Compiled Version of Plethora of Princes... (For Grey Wolf)
- Thread starter Othniel
- Start date
Personally I prefer the red-white-red...and I'm going to say that the Yucatan adopted the tricolor when they threw off the US protectorateship during the US civil War.
The Yucatan had this before then;(yuk!)
To continue with the onslaught of flags;
Rupert's Land
Automous Republic of Deseret within Mexico;
The Yucatan had this before then;(yuk!)
To continue with the onslaught of flags;
Rupert's Land
Automous Republic of Deseret within Mexico;
Last edited:
Back to the Timeline;
1888
The funeral of King Wilhelm I in Berlin was like a glossary of who was who in European royalty. The ninety-one year old monarch had been elderly when he had taken the throne, in 1861, and his reign of twenty-seven years had been longer than anyone could have imagined. It had seen Prussia fight Denmark in the mid 1860s, acquire suzerainty over the newly-independent duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, and then annex them outright on the death of their first independent ruler at the start of the 1880s. Prussia's actions had in many ways caused the collapse of the German Confederation's political function. The Diet at Frankfurt was no more, and only the commercial and customs treaties remained in effect. The newly-acquired port of Kiel was in the midst of a massive development into a first class naval base, and the years of the 1880s had seen steady progress on the construction of the Kiel Canal, across the isthmus to the North Sea.
Among those attending the funeral were the three longest-reigning monarchs in Europe, King Louis I of Belgium who had ruled since that country had achieved its independence at the start of the 1830s, and King George V of Great Britain, and King Francis I of Ireland, both of whose thrones owed themselves to the settlement of the British Civil War in 1836.
Another to garner much attention was Emperor Rudolph of Austria, now apparently much recovered from his depression, and displaying by his side his young Empress, Luisa Antoinette, clearly heavily pregnant with their first child.
Tsar Aleksandr II of Russia cut an imposing figure, whilst a more exotic pose was struck by Prince Nicholas of Montenegro, whose retinue was paid for at the personal expense of the Tsar, rather ominously as some observers remarked.
The newest monarch, apart from Prussia's own King Frederick III, was King George II of Greece who had succeeded his father only the previous year. In his early thirties, and with a tiny retinue, all that his impoverished kingdom could afford, he cut a pathetic and lonely figure on the fringes of the event, and few noticed his early departure for his kinsman's estates in the Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz.
The youngest monarch, of course, was the adolescent King Charles XI of France, accompanying the Regent on a very rare journey outside of his kingdom.
With peace once again reigning in the world, it seemed as if the Old Order was signalling its re-establishment in full by the pomp and glamour of the occasion, respectful though it was to nonogenarian who had done much in his long reign to shape Prussia's modern course.
Grey Wolf
Sometimes it is useful to stop and look back on how a decade ends. To many at the New Year in 1890, this was certainly a time for this.
In some parts of the world, the past couple of years alone had brought about major changes.
The Russo-Ottoman conquest of Persia was declared over by the end of the Summer 1889 campaigning season. The Ottomans occupied the South-Western province, and the Westernmost third of the central Western province. The Russians occupy the rest, but in the East of the country, several local rulers remain in control, with self-rule but mostly autonomous under Russian suzerainty.
The Khan of Kalat, ruler of Baluchistan remains independent, playing off Russian influence against British from out of India.
The situation within the Federal Republic of Canada is a confusing one. The war has made many people rich, mainly from dubious activities, smuggling, third-party selling and profiteering. The government at Montreal had taken out a large loan from France, offered by the Duke of Chartres in cousinly fortitude. With the pressures of war lifted, the trade barriers with Rupertsland and the USA lifted, the Maritime Provinces began a seccessionist movement against the enforced federation with Lower Canada that Britain's Radicals had forced upon them. By 1889, a peaceful separation had been agreed. New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island would remain with Quebec, as would Labrador. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland embarked on a federation of their own. Most observers expected it to last little more than a few years. Meanwhile, in the areas remaining in federation with Quebec, various tensions and rivalries remained.
Paraguay saw a major change in the aftermath of victory. Under British auspices, Juan Francisco - Panchito - Lopez had himself crowned King Francisco II in the Summer of 1888. During 1889, he began to make threatening moves towards the Empire of Brazil, over the province of Mato Grosso. June 1889, Paraguay awoke to the stunning news that Francisco II was dead, murdered in his bed as he slept. In what seemed to many like a coup d'etat, his younger brother, with British suport evident in the presence of British soldiers in La Paz, was crowned king in succession to Francisco. The border tensions with Brazil soon ebbed away from the national consciousness.
In Araucania and Patagonia, 1888 saw Chile finally agree to come to the negotiating table with King Achilles I. With British and French diplomats present in renewed strength, Chile agreed to limit her claims to a specific area of Northern Araucania, but held out for the cession of Tierra del Fuego, but agreed not to establish settlements there, except in co-operation with King Achilles' government.
Benefitting from the compensation in kind from the Treaty of Montreal, Spanish industrialists in Havana and Santiago-de-Cuba brought modern industrial practices to those cities, and further furnished with loans from British banks, began a more general modernisation of Cuban society. Somewhat to the surprise of many, the Confederate exile populations proved to be keen to buy into the revolution. Whilst retaining slaves on their own estates, they embraced modernism in the industrial process.
After the war, the Caribbean trade which had fallen into the hands of Texan and Mexican merchants and shipowners for the large-part remained under the control of Galveston, Vera Cruz and the like. The US merchant marine would revive, but find new markets. Those lost so close to home would remain lost. It was boomtime in Texas.
Trouble in the United Provinces of Central America was viewed as endemic. Putting down secessionist movements, waging campaigns against the rebels, kept many ex-US army troops in a living after the expeditionary force was withdrawn from South America. The trans-oceanic railway had evolved massively during the war and continued to be important to US trade. The Trans-Oceanic Canal, now running behind schedule, was a major focus of US attention in this difficult period.
November 1888 saw a presidential election in the United States. The Reform Party of William T Sherman had schismed, putting up several candidates, one of whom merged with several minor movements to form a new Populist Party and provide the strongest opposition to the US Radical Party, but the result was never quite within doubt, and the Radicals won the election, their candidate being sworn in as successor to Charles F Adams and Charles Sumner as the bearer of the Radical flame.
Grey Wolf
1890 saw a radical change in one of Europe's forgotten countries. Since the 1830s war with France and the Belgian National Congress, the Kingdom of the Netherlands had become a more militarised, and somewhat insular country. The long reign of King Willem III had seen a continuation of the militarisation, the keeping up-to-date in naval developments, despite the drain on resources, and support for a radical Calvinism which denied the Catholic population of North Brabant Catholic bishops. The constitution of the Netherlands remained a centralised monarchical one, and the king's writ was law in politics. Personally, King Willem III had been a boor of a man. Rumours that he beat his wife leaked out even into the press of countries such as France or Prussia where such discussion about fellow monarchs was looked down upon, not least by the official censor. Relations between the king and his eldest son, Crown Prince Willem were strained at the best of times, and took the form of a bubbling conflict at the others. King Willem had denied his son his choice of bride and as a consequence the younger Willem had remained unmarried. As a reaction to his father's radical Calvinism he adopted a liberal aire, and was often left out of state occasions as a punishment by his father. King Willem III's younger son, Prince Alexander, had been raised in position by his father, encouraged during the late 1880s to marry, and had chosen Emma of Waldeck and Pyrmont as his bride. With one daughter, born in 1889, and another child on the way, the long-term succession of the dynasty appeared to lie in the hands of Prince Alexander.
The death of King Willem III in 1890 thus created a fission in the Netherlands body politic. The accession of a liberal-minded king in King Willem IV was seen as a challenge by the radical Calvinist establishment, and as the new king embarked on his reign in a spirit of reform, those whose interests were threatened increasingly looked towards Prince Alexander for leadership. The birth of a son, named Willem for his grandfather, in the mid-months of 1890, seemed to add to Prince Alexander's credentials and he was openly spoken of as a replacement for Willem IV, should his brother wish to abdicate.
The Catholic population of North Brabant had increasingly looked towards Belgium since the ban on local Catholic bishops had occurred in 1849. King Willem IV saw this as a dangerous weakness in his kingdom and began making overtures towards the Catholic leadership in a bid to assuage their grievances and bring them more into the Netherlands body politic.
The establishment, both the Calvinist religious establishment and the conservative political establishment, saw the king's actions as both dangerous and treasonous. In September 1890 they acted, enacting a coup d'etat and seizing the person of the king. Even as Prince Alexander demanded to know what was going on, his supporters declared his brother deposed and himself as king. Despite his own misgivings, Prince Alexander allowed himself to go along with this, and was sworn in as King Alexander I of the Netherlands in a partisan ceremony.
Northern Brabant rose in revolt, and in Brussels, the elderly King Louis I held urgent discussions with his cabinet on the crisis across the border.
Grey Wolf
Ponderings
Frederick III may not be the liberal he was renowned to be, either because in this ATL he has not developed quite that way, or because his qualities were often seen in OTL in contrast to his son. Nevertheless, even in the ATL he is married to a British princess (daughter of George V) and is generally liberal-ISH, at least for a Prussian. Thus, he can be expected to support personally Willem IV rather than the usurper Alexander I. However, does this advance Prussia's goals at all? Perhaps simply by intervention for whomever, Prussia's goals would be advanced?
Belgium looks likely to flex its muscles, which in this ATL are somewhat stronger than in OTL. Intervention in the name of Willem IV, and in aid of the N Brabant Catholics, would have France very much present in the background. King Charles XI is about to come of age, if we assume 16 to be the age where he can take over for himself (it often was elsewhere). The Duke of Chartres continues to wants to keep France out of wars, but if a war has been started next door he could well let his principles lapse this time.
The question therefore becomes how can King Alexander I work his own way through all this - apart from the conservatives and radical Calvinists at home, how can he gain international recognition, aid and even allies ?
One really can't see a Reform-Moderate government in London going so far as to risk war with France, or even with Belgium, in favour of a guy whose policies are pretty obnoxious. They might do some deal around the edges, perhaps for the Netherlands Antilles as a price, but its likely to come to nothing unless Alexander can stabilise his position.
What might prod some more action is if Prussia, in aiding Willem IV, invades or occupies other German states as a temporary measure, or simply due to passing through and not departing. Without the Diet at Frankfurt, the likes of the Saxon Duchies cannot really defend themselves, and are unlikely all to have meaningful alliances in place. Could this stir in some way an Austro-Prussian war ? If so, it would probably drag in France and probably not on Prussia's side despite the alliance of the mid 1860s. Belgium would eye Prussian Luxembourg as well.
Maybe it would be idea for the timeline if Frederick III croaks, after an extra two years of life? Then his heir, whose name I've forgotten but is a more stable and not deformed analogue to Wilhelm II, could see himself as presented with a mission. If he opts to support Alexander I despite his policies, then the scene could be set for a European war?
