Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Glen, Feb 22, 2010.
I just voted
Just read the whole TL. And:
a) It's excellent! Probably the best I've ever read so far.
b) I just voted for you (-among others)
c) Keep going!!!
You're not trying to suggest cheating are you? I've already voted in this poll.
Serious, reading through the mega-posts above a comment on one point.
I mentioned that apart from any other reason why Prussia wouldn't go for any overseas colonies that they would be exposed to capture by a more powerful naval power. You countered with the example of the Netherlands. However I will point out that:
a) Those colonies were gained in a period when the Dutch were a major naval and economic power [in many way the leader in both categories at their height].
b) As Britain and France rose to contest top status it was not only the defeat French but also the Dutch, often pulled into those conflicts, that lost colonies.[new Amsterdamn, the Cape, Ceylon]
c) After the Napoleonic wars they kept their remaining colonies and secured their control in the Dutch Indies but also stayed basically neutral from 1815 to 1940, with the exception of the tension over the loss of the southern Netherlands in the 1830s.
As such I don't think that's a good guide. The Prussians may seek a colony overseas, for reasons of prestige, to settle surplus population or possibly some other reason. However they won't become a major naval power so any such colony will be vulnerable in periods of conflict. As such unless they decide [and succeed] to become a basically neutral state it's going to be a risky policy. Also given the prestige of the military in Prussia and the fact it's a relatively small state surrounded by three larger ones and with potential/actual tension with all of them I can't really see either a navy or colonial interest being a high priority.
Also a maritime policy tends to be based on a strong trading element in the state, with either colonies or a large merchant fleet to encourage it. For such a mercantile element, separate from the landed interests to develop would mean a potential rival for the junker interests and the primacy of the army to defend the land borders.
As such I think any real interest in overseas colonies or extensive trade are likely to be fairly lightweight and unlikely to prosper unless there are major changes in Prussia. This could occur but is probably unlikely.
And in fact - WE NOW ARE IN THE LEAD BY 7 VOTES!!!! Keep the momentum going, mighty viewers!
Thank you for your kind words, for your vote, and for your encouragement!
No, just want your regular vote - no sockpuppets from Chicago, please!
Yes it was, but it wasn't exactly a case of "let's start a settlement in the north...done? well that was easy, I name it Darwin". There were several (at least three) failed attempts to settle the north first before Darwin was settled, and Darwin was specifically settled because the colonists managed to make a joint town with an extant Aborigine village which had been known about for some time as containing friendly natives who were happy to help Europeans. The Aborigines essentially provided the food for the Europeans until the colony was large enough to produce its own. Now, that village is in French Greater Australia. It is entirely possible that another such helpful and well-placed village does not exist on the North Australian coastline, and if it does it is not known about - the colonists can't exactly afford to sail the length of the coastline, stopping at every Aborigine village and asking "are you friendly? will you let us convert your village into a settler colony?" It's entirely possible that the loss of Darwin will set back colonisation of North Australia by as little as 5 or as many as 30 years.
Incidentally, I've been thinking about the use of the terms Greater and Lesser Australia. I can't really see much evidence that New Zealand was ever thought of as part of "Australia" so I'm not convinced by the term "Lesser Australia" for New Zealand (if anything I would think that term would apply to VD'sL/Tasmania, except that island already has a name). The term New Zealand was coined by Captain Cook, who Anglicised Nova Zeelandia, but of course that was supposed to refer to the whole island chain, so the division of NZ into French and British territories has probably meant that that term will only exist as an equivalent to, say, "British Isles" or such, to describe the islands as a geographical but not political unit. There is a historical precedent for naming the islands after Ireland - New Ulster, New Leister, New Munster - well, that happened for a while in OTL, but that's probably been butterflied anyway. I guess there's two ways it could go. Either London wants a very English-sounding name, in which case I guess one of the above is possible, or perhaps Upper/Lesser Zealand. The other option is that one of the Maori terms which seemed to come into general use OTL could be used, in which case I would suggest Aotearoa (possibly Anglicised/formalised to something more like "Auteria") could be used - this term under the original spelling does have the distinction of actually being in the New Zealand English vocabulary in the OTL present day. Whether London would consider using a Maori term or not is something to debate, I guess.
Just something to mull over.
A fair point. Sizable must mean self-sufficient and profitable, or else the city itself becomes a liability. A sizable city should also have a decent hinterland, with its population starting to disperse to create smaller satellite settlements - evidence that the city is starting to generate growth outside of its own walls. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to base a territory in a city smaller than 5,000 population at a rough estimate (bearing in mind of course that cities were smaller in these days anyway, so 5,000 was a healthy size for a colonial city) but preferably bigger. Notably this is bigger than any city in northern Australia will be able to boast for a while, I believe.
