Empires of Steam

Empires of Steam

1. No Belgium

Byron (1788-1854) survived a brush with malaria whilst fighting in Greece in 1824. Returning to Britain in 1828, his efforts in promoting the Greek plight to the British upper class ultimately led to the Greek monarchy falling to a British supported candidate – Leopold Saxe-Coburg (1790-1865), who in OTL became King of Belgium. In TTL, the monarchy of the newly independent state of Belgium – which declared independence in 1830 – eventually fell to a reluctant member of the French Orleanist dynasty: Louis, Duc d’Nemours (1814-96).

Belgium’s declaration of independence was met by a Dutch invasion (1831), which was in turn countered by a mass mobilization of French forces. This signified the start of the Belgian War (1831-37) – a six year war of attrition, which ultimately ended in a partition of Belgium between the French (who annexed Wallonia) and the Dutch (who retained Flanders). The British are not happy that – fifteen years after Waterloo – the French have already started territorial expansion. This leads to a cooling of Anglo-French relations.

The industrial base of the Wallonia region dramatically strengthens the French economy, acting as a catalyst for levels of French industrialization and modernization somewhat higher than OTL.

As a result of the integration of Flanders into the Netherlands, there is a rise in tensions associated with a significantly larger, and more influential, Catholic population. Huge population explosion over the following twenty years.

[1848 sees revolution, with the Catholic majority overturning the dominance of the Protestant elite… Catholic republic – conservative oligarchy?]

The Netherlands end up as a CORPORATIST state, Christian socialism meets capitalism.


2. Modern Greece

Byron survived a brush with malaria whilst fighting in Greece in 1824. Returning to Britain in 1828, his efforts in promoting the Greek plight to the British upper class ultimately led to the Greek monarchy falling to a British supported candidate – Leopold of Saxe-Coburg (1790-1865) – who in OTL became King of Belgium. With a liberal codified constitution, a unicameral parliament, and universal male suffrage, the Greek nation rapidly became a model example of the modern state, and a politically neutral haven for Jews and radicals. With more British investment than in OTL, mainland Greece industrialised quickly, with Athens becoming internationally famous as a centre of finance and trade.


3. Orleanist France


Orleanist France survived the unrest and outbursts of 1848 with the abdication of King Louis-Philippe I in favour of his more liberal son; Ferdinand-Philippe (1810-71), who avoided the 1842 carriage accident which killed him in OTL, by being in Greece, visiting his sister Louise-Marie (1812-50). Under the premiership of King Ferdinand, France gradually slid into a more liberal and constitutional form of monarchy.

[Greater French Colonialism – competition with the British Empire?]

[No French intervention in Mexico; instead, covert economic, political and cultural methods of increasing influence in South and Latin America]


4. Collapse of the Austrian Empire

A muted 1848 in Habsburg lands sees Chancellor Metternich retain control for longer (1773-1858), and martial law declared across much of the Habsburg Empire. Many revolutionary elements called for the abdication of Emperor Ferdinand, but Metternich, unwilling to compromise, ignored their demands – inadvertently plunging Austria-Hungary into civil war. The independence of Lombardy-Venetia was ensured by the Sardinians and Swiss, after Austrian troops tasked with regaining control lost their tactical commander, Josef Radetzky (1766-1848), in an artillery accident. Emperor Ferdinand fell ill shortly after this defeat, further weakening the Austrian efforts. He ultimately died in February 1849. By the summer of 1849, thanks to an organized resistance against Russian and Austrian troops, Bohemia, Hungary, and Galicia had all secured independence from Austria.

[Bohemia, Hungary & Galicia secede]

Bohemia
– Republic
Hungary – de facto dictatorship under Kossuth
Galicia – Republic


5. Germany Aborted

In Prussia, less extreme revolutionary activity is ruthlessly crushed by Friedrich Wilhelm IV (1795-1861). The suppression of rebellion in Westphalia, however, is limited by geographical constraints, and it is not long until the broadly pro-French Republic of Westphalia, administered from Munster, is declared by rebels. In the aftermath of revolution, Westphalia enters negotiations with Bavaria and France for control of the Bavarian Palatinate.
In Bavaria, a change of monarch in 1848 – with a scandal-ridden Ludwig I (1786-1868) abdicating in favour of his son, Maximilian II (1811-64) – is the start of a period of decidedly pro-French foreign policy, and a number of strong political reforms.