Grey Wolf
Part 13
The World Writ Large
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=173878#post173878
The World Writ Large
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=173878#post173878
1888
The funeral of King Wilhelm I in Berlin was like a glossary of who was who in European royalty. The ninety-one year old monarch had been elderly when he had taken the throne, in 1861, and his reign of twenty-seven years had been longer than anyone could have imagined. It had seen Prussia fight Denmark in the mid 1860s, acquire suzerainty over the newly-independent duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, and then annex them outright on the death of their first independent ruler at the start of the 1880s. Prussia's actions had in many ways caused the collapse of the German Confederation's political function. The Diet at Frankfurt was no more, and only the commercial and customs treaties remained in effect. The newly-acquired port of Kiel was in the midst of a massive development into a first class naval base, and the years of the 1880s had seen steady progress on the construction of the Kiel Canal, across the isthmus to the North Sea.
Among those attending the funeral were the three longest-reigning monarchs in Europe, King Louis I of Belgium who had ruled since that country had achieved its independence at the start of the 1830s, and King George V of Great Britain, and King Francis I of Ireland, both of whose thrones owed themselves to the settlement of the British Civil War in 1836.
Another to garner much attention was Emperor Rudolph of Austria, now apparently much recovered from his depression, and displaying by his side his young Empress, Luisa Antoinette, clearly heavily pregnant with their first child.
Tsar Aleksandr II of Russia cut an imposing figure, whilst a more exotic pose was struck by Prince Nicholas of Montenegro, whose retinue was paid for at the personal expense of the Tsar, rather ominously as some observers remarked.
The newest monarch, apart from Prussia's own King Frederick III, was King George II of Greece who had succeeded his father only the previous year. In his early thirties, and with a tiny retinue, all that his impoverished kingdom could afford, he cut a pathetic and lonely figure on the fringes of the event, and few noticed his early departure for his kinsman's estates in the Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz.
The youngest monarch, of course, was the adolescent King Charles XI of France, accompanying the Regent on a very rare journey outside of his kingdom.
With peace once again reigning in the world, it seemed as if the Old Order was signalling its re-establishment in full by the pomp and glamour of the occasion, respectful though it was to nonogenarian who had done much in his long reign to shape Prussia's modern course.
Grey Wolf
Sometimes it is useful to stop and look back on how a decade ends. To many at the New Year in 1890, this was certainly a time for this.
In some parts of the world, the past couple of years alone had brought about major changes.
The Russo-Ottoman conquest of Persia was declared over by the end of the Summer 1889 campaigning season. The Ottomans occupied the South-Western province, and the Westernmost third of the central Western province. The Russians occupy the rest, but in the East of the country, several local rulers remain in control, with self-rule but mostly autonomous under Russian suzerainty.
The Khan of Kalat, ruler of Baluchistan remains independent, playing off Russian influence against British from out of India.
The situation within the Federal Republic of Canada is a confusing one. The war has made many people rich, mainly from dubious activities, smuggling, third-party selling and profiteering. The government at Montreal had taken out a large loan from France, offered by the Duke of Chartres in cousinly fortitude. With the pressures of war lifted, the trade barriers with Rupertsland and the USA lifted, the Maritime Provinces began a seccessionist movement against the enforced federation with Lower Canada that Britain's Radicals had forced upon them. By 1889, a peaceful separation had been agreed. New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island would remain with Quebec, as would Labrador. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland embarked on a federation of their own. Most observers expected it to last little more than a few years. Meanwhile, in the areas remaining in federation with Quebec, various tensions and rivalries remained.
Paraguay saw a major change in the aftermath of victory. Under British auspices, Juan Francisco - Panchito - Lopez had himself crowned King Francisco II in the Summer of 1888. During 1889, he began to make threatening moves towards the Empire of Brazil, over the province of Mato Grosso. June 1889, Paraguay awoke to the stunning news that Francisco II was dead, murdered in his bed as he slept. In what seemed to many like a coup d'etat, his younger brother, with British suport evident in the presence of British soldiers in La Paz, was crowned king in succession to Francisco. The border tensions with Brazil soon ebbed away from the national consciousness.
In Araucania and Patagonia, 1888 saw Chile finally agree to come to the negotiating table with King Achilles I. With British and French diplomats present in renewed strength, Chile agreed to limit her claims to a specific area of Northern Araucania, but held out for the cession of Tierra del Fuego, but agreed not to establish settlements there, except in co-operation with King Achilles' government.
Benefitting from the compensation in kind from the Treaty of Montreal, Spanish industrialists in Havana and Santiago-de-Cuba brought modern industrial practices to those cities, and further furnished with loans from British banks, began a more general modernisation of Cuban society. Somewhat to the surprise of many, the Confederate exile populations proved to be keen to buy into the revolution. Whilst retaining slaves on their own estates, they embraced modernism in the industrial process.
After the war, the Caribbean trade which had fallen into the hands of Texan and Mexican merchants and shipowners for the large-part remained under the control of Galveston, Vera Cruz and the like. The US merchant marine would revive, but find new markets. Those lost so close to home would remain lost. It was boomtime in Texas.
Trouble in the United Provinces of Central America was viewed as endemic. Putting down secessionist movements, waging campaigns against the rebels, kept many ex-US army troops in a living after the expeditionary force was withdrawn from South America. The trans-oceanic railway had evolved massively during the war and continued to be important to US trade. The Trans-Oceanic Canal, now running behind schedule, was a major focus of US attention in this difficult period.
November 1888 saw a presidential election in the United States. The Reform Party of William T Sherman had schismed, putting up several candidates, one of whom merged with several minor movements to form a new Populist Party and provide the strongest opposition to the US Radical Party, but the result was never quite within doubt, and the Radicals won the election, their candidate being sworn in as successor to Charles F Adams and Charles Sumner as the bearer of the Radical flame.
Grey Wolf
1890 saw a radical change in one of Europe's forgotten countries. Since the 1830s war with France and the Belgian National Congress, the Kingdom of the Netherlands had become a more militarised, and somewhat insular country. The long reign of King Willem III had seen a continuation of the militarisation, the keeping up-to-date in naval developments, despite the drain on resources, and support for a radical Calvinism which denied the Catholic population of North Brabant Catholic bishops. The constitution of the Netherlands remained a centralised monarchical one, and the king's writ was law in politics. Personally, King Willem III had been a boor of a man. Rumours that he beat his wife leaked out even into the press of countries such as France or Prussia where such discussion about fellow monarchs was looked down upon, not least by the official censor. Relations between the king and his eldest son, Crown Prince Willem were strained at the best of times, and took the form of a bubbling conflict at the others. King Willem had denied his son his choice of bride and as a consequence the younger Willem had remained unmarried. As a reaction to his father's radical Calvinism he adopted a liberal aire, and was often left out of state occasions as a punishment by his father. King Willem III's younger son, Prince Alexander, had been raised in position by his father, encouraged during the late 1880s to marry, and had chosen Emma of Waldeck and Pyrmont as his bride. With one daughter, born in 1889, and another child on the way, the long-term succession of the dynasty appeared to lie in the hands of Prince Alexander.
The death of King Willem III in 1890 thus created a fission in the Netherlands body politic. The accession of a liberal-minded king in King Willem IV was seen as a challenge by the radical Calvinist establishment, and as the new king embarked on his reign in a spirit of reform, those whose interests were threatened increasingly looked towards Prince Alexander for leadership. The birth of a son, named Willem for his grandfather, in the mid-months of 1890, seemed to add to Prince Alexander's credentials and he was openly spoken of as a replacement for Willem IV, should his brother wish to abdicate.
The Catholic population of North Brabant had increasingly looked towards Belgium since the ban on local Catholic bishops had occurred in 1849. King Willem IV saw this as a dangerous weakness in his kingdom and began making overtures towards the Catholic leadership in a bid to assuage their grievances and bring them more into the Netherlands body politic.
The establishment, both the Calvinist religious establishment and the conservative political establishment, saw the king's actions as both dangerous and treasonous. In September 1890 they acted, enacting a coup d'etat and seizing the person of the king. Even as Prince Alexander demanded to know what was going on, his supporters declared his brother deposed and himself as king. Despite his own misgivings, Prince Alexander allowed himself to go along with this, and was sworn in as King Alexander I of the Netherlands in a partisan ceremony.
Northern Brabant rose in revolt, and in Brussels, the elderly King Louis I held urgent discussions with his cabinet on the crisis across the border.
Grey Wolf
Ponderings
Frederick III may not be the liberal he was renowned to be, either because in this ATL he has not developed quite that way, or because his qualities were often seen in OTL in contrast to his son. Nevertheless, even in the ATL he is married to a British princess (daughter of George V) and is generally liberal-ISH, at least for a Prussian. Thus, he can be expected to support personally Willem IV rather than the usurper Alexander I. However, does this advance Prussia's goals at all? Perhaps simply by intervention for whomever, Prussia's goals would be advanced?
Belgium looks likely to flex its muscles, which in this ATL are somewhat stronger than in OTL. Intervention in the name of Willem IV, and in aid of the N Brabant Catholics, would have France very much present in the background. King Charles XI is about to come of age, if we assume 16 to be the age where he can take over for himself (it often was elsewhere). The Duke of Chartres continues to wants to keep France out of wars, but if a war has been started next door he could well let his principles lapse this time.
The question therefore becomes how can King Alexander I work his own way through all this - apart from the conservatives and radical Calvinists at home, how can he gain international recognition, aid and even allies ?
One really can't see a Reform-Moderate government in London going so far as to risk war with France, or even with Belgium, in favour of a guy whose policies are pretty obnoxious. They might do some deal around the edges, perhaps for the Netherlands Antilles as a price, but its likely to come to nothing unless Alexander can stabilise his position.
What might prod some more action is if Prussia, in aiding Willem IV, invades or occupies other German states as a temporary measure, or simply due to passing through and not departing. Without the Diet at Frankfurt, the likes of the Saxon Duchies cannot really defend themselves, and are unlikely all to have meaningful alliances in place. Could this stir in some way an Austro-Prussian war ? If so, it would probably drag in France and probably not on Prussia's side despite the alliance of the mid 1860s. Belgium would eye Prussian Luxembourg as well.
Maybe it would be idea for the timeline if Frederick III croaks, after an extra two years of life? Then his heir, whose name I've forgotten but is a more stable and not deformed analogue to Wilhelm II, could see himself as presented with a mission. If he opts to support Alexander I despite his policies, then the scene could be set for a European war?