As for an Aboriginal homeland - there was a lot of internecine violence between Australian colonists and Aborigines in this period I believe - somewhat akin to the American frontier back in the colonial days, and culminating in a few massacres. I doubt the Aborigines would be willing to mass-relocate for the sake of having a homeland (and in doing so it would only create rivalry between the displaces Aborigines and the ones who lived in the homeland before anyway) but I guess if the violence threatens to get out of control a homeland is a theoretical possibility if London feels it needs to step in to create sacrosanct Aborigine borders which Europeans cannot cross, therefore (hopefully) allaying the violence. Problem is it's not a very likely solution, and a homeland is only really a possibility in the north...where there aren't enough Europeans for there to be any violence really. A homeland in the south would create huge problems with the colonists, in the same way that the 13 Colonies of America took badly to being told they weren't allowed to expand westwards after the 1763 Proclamation, and as said before would just make problems with the Aborigines either refusing to move into the homeland, or fighting with the original natives there after moving. I think Aboriginal relations aren't likely to diverge from OTL Australia really, and since OTL had no homeland, I doubt there will be one here.
Now for the action packed conclusion to mega-response Australia/DSA!
We will eventually find out more about Australia, India, and North America. I don't favor a poll, as I believe I must make a reasoned decision based on my overall gestalt understanding of this world, though everyone's comments and work have helped to inform that understanding and I don't doubt will crop up in many ways - though the synthesis may surpise some - we'll see...
There is definitely racism in the DSA, but it is more like an adjunct to classism, and especially in the immediate post-Slaver period, too overt or aggressive of racism is tantamount to being unpatriotic. Now then, there are still lines that do not get crossed, or get crossed very quietly when they do, and there are still a lot of barriers of discrimination and prejudice. But yeah, the DSA is a LOT better to live in for a person of color than the Post-Reconstruction South was. It's not a color-blind paradise, but it's better.
True enough - the development of race relations in East Australia will be different.
Oh, I doubt very much that the US will want many blacks from the DSA, and the blacks in the DSA will probably not want to go to that cold, foreign land. The economy of the DSA is still pretty good compared to post ACW South, and thus there's a lot less pressure to move out of the DSA. And no one in the USA is really interested in encouraging them. The few who make it north will not be particularly discriminated against as there will be too few to be viewed as a threat, but they will be seen as exotic or alien.
In fact, we may see more blacks in Virginia and other parts of USA move south to the DSA than the reverse! I can also see some previously escaped slaves moving back to reunite with family.
Sadly this is likely, but in that gap it will allow for a betterment of the general lot of blacks, enough that when the social landscape hardens they'll be a bit better placed than they otherwise would have been.
This is true to a degree, but race mixing was far more prevelant and accepted among the Civilized Tribes than in other parts of the South, so those lines get awefully blurry in Indiana, and how you are treated is more about class than race (though skin tone plays a role as well).
Probably true. Any Southern Blacks who make it to Australia will be seen as 'civilized' compared to Aborigines. They won't be encouraged to come, and there probably won't be that many of them, but they will probably be seen as only one rung down from a white Australian, as opposed to the aborigines who might not even be on the ladder.
Exactly so, exactly so.
That's interesting and maybe even possible, if enough ever make it.
While this is true on the East Coast, there's just not that many in the interior of America, so maybe not nine heads, just two heads.
Slow trickle at most at this point in time.
People have short memories, and race is a pernicious issue - see my comments above. It's not so much that racism will revive, just that the trend towards improvement will plateau for a time.
Who are you referring to here?
Yes - but that's a bit further in the future.
Don't think they'd be 'lumped'.
Large scale is likely out.
As is, yes - of course we don't know yet what other factors will intervene...
True - but these speculations are for the future, and we will have to see how other events unfold which will undoubtedly have an impact on these issues.
Men of voting age who own or rent property of a certain value - since the majority of blacks essentially sharecrop (which for the purposes of voting is not considered either ownership or renting) they are largely excluded in the early DSA, though a black of industry can in fact pay their way into enfranchisement, so there is some social mobility that helps keep the lid on things. One thing too that I haven't overtly stated is that all Loyalist veterans and their descendants are guaranteed the vote regardless of their property status, which includes some poor whites and, yes, some blacks.
Yep, which means that this is basically the standard for THE ENTIRE WESTERN HEMISPHERE.