Frederick Augustus II (1797-1849) of Saxony is assassinated by a revolutionary gunman in the chaos of 1849, and is succeeded by his brother, Johann of Saxony (1801-73), who, in issuing a number of reactionary measures to maintain control, strengthens Saxony’s relationship with Prussia.
In Baden, the German unification movement suffers a fatal setback when a Heidelberg meeting discussing the potential for elections to a German national assembly – to be held in the church of St. Paul’s in Frankfurt – is interrupted by government troops. In the ensuing chaos, a number of prominent unification figures are killed.

Germanic Wars (1849-52)

[Expansionist Hannover conquers Oldenburg, seeks dynastic union with Mecklenburg’s as counterweight to Prussian dominance]
[Schleswig-Holstein remains Danish]
[Thuringian States divided amongst Saxony, Prussia and Bavaria]

[Bismarck as a Newspaper Magnate]

ZOLLVEREIN AS OF 1865:

  • Archduchy of Austria, Archduke Franz Josef (1830-1916)
  • Republic of Bohemia
  • Kingdom of Hesse (Hessen Darmstadt, Hessen-Kassal, Nassau), King Ludwig III (1806-77)
  • Kingdom of Prussia, King Wilhelm I (1797-1888)
  • Kingdom of Saxony, King Johann I (1801-73)
  • Kingdom of Hannover (Hannover, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Oldenburg), King George V (1819-78)
  • Republic of Westphalia (formerly Prussian)
  • Principality of Lippe, Prince Leopold III (1821-75(
  • Grand Duchy of Baden (Baden, Wurttemberg), Grand Duke Friedrich I (1826-1907)
  • Kingdom of Bavaria, King Ludwig II (1845-86)


6. The North Italian Confederation

The liberation of Lombardy-Venetia in the aftermath of Habsburg collapse releases North Italy from Austrian orbit. A more successful war between Piedmont and Austria means that King Charles Albert of Savoy-Sardinia (1798-1864) lives longer than in OTL. He is instrumental in bringing the various nations of the North Italian Confederation (‘Italia’) into alignment. Based in Milan, this confederation – primarily concerned with economic issues and foreign affairs – is relatively well established on the European stage by 1855. The death of the Savoy-Sardinian Prime Minister Cavour (1810-61) triggers a period of instability, which ends with the centre-left party of Urbano Rattazzi (1808-73) winning an overwhelming majority in the Savoy-Sardinian parliament.

In 1862, Savoy-Sardinian troops occupy the Duchy of Parma, while Garibaldi moves from Romagna into the Papal States, quickly overcoming a feeble resistance. The main opposition comes from Orleanist France and the kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Contrary to OTL, Rattazzi feels much more secure in his premiership (also because of the strong support from Milan), and his action is quite decisive. A secret agreement with Spain gives the Pope a joint guarantee for lazio and the town of Rome. Reactionary elements under Pope Pius IX (1792-1878) seem to be becoming more pronounced, and – after the uprisings in Romagna – the Papal States start a major programme of defensive armament.

In 1863, the occupied Duchy of Parma is split in a referendum, with Parma joining Sardinia, but Reggio choosing the republican Lombardy-Venetia. Marche and Umbria join the republican side too, again after plebiscites. Lombardy-Venetia takes the name ‘Republica Cisalpina’ (republic "this side" of the Alps) as a cultural move intended to distance the nation from its Austrian past. Emilia, Romagna, Marche and Umbria take the name of ‘Republica Cispadana’ (republic "this side" of the Po).

[Rapid industrialization for the North Italian Confederation. Haven for European revolutionaries, nihilists and romantic adventurers. Home of a Second Renaissance]

[Papal agents fostering counter-revolution, strong relations with Spain, Austria, Prussia]

Kingdom of Two Sicilies ends up as a vehemently Catholic agricultural backwater under an absolute monarchy.

