CSA does more than that, though. They also "donate" troops, several times the force that Britain put in, and they march into Mexico. Here comes Mexican-American War 2.0, with similar results. Except that Mexico puts up a bit more of a resistance in some areas, especially near the approach to Baja, and any hints of sympathy for the Confederacy for having hurt the nation that stole half of Mexico in the first place is obliterated. And at the same time, US agents/press widely spread the fact that the first Mexican War was instigated and fought by and for the Southerners who would eventually become the Confederacy, and how the Mex-Am War was widely opposed in the "real" US. This new war is clearly a land grab by the same people as last time, which for a time boosts views of the US and the reverse for the CSA.

The CSA by this time has made most of the gains it will eventually keep, and the heroes of the 4AW have won almost everywhere but in the extreme Northwest, where Braxton Bragg was humiliated. It has reached the Pacific, and British unease of the CSA's actions are balanced by hopes that by becoming trans-continental, the British might be able to freely roam both coasts of the US in case of war, as well as a resolve that at this point chances for good US-British relations have long passed.

But the coup de grace is prevented by a surprise maneuver: knowing that the CSA would demand it in the peace conference, Mexico and US arrange a "loan" of one hundred years for Baja California to the US in exchange for money and various other concessions after the war. It's clear that it is actually a sale, considering how at the end of the period a plebiscite will be launched for the the final destination, but the CSA has no claims to controlling the area, and US troops quickly move in and cut off the peninsula region from the CSA, as well as running a de facto blockade to keep British ships away for as long as possible.

The CSA is humiliated now that their trans-continental status will only help in peacetime now that control of Baja has allowed the US to shut out the CSA's west coast, and pressed by events elsewhere (perhaps the first corporate revolution) Britain decides to withdraw its forces and cease support should a settlement not be reached soon. The treaty is made, and while the CSA and Britain effectively make a puppet out of the Mexican government, their presence is very unpopular and it is an unhappy relationship, to say the least.




Thoughts? Or did I just ramble? :D
 
Two things I'll say.

One, it appears you dropped the reference to ethnicity-based corporate states from your first draft. While you still have nation-based corps, the idea of pan-ethnic unifying states was a good one; it has the appeals to race superiority, and would help support why people want to be a "employee" of their corporation. If the Dutch Company has the stated goal of running for profit as well for the betterment of the Dutch race, it could more easily justify colonialism and such as a way in serving in the shareholder (legally limited to ethnic Dutch) interest.


Second, a thought as to the Gadsden delimma. Perhaps it could be played out as thus, before the defensive alliances start coming into play.

Post 4AW, the Confederacy looks at itself and realizes what sort of shape it is in. It's poor, industry remains in the North, and its main source of wealth, cotton is increasingly unstable. And somehow, the apparent solution to the problems of being small and underpopulated is to expand South. The Caribbean isles are off limits, but Mexico is weak. And more importantly, Mexico has renenged on its debts with Britain, who has resolved to send in some forces to force payments and has asked the CSA for diplomatic support.

The CSA does more than that, though. They also "donate" troops, several times the force that Britain put in, and they march into Mexico. Here comes Mexican-American War 2.0, with similar results. Except that Mexico puts up a bit more of a resistance in some areas, especially near the approach to Baja, and any hints of sympathy for the Confederacy for having hurt the nation that stole half of Mexico in the first place is obliterated. And at the same time, US agents/press widely spread the fact that the first Mexican War was instigated and fought by and for the Southerners who would eventually become the Confederacy, and how the Mex-Am War was widely opposed in the "real" US. This new war is clearly a land grab by the same people as last time, which for a time boosts views of the US and the reverse for the CSA.

The CSA by this time has made most of the gains it will eventually keep, and the heroes of the 4AW have won almost everywhere but in the extreme Northwest, where Braxton Bragg was humiliated. It has reached the Pacific, and British unease of the CSA's actions are balanced by hopes that by becoming trans-continental, the British might be able to freely roam both coasts of the US in case of war, as well as a resolve that at this point chances for good US-British relations have long passed.

But the coup de grace is prevented by a surprise maneuver: knowing that the CSA would demand it in the peace conference, Mexico and US arrange a "loan" of one hundred years for Baja California to the US in exchange for money and various other concessions after the war. It's clear that it is actually a sale, considering how at the end of the period a plebiscite will be launched for the the final destination, but the CSA has no claims to controlling the area, and US troops quickly move in and cut off the peninsula region from the CSA, as well as running a de facto blockade to keep British ships away for as long as possible.

The CSA is humiliated now that their trans-continental status will only help in peacetime now that control of Baja has allowed the US to shut out the CSA's west coast, and pressed by events elsewhere (perhaps the first corporate revolution) Britain decides to withdraw its forces and cease support should a settlement not be reached soon. The treaty is made, and while the CSA and Britain effectively make a puppet out of the Mexican government, their presence is very unpopular and it is an unhappy relationship, to say the least.