Grey Wolf
Continued in Part 13B
The World Writ Large Coninued
(13.B)
(13.B)
Australia
The British Civil War of the early 1830s interupted the regular life of Australia. Although the war did not spill over onto the continent, even in its aftermath (unlike in India), the transportation of convicts first decreased then stopped altogether. The Radical-Reformist government, in power after the Settlement of 1836, then outlawed the practice completely. It could be argued that it no longer fitted the needs of the home country anyway. Initially conceived as a way of dealing with a burgeoning prison population, the effect of the civil war had been to decrease the population of Great Britain, both through the deaths from battle, disease and starvation, and through the exile to Hannover of the die-hard Ultras and their supporters. With population pressure lower back home, the need to export the prison population was removed. In addition, the Radical-Reformist government overturned many of the petty laws that had been in existence prior to the war, eradicating prison, let alone transportation, as the punishment for many minor offences.
Australia thus remained a land with four establishd colonies - South Australia, which was formalised in 1836 and had never been a convict settlement, Van Diemens Land, the island to the South, the Swan River Colony in the West and New South Wales which took up the rest of the continent, forming the majority of the Central, Eastern and Northern province.
The gold rush of the 1850s brought more settlers to what was still an underdeveloped colony. Movement for change led to the formation of the colony of Georgia, splitting off from New South Wales in the South.
The independence of Upper and Lower Canada at the start of the 1870s, also made Australia a more attractive place for setlement within the British Empire. Its climate compared to Rupertsland was a major advantage, and the British government encouraged development of the continent with grants for enterprise and industry.
During the Anglo-American War of the mid 1880s there was a lot of local concern about the possible descent of US troops on what was still a largely undefended colony. Depredations by some US Navy merchant raiders in the Southern Pacific also led to fears for the economy. Responding to these fears, Australia received the loan of two regiments of the Indian Army, and saw the beginnings of a naval force. Going along with this, and formalised in the Declaration of 1889, Australia was made a federal colony, the five Governor Generals reduced to one, though each colony retained its own government and administration in home affairs. By 1890 the Indian Army units had been withdrawn and replaced by natively-raised Australian Army regiments, staffed largely by British veterans of the recent war, but with the men recruited from all over Australia.
The Duke of York, hero of the naval warfare in the River Plate was made the first all-Australian Goverrnor General, and arrived at Sydney in 1890 with his wife and family. The cruiser which conveyed them from Britain, a veteran of the recent war, became the flagship of the nascent Australian fleet.
Grey Wolf
New Zealand
New Zealand's development came to a halt during and after the British Civil War. Whaling stations had been established around the islands, and settlements made usually in co-operation with the native Maori chiefs. When in 1834 a customs dispute over an unflagged ship from New Zealand brought the matter to a head, a flag for New Zealand was agreed between the British naval and whaling representatives and 25 Northern chiefs.
With transportation ceasing after the Settlement of 1836 the development of Australia slowed, and New Zealand continued as an adjunct to Australia, ruled by a Lieutenant Governor answerable to the Governor of New South Wales.
This state of affairs continued throughout the nineteenth century, with the whaling settlements developing into towns, and with settlement occurring on a limited basis. The United Tribes of New Zealand, having proclaimed their independence in 1835 despite continuing factional war, come to an agreement on a king, Potatau I in the mid 1850s.
Britain altered the status of New Zealand to that of a protectorate, establishing Maori home rule outside of the British settlements, and confining the latter to the territories already occupied. Separated from Australian oversight, New Zealand began to develop in its own image. Maori culture and architecture borrowed from Britain, and other European nations, but established a style of its own. Maori warriors, having been introduced to the musket in the time of George IV, became more Western in their dress and armament, adopting a uniquely Maori uniform, but somewhat in imitation of some of the Indian uniforms seen during the Anglo-American War.
By 1890, the protectorate has several modern towns, and is developing local practices into more formal agriculture and industry. Under King Potatau II (brith name Tawhiao) New Zealand has avoided the conflicts of modern times, and apart from visitations from the Indian garrison of Australia was little affected by the recent war.
Grey Wolf
The Pacific
It is probably easier to deal with all the knowns before one attempts to fill in the gaps !
Russia, without the Maritime Province (where Vladivostock is) nevertheless stretches across the Northern edge of the Pacific, over the Aleutian Islands and Alaska, down not as far as in OTL but with more land inland, and also having acquired the Yukon to the Mackenzie Mountains in the 1880s, from Britain.
The United States coastline is all Oregon, the entire Oregon Territory from the border with Northern California to 54'40" where it meets the Russians in Alaska. This coast has several naval bases, the main ones being on the island of Vancouver and the mouth of the Columbia River.
The Republic of Mexico stretches from California in the North, down to the border with the United Provinces of Central America. The reform of the government in California in the 1860s strengthened the central administration, and saw the expansion of naval facilities at San Francisco.
The Shogunate of Japan across the Pacific has modernised under French support, and has established suzerainty, although not sovereinty over the Principality of Okinawa.
Spain, with its main possession in the Philipines, the Marianas, Carolines and Guam has the oldest and largest holding in the Pacific itself.
France's holdings in the region are confined to Kwangchow province in Southern China, leased from the Imperial Government in Peking, but also encompass close relations with Japan and with Vietnam.
The Netherlands has holdings across the East Indies. These border the independent sultanates in the North (eg Johore, Sulu. Brunei) and tribal holdings in other areas, nominally claimed by the Dutch but not occupied.
Australia is a British colony, but New Zealand is a Maori kingdom, ruled independently, but as a British protectorate.
Returning to the Americas, the United Provinces of Central America, increasingly a US puppet, occupies the area from Mexico to Colombia in its Panama province. The UPCA includes the Pacific terminal of the the Trans-Oceanic Canal, which is now on course to be completed by the middle of the 1890s at the earliest.
The coast of South America includes the coastlines of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. The coast of Chile was extended as a result of the War of the Pacific to include the Bolivian province, but hardline calls in Santiago for the annexation of Southern Peru came to nothing. South of Chile is the Pacific coast of the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia, stretching down towards the South,but no longer including the island of Tierra del Fuego which was ceded to Chile in the settlement of territorial disputes in the later 1880s.
This thus leaves the central and Southern Pacific By and large the islands off the coast of South America belong to Chile (eg Easter Island) or to Ecuador (eg the Galapagos Islands).
The Kingdom of Hawaii has maintained a steady independence, playing various powers off each other, and wth diplomatic and mercantile populations from Russia, Japan, the USA, Mexico, Britain, France and Spain.
Samoa, like Hawaii, New Zealand and Madagascar, has seen the feuding chiefs eventually unite as a result of conquest on the one hand, and federation on the other. By 1890 a paramount chief has been elected king, and Samoa is moving towards conducting diplomacy with the merchants, whalers etc who come by as a single entity. The Anglo-American War proved to be a boon for Samoa, as meddling in its internal affairs died down, the powers having bigger fish to fry, but the importance of Apia as a harbour attracted fresh trade.
Historically Britain and France had claims, and even settlements on islands in the Western Pacific, as well as relations with the kings of Fiji and Tonga.
But the main batleground in the great Pacific naval war, during the Anglo-American War had been in the South Pacific, the British isolated communities on Pitcairn Island, and the various chiefs in Polynesia, including the emerging paramount chief in Tahiti. Both British and American warships, as well as merchants, raiders, and US privateers used the islands as bases, regardless of the legal standing of their operations. Several small skirmishes and clashes occurred between US and British vessels, one or two being decisive enough to eventually make it into the newspapers back home, once news from such isolated places finally reached them.
The Treaty of Montreal made no specific mention of Tahiti, but included a clause about the evacuation of temporary bases in non-sovereign territory. Whilst most politicians in London had Valparaiso in mind, and the railheads across the Andes, the treaty also applied to Polynesia, and saw the evacuation by both sides of the small forward bases established during the war. Britain and the USA, however, established more formal relations with the paramount chief, now calling himself king, and establiished permanent missions in his territories.
Grey Wolf
Africa
The Horn of Africa
The Horn of Africa has long been defined by the struggle between Egypt and its neighbours to the South. Our age is no different. King Theodore II (Tewodros II) of Abyssinia clashed several times with the expansionist Sultanate of Egypt during the late 1860s and early 1870s.
With the Klondike Crisis of 1875, and the apparent likelihood of war between Britain and France, as allies of the two main protagonists in North America, Britain began to worry about the potential for French strangling the route to India. Since the early 1860s the route had increasingly been through the Egyptian Suez Canal. Egypt, an ally of France, might be expected to act to interdict this passage, and if not willing initially to do so, France had enough influence through credit and commercial agreements to bring pressure to bear upon the sultanate.
The British response was that if France were to close the Suez Canal, then France herself would not be able to gain in any potential conflict. Even as the Radical uprising occurred in Paris and the danger of war receded, the British went ahead with their plans. Using existing trading bases in Aden, Britain acquired possession of several Somali ports, concluding agreement with native chiefs who were willing, or backing others to take power to be in a position to conclude such.
During the Anglo-American War of the mid 1880s some of these positions were abandoned, and in a twist of fate one or two were in turn occupied by France, securing agreements in turn with the native rulers. With the conclusion of the war, the British and French occupied ports were formalised in a bi-lateral agreement between the two nations.
Eastern Africa
The East coast of Africa is the territory of Arab sultanates. The Omani sultanate, wracked by internal problems has divided into two, the Southern portion securing its capital at Zanzibar. Owning a large swathe of the East African coast, sharing it with the Somali sultanates, this sultanate began pressing inland in earnest with the advent of European adventurers. Men like Stanley, proving to their paymasters that the interior offered profit, led to Arab penetration and settlement into the Eastern Congo, where the new states came into contact and thus conflict with the Cannibalistic peoples there. By 1890, the Arab sultanates, their interior governors and breakaway statelets, account for the majority of Eastern Africa, and form a continuum both along the coast, and within the interior from Tanganyika, the Congo and up to Equatoria.
Southern Africa
Portugal
The Empire of Portugal owns a wide strip of land from Angola in the West to Mozambique in the East. Until the 1870s the largest settlements were on the coasts, but starting with the British action in the Horn of Africa, and receiving a greater stimulus from Arab penetration into the interior, Portuguese expeditions to join their holdings with more than a theoretical line on a map occurred. During the period of the wars in Italy, and between Britain and the USA, Portugal steadily expanded its exploration and colonisation efforts. By 1890, the interior has established provincial capitals, and trade routes with both the Arab states to the North, and the Boers to the South
The Boers
The Boers, a Dutch-originated protestant people had been settled in the Cape of Good Hope when Britain took possession of the colony at the start of the century. By the time of the British Civil War, in the early-mid 1830s,, Britain had outlawed slavery and was moving towards emancipation of the last of the slave populations. This, combined with a reaction against radical Protestantism in the form of the Settlement of 1836, added impetus to a Boer movement to move out of the Cape Province and into the interior - the Voortrek.
By the 1890s half a dozen Boer states exist, spanning from Southern Bechuanaland, across the Orange River, the Transvaal, into Natal in the South and North into Bulawayo and Matebeleland. Conflict with the native states, with the Zulu Kingdom, and clashes with the Portuguese have made the Boer community a militarised one.