[Kingdom of Two Sicilies eventually ends up a bizarre blend of Catholicism / anarcho-syndicalist / communist? Think Proudhon’s ‘agricultural-industrial federation’]


7. Financial Worries

[The chaos caused by the revolutions of 1849 trigger a European economic panic. Resurrection of protectionist measures? Resuscitation of Colonial ambitions? Chartism continues in the UK? Socialism in the agricultural Two Scilies? A secondary panic occurs in 1855 as a result of the outbreak of revolution in Russia. Start of European recovery in 1862]

[American financial Panic in 1857 – no tariff reductions in 1857, despite pressure from the South.]


8. Russian Revolution

In 1848-9, revolutions in Prussian Posen and Russian Congress Poland are fostered and supported by Krakow and Galicia. Both sets of revolts are suppressed, but at huge cost. In Prussia, the suppression of activities in Posen meant that the military were active in the East when they should have been concentrating on the secession of Westphalia. The maintenance of Russian control in Congress Poland equates to far less military support for the Austrian government. In Russia, the brutal suppression of Polish rebels by Nicholas I (1796-1855) merely serves to fan the flames of discontent, and drives revolutionary sympathies underground. The effects of economic depression and famine mean that, upon Nicholas’ death in 1855, Russia erupts into revolution.

[OTL Tsar Alexander II and his family are killed in the siege of St. Petersburg in 1857.]

Tsar Constantine II (1827-92) consolidates power in 1858, and agrees to cede territories in the name of a cease fire.

After the revolution, Russia receives reconstruction loans from France, Greece, and Switzerland.

Guaranteed by Hungary:
- An independent Wallonia – authoritarian, under Alexander John Cuza (1820-73)

Guaranteed by Sweden/Norway, Denmark, and the UK:
- An independent Livonia – constitutional monarchy, under Karl of Hesse (1809-77)
- An independent Courland – constitutional monarchy, under Alexander of Hesse (1823-88)

Guaranteed by Galicia, Bohemia:
- An independent Congress Poland – republic
- An independent Moldavia – republic

No formal guarantee:
- A nominally independent Finland – social democratic under Mikhail Bakunin (1814-76)
[Later reclaimed by Russia]


9. The Fall of the Ottoman Empire

[Think Crimean War, but quicker and more decisive]

A small war of attrition in the mid 1850s, in which the Western powers seize territory from European Turkey – Greece and France play the largest roles…

Some troops landed in the French territories of Algeria, whilst others were tasked with driving the Turks out of mainland Europe. The Ottomans invested more into defending the European front and, as such, lost all of their territories from North Africa. In the aftermath, there was pressure from the other European powers to set up many of the European territories liberated from the Ottomans as independent states, but there were no such qualms with the division/conquest of colonial territories.

UK busy with Canadian problems [???]

Treaty of Antwerp (1858), Anglo-Dutch settlement.

[Greece takes Macedonia and various other territories]
[Serbia takes large amount of Ottoman territory]
[OTL Bulgaria becomes TTL Rumalia, more or less]
[Bosnia gains independence]
[France gets Egypt]
[Greece gets a large chunk of North Africa]


10. The Calculating Engines

Augusta Ada King (1815-56) seeks out her father in 1834, mostly out of curiosity. Their relationship, although somewhat limited by her mother, is not without common ground.

With better physicians paid for by her father at the onset on her cancer (who don't bleed her to death, as in OTL), she lives four years longer, albeit in weak health, finally dying in 1856. After the publishing of a major paper in 1854, Ada becomes acquainted with the work of George Boole, which she introduces to an initially reluctant Babbage (1791-1871). She also survives to inherit a significant amount of her father’s wealth, some of which she in turn bequeaths to Babbage. Enough for him to hire a team of engineers and to set about making his designs for a Calculating Engine a practical reality.

With Boole’s influence, the engineering team convinces Babbage to adopt a binary infrastructure rather than using a base of ten. Correspondence with Charles Hutton Gregory introduces Babbage to the concept of mechanical switches, as used on the railways. Compared to the machined cogs and gears that Babbage had been using in his designs, mechanical switches lowered the costs and complexity of the project dramatically.

[Henry Fleeming Jenkin (1833-85), James Clerk Maxwell (1831-79), Arthur Cayley (1821-95), Joseph Henry (1797-1878)]

Problems with funding, the technical aspects, and staff relations set the project back dramatically but – as the threat of war with Prussia/Austria starts to loom on the distant horizon (early 60s) – the British government begins to take Babbage’s ‘Athena’ Project slightly more seriously, and provide enough funding to allow the project to reach final completion in 1863.