Bad is relative. Most blacks are better off after the war, and in fact are in demand as labor, and since they are not held to the land anymore, they can vote with their feet if they are mistreated. In 1850s DSA society they are not equal to whites, let us be clear on that, and in fact are of less standing than members of the Civilized Tribes or mixed race folk, but they are actually no longer the bottom of the social ladder always, that place now being taken more and more by imported Indians from India. So they are not equal, they face a great number of social barriers, but they are doing better.
And proportionately there will be more non-whites in Australia, though they won't be a majority, that's true too. So more of an 'off-white' Australia.
So blacks from the DSA wouldn't really be 'alien' in that sense (nor would members of the Civilized Tribes!). Indians from India, however, would.
Quite possibly. Heck, they might even try to get some Americans!
I don't think that the number of blacks from the DSA would ever go into double digits, but it might get to 5% or even a little more. The most likely group to be higher is Indians from India (who could reach 15%), though they will be actively discriminated against and 'feared' and if any restrictions show up in future, it will likely target this group and other 'Asians' who are both close at hand and 'alien' in the sense listed above.
The key to how Indians in both the USA and the DSA are treated can be summed up in one word - assimilation - Indians who assimilate into 'American' or 'British (and/or 'Civilized Tribes) society can stay and be left alone. Indians who insist upon staying part of an 'alien' nation will be moved out of the way of these nations' respective 'manifest destinies'. And no, neither country wants the others' 'malcontents' with regards to 'wild' Indians.
Now that is a very, very good question, and one that will be the subject of future updates (once we get back to Africa, still have some other continents to deal with first, however).
Indentured laborers will be at least.
But where will be better to go?
The name New Georgia is rather clever - I'll have to think about that one!
Yes, it would, wouldn't it....
Why did people start prefering Tasmania?
Not necessarily, they could just leave it attached until there were enough people there to warrant a separate province.
That could be corrected easily enough. Have to look at the circumstances around that name, however.
I tend to agree with the above regarding keeping the sizes large and the numbers few in divisions until population sizes warrant splitting.
Ah, now there is a sensible question - what was it IOTL?
More likely along the border, but it is possible.
Yes, it should I suppose. Of course, have you seen the names of the US states ITTL?
Just have to find a good site. Thoughts?
Given the smaller population, a delay in settlement there isn't so bad.
The Greater and Lesser Australias terms are a butterfly, mostly due to French influences in the area!
Indeed, these are all good ideas for other names in the area.
There might not be one initially, but if colonist pressure pushes aborigines into marginal lands along the border with French Australia, it might eventually become something more formal.
Agreed that it is not a good parallel, but it does make the point that a nation need not be large to have large colonial possessions.
Except perhaps for needed resources. Really, what Prussia needs to have any chance at overseas colonies is a friendly relation with Scandinavia and at least a neutral relation with Britain.
How did it happen in OTL Prussian dominated Germany?
Noted - change or no overseas colonies of note.
It appears to be the result of a process that started with a few enlightened citizens naming flora and fauna after Abel Tasman, steadily increasing as others took their lead and started using the term "Tasmania" as a general geographical nickname for the countryside, and then snowballed as more and more people living in or associated with VD'sL came to use the term Tasmania (it does roll off the tongue easier, I'll guess that was a major reason). By the 1830s it was already supplanting the term VD'sL in general use. Eventually it was in such common use that the Tasmanian authorities applied to London to just get rid of the official term VD'sL and stick with the term they knew and used.
Courland is perhaps the epitomy of this example, no?
Edit: Oh wait, to have LARGE colonial possessions. Ahh, forget Courland then. Uhh, Belgium? Bit of a unique case itself I guess.
Germany historically only went for colonies around the Scramble for Africa, when owning tracts of land became about prestige over profit. With a tiny(-er) Prussia, I can't see them being desperate to break this mould, and when the Scramble hits they will probably try to enter only to have to set their sights considerably lower than OTL. I can see Prussia making off with one or two minor territories - maybe something like German New Guinea plus a sliver of Africa somewhere - but I just can't see them going for a large colony. I'm not convinced they would even have the finances to keep a large colony together, unless they essentially totally neglect it.
I wouldn't call an island and a few forts "Large".
Also shouldn't there be a gold rush in austrailia about now?
Replying to a couple of points:
Don't forget that Germany was much larger and more disperse than the Prussia we're talking about here. Also it saw a very rapid and successful industrial revolution coupled with a well developed technological base. As such it rapidly generated powerful industries which had large export potential. This of course prompted development in trade and commerce - to managing the buying and selling, merchant shipping [to carry goods and also emigrants] and related matters. Coupled with matters of prestige for one of the largest economic powers in the world it meant that there was support for obtaining foreign colonies [albeit ones that were generally money sinks] and later a large fleet to 'protect' the colonies and commerce.