I realise this is still something of a hodgepodge but to be honest its been gnawing at me so much its beginning to depress me, so I felt it was better to get the vague outline of the big picture down on 'paper' than to try to tidy it up too much. I hope I have used the many good ideas and comments from people to produce something that is at least plausible. Thanks !
Grey Wolf
From my own board, some discussion on these issues
Thanks for your comments on Africa.
In a TL with a strong and independent Egypt, you are likely to see a large Egyptian African Empire. Prior to your POD Egypt already controlled most of today's Sudan, and the increased strain of your Egypt's military ventures are likely to provoke further expansion in an effort to increase revenues. Historically, Egypt's expansion petered out due to the stress of the enormous debt burden, but Egypt had already been asserting control over the Lacustrine kingdoms of Uganda and was pushing into today's Central African Republic and Chad.
I'm considering this likely myself. However, how would Egypt be able to enforce its ruler - through indirect rule, or attempts to impose direct rule ? I reckon that Soudan and Equatoria would be under direct control, at least that's what I'm working with.
I would think Britain would counter with support of Zanzibar, which controlled the coast from Mozambique to Mogadishu, and was spreading inland. In OTL, Bismarck was able to use the threat of siding with France over Egypt to wring concessions from Britain in Africa; this is clearly not the case in your TL, so British expansion in the region seems logically to be likely to be accomplished through a Zanzibari protectorate.
I don't see Britain as having the stretch to create a formal protectorate over Zanzibar here. Involvement, trade, agreements etc, yes and perhaps a most favoured nation kind of thing I see slavers and traders from Zanzibar as being the ones to open up the interior from the East. The Wargames Foundry has some very interesting articles on the Arabs in the Eastern Congo, on Stanley's role with them, and on how 'European' some of their settlements there impressed people as being. Without Belgium to destroy them, I see these as dominating the interior and joining borders with Egyptian Equatoria.
You might also consider what happens to Libya and Tunis - France would most likely sponsor Egyptian control over these - it encouraged this even in OTL - and the Ottomans are in no position to do anything about it.
I plan on having these remain as per OTL. To extend Egyptian control would take either another war, or an aspect of a war, either way not covered. Thus Tunis is practically independent, and Libya probably sufficiently autonomous that its practically independent in many ways too. Lol, remember that in a Plethora of PRINCES, the more rulers the better
In the Horn of Africa, Ottoman sovereignty was claimed over the entire coast to Ras Tafun (now spelled Ras Xaafun, I believe), and actual control over Suakin, Massawa, and Zeila (all leased to Egypt, and probably just plain grabbed in your TL) had been constant since the 16th c, and the Egyptians had been spreading their control over the coast in the 2nd half of the 19th c - in your TL that process will not likely abate.
Yes, I expect Egypt has its bases and places. In a sense, these like Massawa will be considered so normal they probably won't be mentioned, hence, er, my forgetting to mention them
2. Abyssinia can go however you want. Possible trends would be:
a. It's use as a bulwark against Egyptian expansion by Britain accomplished through provision of arms and advisors
b. It's conquest by Egypt later in the century, quite possible due to the spread of Islam and internal disunity.
c. Something like historical, where someone consolidates control in Abyssinia and Egypt turns to easier and more profitable expansion.
I've gone with point c, after clashes with Egypt. I read that Menelik II was a protege of Theodore to some degree, so without the British-induced suicide of Theodore, and the reign of John IV, the longer-lived Theodore could well die naturally and Menelik II emerge as a leader without the intervening civil wars
3. Eastern Arabia could go any number of ways. It really depends upon how well and how early Ottoman reform efforts progress. Historically the region was falling under total Wahhabist domination until Midhat was sent to the region to reestablish Ottoman contol, which initially extended all the way to Qatar, but excluded Bahrain, which wsa claimed but maintained independence due to British influence. The interior is fairly easily dominated by whomever controls the Hasa, where all the food is produced, and this was the case for the Ottomans as long as they had resources and attention to spare. I would view Britain as the only likely competitor in the region. Ottoman conquest of much of Persia will give them an enormous upper hand, as the British center of power historically was Bushire, and the removal of Shiite expansion in the region will eliminate a serious threat to Ottoman authority and attention.
Fighting the Wahabbi could well give the Ottomans 'something to do' in periods when they seem to have been forgotten about. From what I read about Kuwait they requested rather strongly to be a British protectorate. In this ATL, I'm not sure they're gonna have the choice.
After Ottoman conquest of Western Persia, I certainly see a good long period for them to consolidate and develop their influence.
Grey Wolf
The World Writ Large Coninued
(13.B)
(13.B)
Australia
The British Civil War of the early 1830s interupted the regular life of Australia. Although the war did not spill over onto the continent, even in its aftermath (unlike in India), the transportation of convicts first decreased then stopped altogether. The Radical-Reformist government, in power after the Settlement of 1836, then outlawed the practice completely. It could be argued that it no longer fitted the needs of the home country anyway. Initially conceived as a way of dealing with a burgeoning prison population, the effect of the civil war had been to decrease the population of Great Britain, both through the deaths from battle, disease and starvation, and through the exile to Hannover of the die-hard Ultras and their supporters. With population pressure lower back home, the need to export the prison population was removed. In addition, the Radical-Reformist government overturned many of the petty laws that had been in existence prior to the war, eradicating prison, let alone transportation, as the punishment for many minor offences.
Australia thus remained a land with four establishd colonies - South Australia, which was formalised in 1836 and had never been a convict settlement, Van Diemens Land, the island to the South, the Swan River Colony in the West and New South Wales which took up the rest of the continent, forming the majority of the Central, Eastern and Northern province.
The gold rush of the 1850s brought more settlers to what was still an underdeveloped colony. Movement for change led to the formation of the colony of Georgia, splitting off from New South Wales in the South.
The independence of Upper and Lower Canada at the start of the 1870s, also made Australia a more attractive place for setlement within the British Empire. Its climate compared to Rupertsland was a major advantage, and the British government encouraged development of the continent with grants for enterprise and industry.
During the Anglo-American War of the mid 1880s there was a lot of local concern about the possible descent of US troops on what was still a largely undefended colony. Depredations by some US Navy merchant raiders in the Southern Pacific also led to fears for the economy. Responding to these fears, Australia received the loan of two regiments of the Indian Army, and saw the beginnings of a naval force. Going along with this, and formalised in the Declaration of 1889, Australia was made a federal colony, the five Governor Generals reduced to one, though each colony retained its own government and administration in home affairs. By 1890 the Indian Army units had been withdrawn and replaced by natively-raised Australian Army regiments, staffed largely by British veterans of the recent war, but with the men recruited from all over Australia.
The Duke of York, hero of the naval warfare in the River Plate was made the first all-Australian Goverrnor General, and arrived at Sydney in 1890 with his wife and family. The cruiser which conveyed them from Britain, a veteran of the recent war, became the flagship of the nascent Australian fleet.
Grey Wolf
New Zealand
New Zealand's development came to a halt during and after the British Civil War. Whaling stations had been established around the islands, and settlements made usually in co-operation with the native Maori chiefs. When in 1834 a customs dispute over an unflagged ship from New Zealand brought the matter to a head, a flag for New Zealand was agreed between the British naval and whaling representatives and 25 Northern chiefs.
With transportation ceasing after the Settlement of 1836 the development of Australia slowed, and New Zealand continued as an adjunct to Australia, ruled by a Lieutenant Governor answerable to the Governor of New South Wales.
This state of affairs continued throughout the nineteenth century, with the whaling settlements developing into towns, and with settlement occurring on a limited basis. The United Tribes of New Zealand, having proclaimed their independence in 1835 despite continuing factional war, come to an agreement on a king, Potatau I in the mid 1850s.
Britain altered the status of New Zealand to that of a protectorate, establishing Maori home rule outside of the British settlements, and confining the latter to the territories already occupied. Separated from Australian oversight, New Zealand began to develop in its own image. Maori culture and architecture borrowed from Britain, and other European nations, but established a style of its own. Maori warriors, having been introduced to the musket in the time of George IV, became more Western in their dress and armament, adopting a uniquely Maori uniform, but somewhat in imitation of some of the Indian uniforms seen during the Anglo-American War.
By 1890, the protectorate has several modern towns, and is developing local practices into more formal agriculture and industry. Under King Potatau II (brith name Tawhiao) New Zealand has avoided the conflicts of modern times, and apart from visitations from the Indian garrison of Australia was little affected by the recent war.
Grey Wolf
The Pacific
It is probably easier to deal with all the knowns before one attempts to fill in the gaps !
Russia, without the Maritime Province (where Vladivostock is) nevertheless stretches across the Northern edge of the Pacific, over the Aleutian Islands and Alaska, down not as far as in OTL but with more land inland, and also having acquired the Yukon to the Mackenzie Mountains in the 1880s, from Britain.
The United States coastline is all Oregon, the entire Oregon Territory from the border with Northern California to 54'40" where it meets the Russians in Alaska. This coast has several naval bases, the main ones being on the island of Vancouver and the mouth of the Columbia River.
The Republic of Mexico stretches from California in the North, down to the border with the United Provinces of Central America. The reform of the government in California in the 1860s strengthened the central administration, and saw the expansion of naval facilities at San Francisco.
The Shogunate of Japan across the Pacific has modernised under French support, and has established suzerainty, although not sovereinty over the Principality of Okinawa.
Spain, with its main possession in the Philipines, the Marianas, Carolines and Guam has the oldest and largest holding in the Pacific itself.
France's holdings in the region are confined to Kwangchow province in Southern China, leased from the Imperial Government in Peking, but also encompass close relations with Japan and with Vietnam.
The Netherlands has holdings across the East Indies. These border the independent sultanates in the North (eg Johore, Sulu. Brunei) and tribal holdings in other areas, nominally claimed by the Dutch but not occupied.
Australia is a British colony, but New Zealand is a Maori kingdom, ruled independently, but as a British protectorate.
Returning to the Americas, the United Provinces of Central America, increasingly a US puppet, occupies the area from Mexico to Colombia in its Panama province. The UPCA includes the Pacific terminal of the the Trans-Oceanic Canal, which is now on course to be completed by the middle of the 1890s at the earliest.
The coast of South America includes the coastlines of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. The coast of Chile was extended as a result of the War of the Pacific to include the Bolivian province, but hardline calls in Santiago for the annexation of Southern Peru came to nothing. South of Chile is the Pacific coast of the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia, stretching down towards the South,but no longer including the island of Tierra del Fuego which was ceded to Chile in the settlement of territorial disputes in the later 1880s.
This thus leaves the central and Southern Pacific By and large the islands off the coast of South America belong to Chile (eg Easter Island) or to Ecuador (eg the Galapagos Islands).