Applications: cryptography, administration, military tactics and strategy, currency conversion, engineering, social demographics, railway timetables, databases, communications infrastructure, public health, statistic modeling, censuses, telegraphy,

After the British Engine is finished - Greek, French, Swedish, Swiss, Italian, Prussian, Hanoverian, Dutch, and American (?) analogues follow? A computing cold war?]


11. The USA

[More German immigration in the years following 1848, with lower social status]

With a major economic crisis throughout the 1850s/60s, both slavery and protectionism are far more attractive than in OTL. as means of preserving American economic integrity. The Dredd Scott v. Sandford case remains under the radar. No Freeport Doctrine and, as such, no split in the Democrat Party in 1860, and they only field the one candidate in the 1860 presidential election – Stephen A. Douglas (1813-61) – who takes a moderate position on questions of both slavery and protectionism. No Constitutional Union Party. As such, Stephen A. Douglas narrowly beats Lincoln to become the sixteenth President of the United States. Douglas supports the admission of Kansas as a free state in 1861, provoking a serious threat of the secession of South Carolina. President Douglas responds with threats of military suppression of SC's "independence". The North, Border, and upper South all rally, and a large majority in Congress endorses Douglas' move. Now that secession has been formally declared illegal, South Carolina finally backs down before Federal troops march in, and a precedent has been established.

[NO AMERICAN CIVIL WAR! Demographic changes? “Frontier” pushed westwards – ‘Manifest Destiny’? Stronger class system in the Southern US, with slave-owners, white working class, and slaves. The effects of mechanization on the need for slave labour. North dramatically more populous than the South. South is slow to industrialize, divided on the issue of abolition, developing an analogue to apartheid. As a result of the influence of the South, America is noticeably more conservative and religious than OTL. Recovery from economic downturn in the early 1870s.]

[Douglas narrowly re-elected in 1864?]


12. French Egypt
 
Last edited:
A map showing the territories of the four largest colonial powers by 1865:

(in reality, colonialism in TTL is a two-horse race between Britain and France)

COLONIALISM_1865.jpg
 
Last edited:
The European political situation by 1865:

Dark blue = multiparty democracy (normally, but not always, a republic)
Light blue = limited democracy (normally, but not always, a constitutional monarchy)
Yellow-brown = autocracy
Purple = traditional monarchy
Grey = no self-government (normally, but not always, colonial possessions)
Pink = anarchy
 

Attachments

  • political_alternate_1865.bmp
    117.2 KB · Views: 804
Last edited:
The entry on the US is entirely unrealistic reguarding views that sectional rivalry between the North and South would be resolved so quickly. Both sides are miles apart by the 1860s and the likelihood of a war is just delayed.
 
David S Poepoe said:
The entry on the US is entirely unrealistic reguarding views that sectional rivalry between the North and South would be resolved so quickly. Both sides are miles apart by the 1860s and the likelihood of a war is just delayed.

The brackets were just speculation.

How long do you think that war could have been delayed?

I'm thinking that if the ACW is delayed, even by a little bit, the South could soon face stiff competition from Cotton Plantations in French Egypt. What would that do to the American situation?
 
Last edited:
Justin Pickard said:
The brackets were just speculation.

How long do you think that war could have been delayed?

I'm thinking that if the ACW is delayed, even by a little bit, the South could soon face stiff competition from Cotton Plantations in French Egypt. What would that do to the American situation?

I sort of doubt that ACW can be delayed much longer. The addition of any more free states tips the balance of power against the South in Congress. Also the years immediately proceeding OTL ACW were bumper crop years for cotton, so that the werehouses in London were filled so that market wasn't exactly effected by the South's embargo or the North's blockade. Egyptian cotton was developed to substitute the lack of Southern cotton because of the ACW. It is the French market that was more effected by the lack of cotton.

So I would gather that no ACW (at least until it happens) would adversely effect the chances of cotton plantations in French Egypt. The South exports more of a superior form of cotton. Historically, after the ACW when the South was able to start exporting its crop again it regained a large market percentage, but just not as large as ante bellum. So until there is an ACW cotton plantations in other parts of the world aren't going to be able to compete and will remain minor players.