Thoughts? Or did I just ramble? :D

I may have to steal all of this. Thanks, this'll really flesh out the skeleton draft I'm preparing!
 
I love the idea of a corporation ideology.

But when do we get artificial humans dreaming of android sheep? :D
 
There is a problem with a Confederate-Mexican War. This smaller Confederacy, even though victorious by 1864, would have suffered - percentage wise - even greater losses than in OTL's Civil War. I must assume that the Union stopped the war due to heavier casualities and less success, leading to a defeat of Lincoln in the 1864 elections. This could not occur without heavy losses for the victors, given the type of warfare seen in this period.

Therefore, where is the manpower needed to invade Mexico? If the Confederate army moves south, what stops the US from resuming the war?
And, more important, where is the money to fight another war coming from? It will take many years to rebuild the Confederate economy to be able to fight another war - especially one with the logistic requirements of an invasion of Mexico.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
There is a problem with a Confederate-Mexican War. This smaller Confederacy, even though victorious by 1864, would have suffered - percentage wise - even greater losses than in OTL's Civil War. I must assume that the Union stopped the war due to heavier casualities and less success, leading to a defeat of Lincoln in the 1864 elections. This could not occur without heavy losses for the victors, given the type of warfare seen in this period.

Therefore, where is the manpower needed to invade Mexico? If the Confederate army moves south, what stops the US from resuming the war?
And, more important, where is the money to fight another war coming from? It will take many years to rebuild the Confederate economy to be able to fight another war - especially one with the logistic requirements of an invasion of Mexico.

Perhaps in this TL VA and KY declared neutrality (maybe MO as well?), neither leaving the US to join the CS, but not sending forces to the US or allowing US armies to cross them. It thus becomes very difficult for one side or the other to hurt the other, and the US mainly fights by launching amphibious invasions.

In 1864, the votes of VA, MD, DE, KY and MO swing the election considerably towards a settled peace. The ability of states to defy central government is now prettymuch enshrined, leading to a true Federal structure...
 
I am going to say that one must defuse the Russian-Austrian tensions over the Balkans before there is an alliance. Austria wanted to expand its rule over the Balkans while the Russians wanted to ally its self with its Slav brothers. These two competing ideals led to troubles and conflict in OTL. If one can defuse this than it is possible for an alliance but the Slavs under Austrian rule would feel betrayed by Russia and might effictevly end the idea of Pan Slaviaism. Out of curiosity would Russia get Constantinople?
 
I am going to say that one must defuse the Russian-Austrian tensions over the Balkans before there is an alliance. Austria wanted to expand its rule over the Balkans while the Russians wanted to ally its self with its Slav brothers. These two competing ideals led to troubles and conflict in OTL. If one can defuse this than it is possible for an alliance but the Slavs under Austrian rule would feel betrayed by Russia and might effictevly end the idea of Pan Slaviaism. Out of curiosity would Russia get Constantinople?

Well, the first Pan-Slavic Congress didn't like the Germans or Russia, with just about everybody there being Czech, and Pan-Slavism in the Balkans didn't really emerge until Serbia declared independence. If Austria astonished the world with their gratitude as opposed to their ingratitude, and fought alongside Russia, then they might begin to regard each other not so much as rivals as "brothers in arms". I mean, Britain and France nearly went to war in 1898, but just ten years later they were firmly united against a common threat.

Of course, if Austria declared for Russia, Prussia may be forced into the Anglo-French camp by matters of geography, i.e. its two largest neighbours, and those closest to the Prussian heartlands, are now allied and deploying troops - Prussia would decide that a victorious Austria and Russia might not simply expand southwards, but may attempt to invade Prussia. (NOTE: This might not happen, but could simply be Prussian paranoia.)
 
I have a possible solution for the Gadsden/Mexican War problem: William Walker.

Say his filibuster succeeds, and the Republic of Sonora manages to break away from Mexico. Santa Anna, upon hearing this, immediately breaks off negotiations with the United States, refusing to part with any land unless they intervene to restore Sonora and Baja California to Mexico. At the same time, Sonora requests admission to the Union. After a heated debate in Congress, the compromise is reached:

*The Republic will be admitted to the Union, but in two parts - Lower California and Sonora.
*Lower California will be a free-soil state, like California (now Upper California).
*A plebiscite will be held as to Sonora's slave-status.
*Future acts of this kind will be held as illegal wars.
*Mexico is given financial reparations for much of the land it lost.

Congress narrowly approves this compromise, and the Republic is admitted as Lower California and Sonora. The Gadsden negotiations are no longer required, as the United States has the territory it set out to get and more.
 
Top