The Kingdom of Hawaii has maintained a steady independence, playing various powers off each other, and wth diplomatic and mercantile populations from Russia, Japan, the USA, Mexico, Britain, France and Spain.
Samoa, like Hawaii, New Zealand and Madagascar, has seen the feuding chiefs eventually unite as a result of conquest on the one hand, and federation on the other. By 1890 a paramount chief has been elected king, and Samoa is moving towards conducting diplomacy with the merchants, whalers etc who come by as a single entity. The Anglo-American War proved to be a boon for Samoa, as meddling in its internal affairs died down, the powers having bigger fish to fry, but the importance of Apia as a harbour attracted fresh trade.
Historically Britain and France had claims, and even settlements on islands in the Western Pacific, as well as relations with the kings of Fiji and Tonga.
But the main batleground in the great Pacific naval war, during the Anglo-American War had been in the South Pacific, the British isolated communities on Pitcairn Island, and the various chiefs in Polynesia, including the emerging paramount chief in Tahiti. Both British and American warships, as well as merchants, raiders, and US privateers used the islands as bases, regardless of the legal standing of their operations. Several small skirmishes and clashes occurred between US and British vessels, one or two being decisive enough to eventually make it into the newspapers back home, once news from such isolated places finally reached them.
The Treaty of Montreal made no specific mention of Tahiti, but included a clause about the evacuation of temporary bases in non-sovereign territory. Whilst most politicians in London had Valparaiso in mind, and the railheads across the Andes, the treaty also applied to Polynesia, and saw the evacuation by both sides of the small forward bases established during the war. Britain and the USA, however, established more formal relations with the paramount chief, now calling himself king, and establiished permanent missions in his territories.
Grey Wolf
Africa
The Horn of Africa
The Horn of Africa has long been defined by the struggle between Egypt and its neighbours to the South. Our age is no different. King Theodore II (Tewodros II) of Abyssinia clashed several times with the expansionist Sultanate of Egypt during the late 1860s and early 1870s.
With the Klondike Crisis of 1875, and the apparent likelihood of war between Britain and France, as allies of the two main protagonists in North America, Britain began to worry about the potential for French strangling the route to India. Since the early 1860s the route had increasingly been through the Egyptian Suez Canal. Egypt, an ally of France, might be expected to act to interdict this passage, and if not willing initially to do so, France had enough influence through credit and commercial agreements to bring pressure to bear upon the sultanate.
The British response was that if France were to close the Suez Canal, then France herself would not be able to gain in any potential conflict. Even as the Radical uprising occurred in Paris and the danger of war receded, the British went ahead with their plans. Using existing trading bases in Aden, Britain acquired possession of several Somali ports, concluding agreement with native chiefs who were willing, or backing others to take power to be in a position to conclude such.
During the Anglo-American War of the mid 1880s some of these positions were abandoned, and in a twist of fate one or two were in turn occupied by France, securing agreements in turn with the native rulers. With the conclusion of the war, the British and French occupied ports were formalised in a bi-lateral agreement between the two nations.
Eastern Africa
The East coast of Africa is the territory of Arab sultanates. The Omani sultanate, wracked by internal problems has divided into two, the Southern portion securing its capital at Zanzibar. Owning a large swathe of the East African coast, sharing it with the Somali sultanates, this sultanate began pressing inland in earnest with the advent of European adventurers. Men like Stanley, proving to their paymasters that the interior offered profit, led to Arab penetration and settlement into the Eastern Congo, where the new states came into contact and thus conflict with the Cannibalistic peoples there. By 1890, the Arab sultanates, their interior governors and breakaway statelets, account for the majority of Eastern Africa, and form a continuum both along the coast, and within the interior from Tanganyika, the Congo and up to Equatoria.
Southern Africa
Portugal
The Empire of Portugal owns a wide strip of land from Angola in the West to Mozambique in the East. Until the 1870s the largest settlements were on the coasts, but starting with the British action in the Horn of Africa, and receiving a greater stimulus from Arab penetration into the interior, Portuguese expeditions to join their holdings with more than a theoretical line on a map occurred. During the period of the wars in Italy, and between Britain and the USA, Portugal steadily expanded its exploration and colonisation efforts. By 1890, the interior has established provincial capitals, and trade routes with both the Arab states to the North, and the Boers to the South
The Boers
The Boers, a Dutch-originated protestant people had been settled in the Cape of Good Hope when Britain took possession of the colony at the start of the century. By the time of the British Civil War, in the early-mid 1830s,, Britain had outlawed slavery and was moving towards emancipation of the last of the slave populations. This, combined with a reaction against radical Protestantism in the form of the Settlement of 1836, added impetus to a Boer movement to move out of the Cape Province and into the interior - the Voortrek.
By the 1890s half a dozen Boer states exist, spanning from Southern Bechuanaland, across the Orange River, the Transvaal, into Natal in the South and North into Bulawayo and Matebeleland. Conflict with the native states, with the Zulu Kingdom, and clashes with the Portuguese have made the Boer community a militarised one.
I realise this is still something of a hodgepodge but to be honest its been gnawing at me so much its beginning to depress me, so I felt it was better to get the vague outline of the big picture down on 'paper' than to try to tidy it up too much. I hope I have used the many good ideas and comments from people to produce something that is at least plausible. Thanks !
Grey Wolf
From my own board, some discussion on these issues
Thanks for your comments on Africa.
In a TL with a strong and independent Egypt, you are likely to see a large Egyptian African Empire. Prior to your POD Egypt already controlled most of today's Sudan, and the increased strain of your Egypt's military ventures are likely to provoke further expansion in an effort to increase revenues. Historically, Egypt's expansion petered out due to the stress of the enormous debt burden, but Egypt had already been asserting control over the Lacustrine kingdoms of Uganda and was pushing into today's Central African Republic and Chad.
I'm considering this likely myself. However, how would Egypt be able to enforce its ruler - through indirect rule, or attempts to impose direct rule ? I reckon that Soudan and Equatoria would be under direct control, at least that's what I'm working with.
I would think Britain would counter with support of Zanzibar, which controlled the coast from Mozambique to Mogadishu, and was spreading inland. In OTL, Bismarck was able to use the threat of siding with France over Egypt to wring concessions from Britain in Africa; this is clearly not the case in your TL, so British expansion in the region seems logically to be likely to be accomplished through a Zanzibari protectorate.
I don't see Britain as having the stretch to create a formal protectorate over Zanzibar here. Involvement, trade, agreements etc, yes and perhaps a most favoured nation kind of thing I see slavers and traders from Zanzibar as being the ones to open up the interior from the East. The Wargames Foundry has some very interesting articles on the Arabs in the Eastern Congo, on Stanley's role with them, and on how 'European' some of their settlements there impressed people as being. Without Belgium to destroy them, I see these as dominating the interior and joining borders with Egyptian Equatoria.
You might also consider what happens to Libya and Tunis - France would most likely sponsor Egyptian control over these - it encouraged this even in OTL - and the Ottomans are in no position to do anything about it.
I plan on having these remain as per OTL. To extend Egyptian control would take either another war, or an aspect of a war, either way not covered. Thus Tunis is practically independent, and Libya probably sufficiently autonomous that its practically independent in many ways too. Lol, remember that in a Plethora of PRINCES, the more rulers the better
In the Horn of Africa, Ottoman sovereignty was claimed over the entire coast to Ras Tafun (now spelled Ras Xaafun, I believe), and actual control over Suakin, Massawa, and Zeila (all leased to Egypt, and probably just plain grabbed in your TL) had been constant since the 16th c, and the Egyptians had been spreading their control over the coast in the 2nd half of the 19th c - in your TL that process will not likely abate.
Yes, I expect Egypt has its bases and places. In a sense, these like Massawa will be considered so normal they probably won't be mentioned, hence, er, my forgetting to mention them
2. Abyssinia can go however you want. Possible trends would be:
a. It's use as a bulwark against Egyptian expansion by Britain accomplished through provision of arms and advisors
b. It's conquest by Egypt later in the century, quite possible due to the spread of Islam and internal disunity.
c. Something like historical, where someone consolidates control in Abyssinia and Egypt turns to easier and more profitable expansion.
I've gone with point c, after clashes with Egypt. I read that Menelik II was a protege of Theodore to some degree, so without the British-induced suicide of Theodore, and the reign of John IV, the longer-lived Theodore could well die naturally and Menelik II emerge as a leader without the intervening civil wars
3. Eastern Arabia could go any number of ways. It really depends upon how well and how early Ottoman reform efforts progress. Historically the region was falling under total Wahhabist domination until Midhat was sent to the region to reestablish Ottoman contol, which initially extended all the way to Qatar, but excluded Bahrain, which wsa claimed but maintained independence due to British influence. The interior is fairly easily dominated by whomever controls the Hasa, where all the food is produced, and this was the case for the Ottomans as long as they had resources and attention to spare. I would view Britain as the only likely competitor in the region. Ottoman conquest of much of Persia will give them an enormous upper hand, as the British center of power historically was Bushire, and the removal of Shiite expansion in the region will eliminate a serious threat to Ottoman authority and attention.
Fighting the Wahabbi could well give the Ottomans 'something to do' in periods when they seem to have been forgotten about. From what I read about Kuwait they requested rather strongly to be a British protectorate. In this ATL, I'm not sure they're gonna have the choice.
After Ottoman conquest of Western Persia, I certainly see a good long period for them to consolidate and develop their influence.
Grey Wolf
End of Part 13
Into the Twentieth Century
An Extrapolation of Trends
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=190726#post190726
An Extrapolation of Trends
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=190726#post190726
Russia, in its empire stretches from White Russia, Karelia and the Ukraine, to Persia, Siberia, and Alaska and the Yukon. Tsar Nicholas II, eldest son of Tsar Aleksandr II comes to the throne in the mid 1890s and by 1910 is aged sixty-seven. Married to Princess Dagmar of Denmark, he has several sons and the succession is assured in his line.
Since the acquisition of the Yukon, Russia has been fortifying its borders, expanding its internal expeditions and settlements, and boosting settlement along the coast.
Since the acquisition of Persia, Russia has been subduing the autonomous states in the East of that country, as well as trying to subvert the Khanate of Kalat, as well as the other border states. In a strange tug of war with Britain, Russia has been pulling the border nations this way and that, trying to dominate them, as one of the three forces in action.
Russia in Dzungaria, Kuldja etc is also a force in the independent state of Kashgaria.
Russia in Mongolia, and on the Amur, is a force to be reckoned with in Imperial China. Despite China's resurgance, its great Northern rival reaches across the North, whilst independent states like Tibet, Kashagaria, and Taiping China ring it from other directions.