I agree that for Prussia to obtain overseas colonies it needs better relations, especially with Britain. However currently Prussia is at loggerheads with Germany, a major ally and that is likely to be rough for a while. Also having had the turmoil of a major military defeat concentration will probably be on internal security and army strength [whether their concerned about the new Germany seeking to complete the unification by force or dreaming of revenge]. As such I don't see many assets being available for a while.
Also this, barring major changes, was the period of the invisible empire. Where Britain dominated world trade and especially with much of the developing world but hence wanted to avoid areas coming under colonial control. [If under British control it costs money to run/protect/develop etc, if under foreign then tariffs are likely to restrict British trade]. Hence Britain has no desire to encourage anyone to start establishing colonies. It might be that [like Germany after OTL 1871 with France] there is a desire to have a defeated foe seeking prestige and diversions outside Europe in the hope of reducing tension inside it. However as stated this runs against Britain's economic interests. Also while Prussian colonies may be relatively small if it starts a scramble.
Basically thinking that if racial feeling starts to rise in the DSA then the Indians, who have a measure of power and influence, have a vested interest in seeking to nip it in the bud. After all, racism discriminating against blacks now could inspires discrimination against them later on.
True this requires some foresight and we are talking about humans here but occasionally miracles happen. Seriously I would think that is anti-black feeling rises in the DSA then as well as moral and economic factors some of the Indians might see it's better to oppose such developments.
Yeah sorry. I spotted that error myself (a bit too late) a few minutes ago. If you read back up your screen you should see that I've corrected (or rather, clarified) what I said.
The Sepoy Uprising of 1857 came mere years after the end of the Liberal War, and was the final nail in the coffin of the British East India Company (BEIC). The timing of the Uprising was in large part a reaction to a prophesy popular among disaffected Indians of the mid 19th century that the rule of the British East India Company over India would end 100 years after it started in 1757. Whether the outcome of the Sepoy Uprising meant the prophesy had been fulfilled is open to debate.
There were several reasons for the uproar of the uprising, such as the Doctrine of Lapse which had brought so much territory under the direct rule of the BEIC, and the moral reforms that the British enforced upon the Indians such as the ending of Sati and child marriage.
The troops who remained loyal to the BEIC were able to squash the uprising with only a minimum loss of civilian life, much of this due to the rapid arming of loyal forces with newly arrived breech-loading rifles, and a lack of coordination between Muslim and Hindu rebels. Many of the forces that restored order were Sihk, who by-and-large remained loyal to the BEIC. However, the cost in treasure to the BEIC who had been on the verge of bankruptcy after decades of financial mismanagement, and the general poor press they received in Britain over the loss of control was the death knell to a privately run India. After the investigations of the uprising concluded, the British Government bought out the failing shares of the BEIC, and India became a Crown Colony of the British Empire.
With regards to the recent update on the Sepoy Uprising of 1857. Yes, it actually happens in the same year as the OTL Indian Revolt, and I am allowing that due to the fact that one cause was a prophesy that would likely have been in both timelines that bases the timing for revolt on a pre-POD event, so they both timelines share this in common.
You can read between the lines that while the broad outlines are very similar to OTL, the actual Sepoy Uprising of TTL is far less violent or successful than OTL. One major difference is that due to the slightly advanced development of firearms 1) there's no rumor about the cartridges circulating at the same time as the prophesy comes to fruition 2) they are able to bring in more rapid firing guns as a force multiplier 3) the British government has kept more of a leash on the BEIC's excesses in the years leading up to the Uprising. These are not obvious in the actual post, but hinted at.
Thanks for the info - I suspect this name is susceptable to butterflies, however, but need not change - I will review and think upon it.
Don't forget the Pacific as well! I don't necessarily share such a pessimistic view of their abilities to have a colony, but it is certainly less so than OTL.
No mention of the use of pig fat in the firing of the Company's guns upsetting the Muslims? Interesting, that's usually the first factor in the Sepoy Rebellion which is mentioned.
This could still happen in Germany, though less so in Prussia.
Not for a while, certainly.
Hmmm, will have to think how this sort of issue will play out over the next few decades ITTL.
Not so much rise as slow in it's decline.
Fair enough - again, I do not believe we will see an increase in racism, but rather a leveling out in progress against racism at some point in the 19th century.
Because it didn't happen ITTL.
Fair enough. I took the comment about loyal soldiers being rapidly armed with breech-loaders to suggest that the sepoys still used muskets and would in all likelihood being using greased packets, which whether containing pig/cow fat or not could generate rumours that they did.
But either way, cool.
They are actually two generations behind due to the Liberal War, and the BEIC leapfrogged to put down the rebellion.
Separate names with a comma.