Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Glen, Feb 22, 2010.
Yes, the question is not whether it is off to a good start or not, but whether it can last.
Well considering the only reason Pan-Scandinavianism didn't happen IOTL was that Sweden was a-scared of losing influence (even though it would dominate Scandinavia), I think it'll last.
Map update! Did the best I could.
With the resolution of problems (at least for the moment), in the Roman Republic and Denmark, and the addition of Sweden to the Entente, the war surged forward, with Entente forces driving deep into Finland, Prussia, and Austria. It looked as if the Entente would take the capitals of all three nations in another year, especially with renewed uprisings in Poland and Hungary, until the Eastern Powers struck upon the heavy use of trenches and defensive maneuvers to slow the onslaught. The Entente was still on the attack, but the cost of the war in lives and materials jumped up exponentially for the Entente (though the Eastern Powers had already paid a hefty price in blood and treasure).
The cost of the war brought both sides to the bargaining table, but it was clear that the Eastern Powers were at the disadvantage, and they paid accordingly. Russia lost Finland to Sweden, though they managed to hold onto Poland. Prussia lost much of the portion of Saxony they had gained in the Napoleonic Wars, as well as all their territories west of the Elbe to the new German Empire. Austria lost much of the Sudetenland and the Tyrol to Germany as well. Austria also lost the Trento, Venice, and Lombardy to the new Kingdom of Italy.
Most of the changes of the Liberal War had settled down by 1855, and the world tried to get back into the business of living, though clearly a line had been drawn across Europe, with Reactionary Regimes to the East, and Liberal Realms to the West. This would define European relations for the age.
A fair point.
A fair point - but remember that both are a bit smaller than OTL.
A loose Dominion is a possibility, of course there is the French to deal with, and DQ is correct on British not being in New Guinea.
That's a definite possibility, though probably a later one.
Maybe not even that given French presence on the South Island. And what war are you speaking of, pray tell?
I don't know about a non-White majority being the issue, so much as a non-White majority in power. I assure you, for example, that whites are not the majority in the DSA, but they most certainly are in power.
Really impressive work, Plumber, especially given scant data. See my latest update for more info, though.
I'm not sure I agree with Julius' assertion anyway. Yes, there were a fair few conflicts between the white settlers and the Maori, but actually the British government and its representatives were generally on very friendly terms with the Maori - rather like the 13 Colonies a century or two before, it was the British colonists who damaged relations between the two communities. In fact, again somewhat like America, the British Governors sometimes isolated the British colonist community by steadfastly committing to the official British policy with the Maori, offering them favourable treaties, siding with the Maori in land disputes, and offering too much integration and civil liberties to the native populations. The difference is that over time, the British colonists softened their stance, and rather than casting out the natives or pushing them back, eventually integrated with them and came to accept Maori culture and history as part of their own national distinctiveness.
It should perhaps be noted that IIRC, British relations with the Aborigines of Australia didn't tend to go so swimmingly, though I'm not suggesting that it was anything like a persecution there.
What are the Demographics of the DSA?
Obviously the Carribean elements have a non-white majority and the West is probably still American Indian plurality at this point. However the South was white majority (though narrow 3 million out of 7.5 million in 1850), only 2 slave states were black majority (Mississippi and South Carolina) in OTL and the OTL US South still contains the vast majority of the population of the DSA at this point.
Also as the DSA has received more white immigration than in OTL while a similar (very low) importation of Slaves I would guess that that pushes the white majority in the OTL US South up meaning that the DSA has a very slight white majority at this point, that will probably grow with strong immigration from Europe.
This map is very useful though obviously things have changed but it shows you where slavery was practical or at least practised
Reading this TL continues to be a wonderful treat. I have but one minor point: the map still seems to show Sudentenland as Czech/Austrian, despite the text claiming it is now German. That might be me simply still seeing the 'base' Czechia shape though, since sans the Sudentens it still looks similar.
Otherwise, a German Empire WITHOUT Austria or Prussia in it, plausibly so? Amazing! Keep up the excellent work!
I stand corrected, though I would note that the slave population got a boost from when the US ended slavery and some slaves were sold south.
I skimmed them off it on my map, but yeah, the shape is still pretty similar.
Glad you think so!
Why James Cook named the east coast of New Holland New South Wales is a mystery to the ages. However, this is the name it was given when it was claimed by right of exploration for the British in 1770. But this is the name it came to be known by when a convict settlement was started there after the American Revolutionary War made it politically untenable to continue transporting convicts to America. The Colonization Fleet found the originally selected site for colonization, Botany Bay, too sandy for easy agriculture, and instead moved to Port Jackson, which would become the first and arguably most important settlement along the west coast.
While natives were present on along the shore when the first English penal colonists arrived, they were soon decimated by small pox and other diseases for which they had no acquired immunites.
I assume you have seen this
LOL - No, I had not. Thanks!
And the liberal war comes to a close!
A though occured to me: Since the British still had Georgia at the end of this worlds ARW, would they even coloinize Australia?
Yes. Georgia stops being a politically viable spot for a penal colony (Loyalists don't want them, and the USA is too close to push too hard on the issue, at least at the time).
Thanks. Here's the world at the end of the Liberal War in 1850:
The 1850 Entente Cordiale established the borders between the French and British possessions in the Australias (previously referred to as New Holland and New Zealand). Greater Australia (formerly New Holland) was divided at the 132nd meridian, with Cygne Noir as the main colony of French Greater Australia, and New South Wales and it's capital, Port Jackson, as the heart of British Greater Australia. Lesser Australia was simply divided into the North Island of British Lesser Australia and the South Island of French Lesser Australia. Over time these names would continue to evolve, especially as new influxes of peoples would impact the land.
Great update, i haven't seen an Austrailian update in awhile.
Also is France still a Monarchy?
If so it would be interesting to see a Dominion of French Austrailia.
Since British New Zealand only has the northen island, its even more likely it becomes part of a dominion centered on austrailia
Separate names with a comma.