Russia maintains three strong (in their areas) fleets - a Baltic Fleet that is the equal of Sweden, or pre-1892 Prussia as was. - a Mediterranean Fleet which is the equal of any force which can be safely mustered against it, and - a Pacific Fleet which is based at Petropavlosk and Kodiak Island, which is minor in a fleet sense and not able to take on the US Navy but in a localised sense could prove a match for Japan, or Imperial China or Taiping China.
Grey Wolf
Russia is a major conundrum. It is well capable of raising the armies and fighting the wars needed to subdue Central Asian states, such as what I have it do with the petty Dzungarian states, and also to wage a war against a Persian Army that is not going to be equipped in any better way. Russia, also will gain from having free access for trade to and from the Black Sea, and with the Ottoman Empire. The acquisition of a Persian Gulf shore should also be a boost to trade, though I am not sure how much this is going to be so in the immediate term. Then there is Alaska-Yukon, the fifty percent participation in the Klondike gold rush etc. But how much this is offset by the lack of any port more viable than Petropavlosk or Ayan on the Sea of Okhotsk? No Vladivostock or the province that it stands on. This means no direct access to Korea, and the economy of that vassal kingdom.
Russia in the West has lost Poland and Finland, and any direct influence it had in the Rumanian principalities. What this means both for trade and industrialisation I am not sure.
Consider the navy for instance. OTL by the time of the Crimean War, the Russian Navy in the Black Sea remained largely a SAILING navy, not a steam-driven ship-of-the-line one. It was efficient in what it was, but greatly outdated and outclassed by the Anglo-French force which it could not hope to meet in battle. This has definite relevance in this timeline, as it could well indicate that altough Russia made the advance to iron warships after the defeat in the 1860s it has failed to modernise and keep up with other great powers, mainly because it does not feel the need to.
In OTL Russia made several great attempts to catch up, not least around the turn of the century with purchases of foreign-built warships (from France, the USA, and rather curiously Denmark) and with adopting or buying in foreign technology.
I am also finding strategic considerations confusing. For example one can point to areas of clashing interests with most major powers - with Britain over the arc of independent states surrounding British India, with France and Austria on strategic European issues, and with the USA over Alaska and the Yukon. But some of these are going to be more important than others. For example, Russo-American relations could well be quite cordial most of the time. There will be areas of rivalry (perhaps Hawaii), but negotiated treaties would have settled the issue of the demarcated border since the crisis of the mid 1870s. Thus, there is no logical reason why Russia and the USA should be rivals rather than partners in many things. The Anglo-American War can be expected to have shown Russia the dangers of under-estimating Britain on the one hand, and the potential strength of the USA on the other. Thus, if one is looking for an ATL power to replace France as a benefactor to Russia in terms of loans, technology etc, then why does the USA not meet this requirement?
Thus it could well come down to the question of whether Russia sees the need to continue to develop and wants to, or whether a certain self-satisfied stagnation sets in ?
Grey Wolf
I think one major difference that is perhaps under-stated is the approach to imperialism in this timeline. Britain for example can be said to have followed the following policy :-
- consolidate existing holdings
- establish protectorates as points of power-projection
- establish alliances with key regional powers
In addition, there is the guarantor role, with Britain being a guarantor of Texas since the 1840s, and also of Miskitia since it ceased to be a protectorate. I imagine a similar role with regard to the two independent Canadian states.
Differences with OTL include the fact that protectorates do not become colonies, because there is no drive to develop new colonies. Thus, for example, the Maori Kingdom of New Zealand remains a protectorate (and is analogous to how Madagascar was in OTL before France decided to annex it).
The war with Venezuela over the Orinoco border can be considered to be consolidation of existing holdings, the establishment of a definite border for British Guyana where the British want it to be, and not seeing it pushed back by Venezuelan encroachment.
Thus, the entanglements with South America can be reviewed in this light. The support for Paraguay is not arbitrary, its on the back of a decision to back Paraguay as their major ally in South America. These things kind of grow, too - initially the decision made sense because in the first instance it gave access to Paraguayan markets and it was a buffer against an embittered Argentina. The establishment of protectorates over the Republic of Uruguay (more or less since its birth) and the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia also fit into this patterm. It is an ATL analogy of colonial annexation - involvement in a theatre brings with it a need to consolidate and deepen that involvement. Thus the support for the territorial annexation by allies, and direct military support where necessary.
With regard to the ring of independent states around British India, this is again a deliberate policy. The nature of the 'Game' from Britain's perspective is not to annex but to influence. As Nicholas I once said in OTL about the Ottoman Empire, so it can be applied here - better a neighbour that can be dominated, than a direct border with a rival power which cannot. The British administration in India most definitely does not want to find itself with a several thousand miles long border with imperial Russia. Much better to deal with the Khan of Kalat, the Emir of Afghanistan, the Sikh rulers, the Central Asian rulers etc.
Grey Wolf
A lot of good points from people, which I will address in one post if I may, seeing as my life is full of planning and paperwork at the moment !
Britain won't be investing much in the USA for the simple reason that investing a country you have been at war with and may go to war with again is not a safe investment. Capital tends to get confiscated, loans annulled that kind of thing. In addition, risk is a big thing in international finance.
I expect that during the period of Radical rapprochement from the later 1860s to the end of the 1870s there would have been some investment, but from the start of the Sherman administration onwards none, and from after the Anglo-American War no-one is going to risk investing in the USA.
Regarding the US economy, I would expect it to develop in a different way. I am no economist, I can't say foir sure what. I would expect that enough other capital-rich nations and companies would invest in the USA in this ATL. Maybe this means Belgium and Switzerland. Maybe its more obvious, and I just don't see it.
But overall, I see the USA as not lacking in necessary investment. To my mind even a weaker US economy should be able to invest outwardly - it will depend on the rules governing federal doobries. A non-bankrupt USA almost defaulted on loans under Grover Cleveland. The key is whether in this ATL the laws are changed, freeing the US economy from the shackles of OTL
As for Russia finding Britain as a partner, they did work together in the mid 1880s, but sizeable differences remain. In the later 1890s Britain and the USA have a certain rapprochement. I doubt this leads to much.
Grey Wolf
Gold in the Witwatersrand
Due to the Boers spreading out over a greater area, with Boer states in Bechuanaland and Matebeleland as well as the Orange River valley, the Transvaal and Natal, the discovery of gold in the Witwatersrand is delayed until 1905.
The situation of the Boer states is also different from OTL. They have never come under British domination - there was no war in the 1870s, no treaty which gave Britain suzerain powers, or which denied them the right to handle their own foreign affairs.
Nevertheless, once gold is discovered the workforce is still going to involve a large number of Uitlanders, from the British Cape Province and from Britain itself. One wonders if they will come from elsewhere in this ATL ? Argentine occurred to me, due to its less than happy position, but I doubt it has the population to export.
None of the strategic considerations are the same - with Natal a Boer state there is no reliance on Cape province ports. There is also no reason for complaint if railways are built into Portuguese Mozambique.
The British approach to imperialism is also different - they aren't looking to conquer or colonise, but primarily to influence.
I am also wondering whether after 1892 there might not be Prussian and Dutch settlement in Namibia, the formation of an independent state on the borders of the Boers.
Grey Wolf
The opening of the Trans-Oceanic Canal is going to provide a major boost to US trade and the US economy. I date this to 1897. The canal crosses from Nicaragua (in the US-dominated UPCA) to Miskitia, which is independent. Thus, it cannot be an all-American affair closed to other nations. Thus, again, it would carry trade from countries other than the USA and the UPCA. As well as Miskitia, the obvious contenders are Texas, Mexico, and the Republic of the Yucatan, as well as the European powers. I think they do need to be split into two groups as the local countries could well come to rely on a transit which is in American hands - Mexico especially, for example, could get used to ships traversing from one ocean to the other and being able to, but if the USA were to close the canal to them then it would be a massive economic weapon.
I see the later 1890s as a period of US-British warming of relations. It will never be close like in the 1870s, but the hostility that preceded and followed the mid 1880s war has died down. A new generation has come to power, with different visions.
With the opening of the canal, I see the USA begin to focus increasingly on trans-Pacific trade. Across the ocean lie the independent states of Imperial China, Taiping China, Japan and Vietnam (de facto), whilst Korea remains more of a vassal to the Chi'ing.
One can imagine the peace in the region constantly marred by small skirmishes and border wars, often unofficial. Vietnam no longer has a border with the Chinese Empire but with smaller successor states in the interior, and with French Kwangchow province. Whilst French influence in Vietnam will remain high it doesn't mean it will remain popular, or consistent. There will be emperors or Chief Ministers who oppose it, who fear it and who court other nations - the USA would be seen as a safe bet due to the distance and lack of nearby colonies (unlike Britain, Spain or the Netherlands).
The same could be said for Japan where the Bakufu has modernised under French auspices, fought off rebellions etc and maintained the power of the Shogunate. The daimyo have been subordinated to central authority and the trends visible in OTL 1860s continued under the Tokugawa.
Absent Germany from the international scene, and Prussia since 1892, any nations looking to militarise or reform would be looking to different powers - Britain, France, the USA, and quite likely Russia and Austria.
The Russian model might be good for cash-strapped Far Eastern countries, but may at the same time be too alien, and too dangerous given how close Russia is and how immense.
Austria would certainly be interesting, an extension of its power into areas it really didn't get much of in OTL. Victorious against Prussia, and against Piedmont, Austrian arms under Emperor Rudolph are going to look a good bet, and a validated way forward.
Maybe Belgium could also gain from this ?
Grey Wolf
In OTL, Austria had a small naval force based in the Far East and a trading sphere. And that was with OTL's problems.
I agree regarding Austria's dominant concern being the Central and Eastern Mediterranean, and the Red Sea. John knows more about it than I do, but somehow Austria had a trading position in the Soudan and surrounding area, and I would see no reason for this to be mitigated greatly.
China, or 'The Chinas' as they would probably be known, offer great opportunitiesd for trade. I was thinking that maybe an Austria on the up, with a recent great military victory to its name, could expand its influence here, even if it is not a major strategic interest. After all, how strategically interested in Persia was Sweden in OTL ?
Looking at the Eastern Mediterranean, things have been 'quiet' there for forty years, unless I misremember my own timeline ! The dualities of Russia-Ottomans and France-Egypt still exist. In a sense, Britain and Austria have less directly at stake, but perhaps more indirectly at stake, what with the Suez Canal being an important route to India, and for Austria being the key to its thriving Red Sea trade. That neither Austria nor Britain has been directly involved in conflict would help their position with both dualities.
I don't see the dualities as being equal. Russia and the Ottoman Empire are bound under the successor treaty to Unkiar Skelessi. There was no Straits Convention in this ATL, and Unkiar Skelessi remained in force until the c1870s IIRC. Thus, the successor treaty builds on this, but recognises that Russia no longer has any position of protector towards the Ottomans. Its more of a convention between equals now, and the fruits of this would have been seen in the involvement of both parties in the invasion and carving up of Persia. Russia leases bases off the Ottomans, probably being facilities at Smyrna, and the entire base at Lemnos, these being where the Russian Mediterranean Fleet has its forward bases. Russian warships have automatic right of passage through the Straits.
