That would be interesting. Good luck getting the Russians to sell out to Britain, however!
Well by most accounts, IOTL the Russians sold Alaska to the USA because the British weren't willing to stump up the cash. In fact IIRC, the British were given first option on the deal before the Americans even heard about the sale, but didn't go for it. Sure, the Crimean War and such made them rivals, but by most accounts politics was still civil enough that the Russians were willing to sell off a colony they couldn't maintain to one of the two countries able to stump up the cash.
Of course, the USA TTL could just buy it anyway and restore the regular path of this TL.
Are the Brits expanding their presence in the north/Ruperts land by actively sending in settlers and explorers there or are there mostly trading posts for the fur trade?
Are all the British colonies in the Caribbean going to be joined into one entity or are they not likely to try that and keep them separate to reduce political cooperation against the throne.
Are all the British colonies in the Caribbean going to be joined into one entity or are they not likely to try that and keep them separate to reduce political cooperation against the throne.
Glen
Moderator
Really? I never heard that the Russians offered to sell it to Britain. Do you have a reference on that?
I suppose so. Time will tell....
Glen
Moderator
Depends when you are talking about, but the short answer is that there's no British settlers and precious few British explorers in Rupert's Land after 1783.
Ah, now that is a question, now, isn't it?
Hmmm....because that worked so well in preventing the ARW?
Nice maps
Now about Russian Alaska I think that Russia was pretty expansionist thierat some point and had a claim on oregon as well, will that lead to conflict between Russia and the US when hey expand to the pacific?
Now about Russian Alaska I think that Russia was pretty expansionist thierat some point and had a claim on oregon as well, will that lead to conflict between Russia and the US when hey expand to the pacific?
I quote directly from Wikipedia. If you want another source I'm sure I can find one:
"Perhaps in hopes of starting a bidding war, both the British and the Americans were approached, however the British expressed little interest in buying Alaska. The Russians then turned their attention to the United States and in 1859 offered to sell the territory to the United States, hoping that the United States would offset the plans of Russia's greatest regional rival, Great Britain. However, no deal was brokered due to the secession of seven southern states and the eventual American Civil War.[1]"
Couldn't be bothered to deactivate the hyperlinks, sorry
Russia planted a Fort along the Oregon (or maybe even Californian) coastline, an installation called Fort Eureka which still exists as a reenactment centre, but they never made any serious attempt to claim the area because they neither had the men nor the force projection to enforce it. They briefly tried to cement control over Hawai'i by tying the local rulers to a treaty and settling Oahu, but nothing really came of that either.
Glen
Moderator
Thanks. I need to fix the 1804 one, though....it's missing Ohio.
Maybe, maybe. Russia is definitely there, and so are the British off the coast, but less than OTL. We'll see how it works out.
Glen
Moderator
I quote directly from Wikipedia. If you want another source I'm sure I can find one:
"Perhaps in hopes of starting a bidding war, both the British and the Americans were approached, however the British expressed little interest in buying Alaska. The Russians then turned their attention to the United States and in 1859 offered to sell the territory to the United States, hoping that the United States would offset the plans of Russia's greatest regional rival, Great Britain. However, no deal was brokered due to the secession of seven southern states and the eventual American Civil War.[1]"
Couldn't be bothered to deactivate the hyperlinks, sorry
Thanks. Don't worry about the hypertext links. It's a rather weak statement, and seems as if it was a ploy to up the price, not an actual first approach to Britain.
Maybe. By all accounts from the references I've seen it suggests that in 1859 the Russians offered the territory to both countries and tried to get them to bid against each other, but neither were interested. Then they came back in 1867 when the USA was much more interested, but Russia's war with Britain had closed off relations that way. Supposing Alaska offers more options this time round (which it might not) then I still think you'd see Britain getting just as much chance to buy as the Americans.
Glen
Moderator
That's a good question. Remember though that there's still a lot of the same players around, but the earlier success means there are more of the 'heroes of the revolution' who actually survive to see independence.
Glen
Moderator
Well, it will certainly be even more on the Americans' radar screen. We'll see about the British....
A little unfair on Iturbide in my opinion. When Mexico declared independence, the strongest faction wanted recognition in Europe by seeking a European royal to take the throne. Iturbide, as leader of the rebellion, was tasked with finding a suitable candidate. However, everyone offered immediately refused, not wanting to associate themselves with a rebel nation and the wrath of the Spanish and their allies, not to mention having to leave Europe and European politics and luxury. With no options, Iturbide still had to appoint an Emperor, and had to have himself crowned as his supporters weren't willing to accept a republic (at this point). The problem was the other factions quickly became unhappy, and Iturbide became a lame duck, having to compromise all of his views to keep other groups happy, and consequently pleasing nobody and seeming unable to impose his will (because he never chose to). His total failure also effectively ended support for a monarchy, the rebels believing Iturbide to be proof that Mexico couldn't be run as an Empire. Thus, his own faction turned against him and he was overthrown after a year. Iturbide simply was a man in the wrong place at the wrong time, and too proud to realise he was being forced into an unwinnable situation and fall on his sword rather than let his reputation be put to the sword instead.
Of course, with a different Mexican rebellion a more stable government might arise anyway.
It may be so it wasn't his original intentions to become the Emperor, but at least from what I know of the guy, he didn't switch his allegiance out of altruistic reasons or an ideological change of heart. He at the very least, was motivated like much of the Mexican nobility, seeing independence as a tool for their own ends. Iturbide was also known for his alleged corruption, enriching himself through his military career. If he was truly innocent of these charges, and he allied with Guerrero out of vengeance, this is the only true non-opportunistic motivation I can gather of his decision, to join the cause of independence. I'm not trying to say he was the worst guy in the world by saying he was an opportunist; but simply someone more interested in his own power and prestige then truly the liberation of Mexico.
Glen, Falastur
I think under the different circumstances that the islands will be under a different flag, especially if Britain wants to maintain an interest in the NW region, either for Vancouver's settlement plans or simply the fur trade.
Just had this crazy thought. British fur interests displaced from their OTL regions in Canada. What other frozen wastelands can they explore to find furs?
- Meant initially as a joke but could we find some British 'poaching' by seeking to establish trade contracts with local peoples in Alaska or even Siberia? The latter is formally Russia but very, very big and sparsely settled, especially by Europeans so the Russians would have fun trying to police business in the area, especially if other traders were offering more/better goods to the locals. - This is presuming the fur trade heavily involved buying from local tribes.Steve