France-Egypt has always been more of an alliance and influence thing. Franbce's role is important but has gone through periods of waxing and waning. In theory France could cease its political involvement, but its economic, military procurement and bureaucratic influence would remain. However, I certainly don't see the young King Charles XI as being the kind of person to withdraw French influence from anywhere !
Regarding Ireland and Britain, the 1830s civil war would have delivered a big hit to population. For example, in addition to the battles across Ireland, the war there was climaxed by the massacre and expulsion of the majority of the Protestant population of Ulster who settled in Western Scotland and the North-West of England. I see this as mitigating the population effects of any famine. In addition, the new kingdom would be established with French bureaucracy and proven management - the situation which in OTL led to the worst effects of the Potato Famine would be eradicated. Other chaoses may reign in the immediate aftermath of the war, but I don't see the pressure as being the same.
Later in the century, after decades of growth and re-establishment Irish emigration probably becomes an issue again. I could imagine some certainly head to the independent Canadas; beyond that is confusing because would Irishmen from an independent kingdom head to British colonies? Might they not be more tempted to go to Texas, or Uruguay or some such?
Grey Wolf
The USA
Much as I would prefer the world to revolve around the ins and outs of European powers, one cannot escape the fact that the USA at the dawn of the twentieth century stands at the threshold of greatness. Even without the Spanish-American War in this ATL, the USA has a global presence. Sherman's interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine ensured that the USA would challenge every attempt to exert influence within the Americas by European powers. This led to war with Britain, and an eventual defeat, though as the defeat was in Argentina the actual severity of losing the struggle was mitigated. The naval defeat off Newfoundland would be more of a spur to action in the years ahead than a national humiliation, and the inroads made into Rupertsland brought Winnipeg under American control.
In the years since the Anglo-American War, the roughly two decades since the peace in the 1880s, the USA has passed through Radical Party administrations which focused again on workers and farmers and the economy, and with the renewed spirit of optimism with the opening of the Trans-Continental Canal in 1897 has entered a period where the USA believes in a global mission, whilst at the same time sees a warming of relations with Britain.
There are tensions with Russia over trade, power and influence in the Northern Pacific, and Russia's de facto acquisition of a protectorate over the Kingdom of Hawaii in the early 1900s has added to the tensions. US trade with The Chinas, with Japan and with a Vietnam where US influence in other areas is increasing, is growing mightily.
The UPCA is seeing new tensions as we approach 1910. There are moves within it to have it become a US state, rather than a quasi-independent nation that cannot do anything without Washington's say-so. The factions within the UPCA are a disparate lot - the blacks resetled there after the civil war, in autonomous mini-Liberias which merged into the federal nature of the country, the Union veterans, the veterans from the Anglo-American War, the native Hispanic and Indian peoples, the traders and entrepreneurs drawn by the canal and the new wealth, and who provide the greatest impetus towards formal merger with the USA.
The Kingdom of Miskitia however provides something of a contradiction. Its independence guaranteed by Great Britain, Miskitia refuses to play the role of US vassal, and has negotiated independent rights to its end of the canal. It maintains an independent stance on foreign affairs, and King Robert II (who is in this ATL alive and well in 1910 unlike OTL) heads a nation that looks askance at the idea of the USA annexing the UPCA.
The Republic of the Yucatan is not too thrilled with the idea, either. After having shaken off US protectorship in the wake of the US Civil War, Yucatan has developed a strong individual identity and sees its period of vassalship in a negative light. It has developed trade in the Caribbean and has strong links to the Republic of Texas. It would too not view the annexation of the UPCA as a happy act.
More importantly, perhaps, neither Britain nor France would react well to any moves towards this. The USA and Britain have seen a warming of their relationship since the end of the 1890s, and the president in Washington has to be aware of this.
At the same time, the USA has an ambivalent relationship with Russia. On the one hand they are suspicious of Russian influence in the Pacific, and angered by the protectorate over Hawaii, but on the other hand US-Russian bilateral relations remain good, and the USA supplies Russia with naval development expertise - at a price.
President Ignatius Donelly's 1896 bid for re-election fails, the US public tired after two terms of introspective Radical Party administrations, albeit under different presidents. President Mark Hanna is elected in 1896 for the Reform Party, and re-elected again in 1900, but dies in 1904 during the campaign season.
The 1904 election is thus contested between Williams J Bryan of the Radical Party and Robert La Follette of the Reform Party. Building on Hanna's legacy, La Follette wins and serves out the term 1904 to 1908.
However, by 1908 he is facing strong internal pressure within the Reform Party and his bid for re-election runs into serious problems. The controversy in the UPCA over the merchant-entrepreneur's party's wish to see the nation annexed to the USA causes problems as La Follette's negative reaction causes a backlash from the right-wing part of his party. Refusal to intervene in Hawaii causes chaos in the primaries, and eventually at the Reform Party national convention a stormy session chooses Henry Cabot Lodge as the presidential nominee.
The 1908 election is a chaotic shambles of an event. Splinters from both the Radicals and the La Follette Reformists add to the mix, and the rise of Union Labour under Euegene Debs simply creates a situation which is too close to call. In a result where all of the factions carry states, it is eventually Lodge who emerges as the winner, and who is inaugurated as president in March 1909.
Grey Wolf
Maybe I should have stuck to my original impulse not to name any more presidents, but I thought it would be of some interest. I don't see it as a problem that Bryan and La Follette are both of an isolationist tendency, their main differences are on economic domestic issues and La Follette wins on that basis. It is his defeat in 1908 where overseas issues come to dominate - neither the Radicals nor La Follette's wing of the Reform Party seem to cater for the protection or advancement of US interests in the issues of the day.
I don't know if Lodge is a useful choice or not to emerge from this, but one could certainly imagine someone adopting a point of view they didn't necessarily agree with in order to get the nomination.
Of course in the ATL I could simply make people up, but as yet I prefer not to as the use of real people in different circumstances seems far more...fun !
Grey Wolf
The 1908 Hawaiian Crisis was a defining moment in the US presidential campaign of 1908. The arrival in Honolulu of the Russian battleship Rossiya seemed to be a slap in the face for American interests, an impression heightened by the fact that the new flagship of the Russian Pacific Fleet had been built with significant American technological help.
President Robert La Follette, running for a third term was faced with a rising tide of anger from within his own Reform Party, and suddenly what had looked like a competition between an incumbent with a sound economic record, and an unknown of the Radical Party with policies that were little different except at the edges, now became wide open. The Reform Party primaries began to return electors empowered to vote for candidates other than the president.
At the same time, dis-satisfied Radical Party activists began to toy with the Union Labour movement of Euegene Debs, whilst William J Bryan was running on an Independent Populist platform.
At the Reform Party convention in the Summer of 1908, there was a narrow victory for Henry Cabot Lodge, adopted by the foreign interventionist wing of the Reform Party as their candidate, regardless of his own feelings on the matters to hand. At the heart of this victory had been Lodge's comments on the position of US citizens in the United Provinces of Central America. A movement started by merchants and entrepreneurs, attracted to the UPCA since the opening of the Trans-Continental Canal in 1897, had begun clamouring for annexation to the USA. La Follette's administration had dismissed these calls, but big business had made its contributions to Lodge's campaign, and despite his own ambiguous feelings on the matter, Henry Cabot Lodge had made a series of key speeches in favour of annexation.
The November 1908 election was a confusion of chaos, with every candidate carrying some state or other. In the event, a tiny majority was the cause for Lodge's victory, and in March 1909 he was inaugurated as president of the United Stated of America.
Grey Wolf
Egypt
From
http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/state...mic/egypt.html
HH Prince Muhammed Said Halim Pasha, born 18th January 1865 in Shubra, Cairo, Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire, married 1890, Emine Indji Toussoun, born 1st March 1876, (daughter of Muhammed Toussoun Pasha and Bachachat-Imr Hanim), died 31st May 1915 in Yenikeuy, Bosphorus, and had issue. He died 6th December 1921 in Rome.
Obviously, this is OTL.
From what I recall of the Islamic succession laws, had Ismail not changed it to a primogeniture system in the 1860s, Said Halim would have been ruler of Egypt after the death of Ismail.
In the ATL, this occurs in the 1895 on Ismail's death. He would thus accede as Sultan Said II of Egypt.
IIRC under the same Islamic succession laws, his successor would in fact be the guy installed by the British as khedive in 1914 after they overthrew the incumbent who came out in favour of the Ottoman Empire.
Was it Egypt like ? I can't help but think that it will from time-to-time be key, especially with the Suez Canal being so important. Including in its realm Lebanon (under French auspices), Palestine, Transjordania, the Hejaz with Mecca and Medina, Asir and Yemen, as well as Soudan, Eritrea and Equatoria, the geographical spread of Egypt is both dangerously vast and fascinating large.
I foresee that the Arab slaver states of the Eastern interior, established in concert with European adventurers such as Stanley and occupying what would in OTL become the Eastern Congo, would be important to Egypt's economy.
Abyssinia has diverged differently without the intervening rule of King John, going from a longer reign of Theodore to his OTL protege and here his annointed successor in Menelik.
I view Tripoli as still an Ottoman possession, and the Ottoman revival after the 1870s as seeing the reimposition of direct rule, and later the expansion into Fezzan and the potential for a clash with Egypt in the Arab emirates and sultanates of the interior.
Tunis, under the Bey, remains nominally Ottoman but in effect independent. I imagine there would be a certain amount of French influence, probably balanced by British and Austrian to assuage the fears that Tunis could become a French dependency.
Egypt also retains Crete, and the anchorage at Suva Bay which has been developed by the Egyptian Navy. This brings it within direct confrontation with the Mecklenburg Kingdom of Greece. But Greece since its disaster has never really recovered. It is poor, unstable and squeezed out of strategic considerations.
French influence within Egypt, from finance through loans, to military advisors, purchase of new military technology, and French bureaucracy and industry all lead France to have a dominant position within Egypt, even if the French government of the time has little direct interest in the sultanate.
I envisage the arsenal of Alexandria to at least be as good as that of Foochow before the Sino-French war, able to build small warships with no additional help. I would imagine that Egypt with its naval tradition, and its ability to draw upon France for technological assistance in upgrading its facilities, can actually build large cruisers and small battleships off its own back. It probably uses French, and maybe Austrian, yards for new designs - eg large battleship developments, or something akin to a destroyer when they first come out.
Grey Wolf
End of Part 15
1905, a series of events connected by the strings of history
Assassination of King George II of Greece, along with other members of the Mecklenburg Greek royal family in a republican coup which sees the storming of the royal palace. The surviving heir, George's younger son Paul takes refuge aboard the British cruiser Calliope at Piraeus.
Although the act itself seems to come out of the blue, the background to it has been developing for some time. The dire state of the Greek economy and the extremist-riven nature of the Greek political scene has laid the foundation. The economic situation is contrasted to the Ottoman Balkans which is seeing a mini-boom, and the British protectorate, the Republic of the Ionian Islands where maritime trade is bringing commercial profits, including in tandem with Austrian commerce in the Red Sea. Greece seems to its citizens to be an exception to economic success around, and the monarchy gets the blame for it.
British Prime Minister, the 2nd Earl of Selborne, decides to act against the republican revolutionaries. Even as these are appealling for recognition and aid, Britain in conjunction with an Austrian naval force and a small Russian expeditionary force from Lemnos, lands Marines at Piraeus, with the British Mediterranean Fleet from Malta reinforcing the British squadron that was permanently based in the Aegean. Driving the Republicans from the palace, and installing the young Paul as King, the foreign intervention force secures Athen for the monarchy. Civil war spreads out into the countryside.
An unforeseen effect of events in Greece is a rising in Prussian-ruled Mecklenburg-Strelitz. As Prussia moves to suppress the rising, a succession crisis grips Hannover on the early death of King Adolphus II. With the country in the economic doldrums, a powerful party has coalesced around the figure of Prince Georg, Duke of Cambridge, the heir passed over in 1892. As Adolphuis II's young heir takes the throne as King Adolphus III, Georg moves to seize the throne for himself with the backing of the conservative elements in his country.
Prussia's King Wilhelm II Augustus vacilates between support for the two parties, but is bought off with the bribe of Brunswick-Luneburg by the belaegured party of Adolphus III. As he sends a Prussian army into Hannover to support the young king and his more Liberal backers, Prussia becomes a victim of its own apparent resurgance.
Saxon irredentists, based in that part of Saxony reclaimed from Prussia in 1892 have been stirring up sentiment in the portion that Prussia was allowed to retain. As Prussia becomes involved in the West, Saxony launches an invasion of these areas. Although the target area is soon occupied, Saxon arms run into trouble when Prussia focuses upon them. But in a diplomatic coup, Saxony is able to call upon Poland and Denmark who threaten to mobilise and intervene.
A peace brokered by King Willem IV of the Netherlands results in Prussian cession of the rest of Saxony acquired in 1815, but sees Prussian rule confirmed in the Mecklenburgs and across the North to Brunswick-Luneburg. King Adolphus III is secured in his rule in Hannover, as the Duke of Cumberland goes into exile in Switzerland.
The civil war in Greece will drag on to 1910 when King Paul I offers a general amnesty to any rebel willing to lay down his arms.
Grey Wolf
The Bourbon-Parma Crisis of 1909
1909 sees another crisis on the Italian peninsular.
In 1892 Prince Enrico of Bourbon-Parma had been elected King of Sicily and installed at Palermo under British and Russian protection.
At the time, it seemed a safe bet. Duke Robert I was still alive and in good health, and his heir Prince Ferdinando, born in 1871 had married an Austrian Archduchess from a minor line* and already had two children, one of which a healthy son by the name of Robert.
* Maybe Archduchess Margarethe of Austria (Hungarian line), born in 1870
In 1907, Duke Robert I dies and is succeeded by Ferdinando as Duke of Bourbon-Parma. Things are already tense as despite ten more years of marriage, Ferdinando sired no more sons in the period prior to her death in childbirth in 1902. This thus leaves only Prince Robert between the throne of Bourbon-Parma and the King of Sicily.
In 1909, Prince Robert dies in a boating accident. The heir to Duke Ferdinando is now King Enrico of Sicily.
King Enrico, reigning as far as I can see as King Henry II of Sicily, married in the mid 1890s Princess Maria Immaculata (born 1878), daughter of King Miguel II of Portugal. By 1909 they have six children, including three sons - Henry (Enrico, born in 1895), Charles (Carlo, born in 1899), and Robert (Roberto, born in 1905).
There is no family compact in existence between the Bourbon-Parma branches, and an attempt to find an informal solution founders upon the need for Sicily to have a secure succession. Many favour the IDEA of the third son of Enrico becoming heir to Duke Ferdinando, but the boy is only four and not yet clear of infancy, with all the dangers that brings in this period. Others, in Parma, favour skipping Enrico's line completely and going to Enrico's next brother down, Prince Giuseppe as heir. But this solution is not acceptable to King Enrico in Palermo.
As Enrico is dragged deeper into the succession question in his homeland, the Bourbon-Two Siclies dynasty in the Kingdom of Naples begins to look with interest at the crisis. Having been driven from Sicily by British and Russian intervention in the early 1890s, after a ten year civil war, the dynasty in Naples has never fully accepted the loss of one of their two dominions.
King Francesco II, on the throne since 1859 and aged in his early 70s still harbours ambitions of reclaiming Sicily for his dynasty. With his sons grown to manhood, and his succession ensured by several male grandchildren, he wishes to leave a final legacy in re-uniting Sicily with the Kingdom of Naples.
As King Enrico heads for Parma for a dynastic conference in 1910, Francesco II secretly prepares for war...
Grey Wolf
The first of these pieces deals with ATL monarchies now on the thrones of Poland, Prussia, the Netherlands and Hannover
The second piece deals with ATL monarchies now on the thrones of Parma, Sicily and Naples (Francesco II was dead by this time in OTL and had no children; I saw no reason why this should be the case in the ATL)
We also see the ATL Portuguese monarchy.
Of the major monarchies those which have not yet jumped off course from OTL include Sweden, Denmark (though I may well keep Frederick VIII beyond 1912), and Saxony.
The smaller monarchies, such as Saxony. or Wurttemburg or Tuscany, only tend to change (or have their change noted) when something significant happens.
Most of the others are now firmly on an ATL course - Britain, France, Russia, Prussia, Austria, the Netherlands, Piedmont-Sardinia, Spain etc
Grey Wolf
US presidents after William T. Sherman
Benjamin Harrison
US Radical Party
elected 1888
administration 1889-1893
Ignatius Donnelly
US Radical Party
elected 1892
administration 1893-1897
Mark Hanna
US Reform Party
elected 1896, re-elected 1900
administration 1897-1904 (dies in office)
Robert La Follette
US Reform Party
accedes to presidency 1904 having been Vice President
elected 1904
administration 1904-1909
Henry Cabot Lodge
US Reform Party
elected 1908
administration from 1909
Grey Wolf
I woudl like to get a hang on 1910
I see Britain as under a Moderate Party administration, under the 2nd Earl of Selborne.
The USA under President Lodge of the US Reform Party
I guess for other countries the question is whether they are constitutional monarchies or republics, or whether they are states where the monarch or the president makes and directs policy in all major areas.
For countries like the USA, the choice would be a constitutional republic, as the president is still reigned in by the Senate and the House. Britain definitely is a constitutional monarchy, where the Commons and the Senate decide all important matters, and King William V has mainly powers of emergency veto, constitutional administration and thge residuality of sovereignty should the government fail. He is kept up with full details of events, complete briefings etc and can demand these if not given.
Elsewhere, the monarchist tendency is strong, as it was in OTL in countries like Germany or Austria. In the ATL, this sees a strong monarchy in France, kind of on the scale of the 1860s Second Empire of OTL, where the balance of forces is delicate and who is in the ascendancy depends on who is most successful. King Charles XI is an immensely popular and dynamic young ruler. The riots and near civil war of the early 1880s is but a memory, and France is strong in international affairs.
Grey Wolf
One thing to note is that British naval policy 1892-1894 sees them involved in shoring up the return of Willem IV in the Netherlands, seeing to the independence of Sicily under a prince of Bourbon-Parma, and in 1894 backing Emanuele Philiberto in the Piedmontese civil war.
These things are going to affect British policy in the longer term
Britain in the mid-late 1890s is under the Reform Party administration of William Harcourt
Into the twentieth century and to 1910, Britain is under the Moderate Party administration of the 2nd Earl of Selborne
The Reform Party leader is the younger Harcourt (Lewis), whilst the Radical Party has never really recovered from its image problem of not being good at foreign affairs and has been squeezed out
Grey Wolf
I am inclining towards seeing the 1910 crisis turning into a tragic comedy. The idea that Naples would be able to keep secret its invasion plans seems unrealistic, and I would expect both the Papacy and Great Britain to learn of it, and respond in the negative.
One might see complications - with Enrico away in Parma, and with his wife Portuguese by birth and his children all young, the Sicilian Prime Minister may well wield excessive influence. He could become a national hero in this time of stress, and become a kind of rival to Enrico who would come hurrying home late. People in Sicily would view his absence as indicative of his being focused on the mainland more than on the island. The Prime Minister (anyone have a candidate ?) would be seen as a Sicilian nationalist and a counter to Enrico. This could stir up trouble for the future.
With war looming, the Pope sends emissaries to Naples, whilst Britain acts in a more forthright manner. With the British Mediterranean Fleet mainly based at Malta, it is easy to intervene, even if a significant minority of strength is still at Piraeus.
King Francesco II is embarassed by this reaction, his invasion force is neutered before it begins and he is forced to back down. Unable to handle the humiliation he abdicates in late 1910 and is succeeded by his eldest son as King Ferdinando III.
Grey Wolf
So, Pope names reflect some aspect of their policy and personality ? (as I learnt from the debate over Benedict)
Thus, after Pius IX, we have had two Popes, one who focused on temporal affairs mostly, and then one who reigned during a period of Catholic triumphalism but was not himself of this viewpoint, being more of a peacemaker than a victorious type. We could perhaps say that this latter was an Austrian protege, maybe from Milan, but if thats too complex then from the Romagna. After helping to prevent war between Naples and Sicily, he sickens and dies.
Questions
- what are the names of these two Popes, based at least upon their overall pre-occupations ?
- if the new Pope elected is a more aggressive kind of guy, what name would he adopt for himself ?
Grey Wolf
I suppose the question with China is who is backing who ?
Is Russia backing the empire ? On the one hand it would seem a bit of a dangerous plan, to back a state that once revived could be a rival on its border and claim some of the land occupied by Russia. On the other hand, it would give Russia great influence in their neighbour and be similar to how they dealt with the Ottoman Empire.
If Russia is looking to dominate Peking, then the other powers will be both looking to rival them within the Empire, and to back the rivals to the empire. France already has a position in Japan, and in Vietnam, though the latter is being challenged by the USA. In addition, France occupies Kwangchow province.
Britain occupies the province adjacent to Kwangchow (i.e. where Canton and Hong Kong is, and whose name I am forever forgetting). Britain thus has immediate neighbours in the Taiping.
Will anyone other than these four powers be players in China ? Austria ? Belgium ? Japan ?
Grey Wolf
The Middle of the Ending....