Politically, the age of compromises in the Congress is dead and gone. The slavery issue dominates the national elections of 1860. Douglas has a fight on his hands since the Democrats, I think, are associated with the party that would reach a compromise with the South on slavery. A Breckinridge-Douglas ticket may be able to work. What would be interesting would be a narrow election that gets thrown into the Congress, which of course would be decided upon regional lines.
 
Would slavery be legalised in the north?

I'm amazed at how popular this particular POD is. One question: Why would France raise an army to support Belgium, and then just annex a part of it? Also, why is there more German immigration, and why does that make any difference?
 
David S Poepoe:

I was thinking that in a severe economic downturn, both protectionism and slavery would seem more acceptable, and the electoral candidates would have to come out as supporting both issues, or at the very least as prepared to compromise. Okay, so without a splintered Democrat party, let's have a Breckinridge-Douglas ticket - which of the two for President, and who for VP?

Ignore the issue of French Cotton, assuming that once the Civil War does occur, the French can make inroads there and, through mechanisation and economies of scale, possibly emerge as more competitve than the CSA, leaving the South somewhat stuck...

In the meantime, how long could Congress and the Democrat President hold conflict off for? Could there be a peaceful secession? Would the election of 1864 prove a tipping point? What butterflies would a later ACW have?

reformer:

I imagine that slavery would be legalised in the North, but not commonly practiced, as it would be frowned on by the northerners.

France raised an army to defend Belgium. However, when it became clear that Flanders was in Dutch hands, the Wallonians - not the French - sought union with their linguistic neighbours.

More German migration occurs as a result of the German wars of consolidation following 1848 and, whilst it doesn't have that much of an effect atm, in the coming decades it will see subtle changes in American demographics and perhaps see some 'Great Men' being born in America, rather than Germany.
 
Why doesn't Sweden protect Finland? Surely they have more of an interest in having a buffer between them and Russia than having a few Baltic states.
 
Imajin said:
Why doesn't Sweden protect Finland? Surely they have more of an interest in having a buffer between them and Russia than having a few Baltic states.

That's a good point. What do you think - a Swedish puppet? What form of government? Any candidates for leadership? Would it join Sweden and Norway in union?

That could set the stage for a later Russo-Swedish war.

Interesting... :D
 
Last edited:
Justin Pickard said:
That's a good point. What do you think - a Swedish puppet? What form of government? Any candidates for leadership? Would it join Sweden and Norway in union?

That could set the stage for a later Russo-Swedish war.

Interesting... :D
Well, Sweden-Norway-Finland sounds like it could happen. If the Swedes are really feeling greedy, they may try to go even fartehr than that and return Finland to simply being "Eastern Sweden"... if the Finnish nationalists have their way, there might even be an independent East Karelia in the mix as well.
 
I doubt that Russia would try to conquer all of scandinavia that late, especially considering all the revolutions.

Though I can see a more Catholic Holland, I doubt that the victorious Dutch would let the Catholics get too powerful. More likely the flanders area would become kinda like Ireland.

How does the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies become socialist if they have such a traditonal monarchy? Doesn't seem very likely untill maybe the year 1950. Also, a comment. At this point, the island of Sicily has been under one form of oppression after another for a very long time. They were begining to rally around local leaders as a shield against foreign rule. The most powerful of these local protectors eventualy turned to crime and evolved into the mafia. The Sicilians would hate the more socialiste administration. It goes against their culture in almost every way. Probably a mob led revolt would start in Palmero which would eventualy lead to a mafia led Sicily, which would make the international mafia even stronger, and a force to be reconnded with.

As far as slavery is concerned, maybe this TL makes it more likely that the western states and the border states would stay slave, and thus Douglas would win the election (Douglas would have a much better chance than Breckinrige, though Bell would actualy be the best comprimise canidate because he was right in the center. A Douglas/Bell ticket would probably have more sucess in the border states than the much more devided Douglas/Breckinrige. Yet again, the northern democrats would be much less likely to split, so perhaps the convention names Breckinrige/Bell, and Douglas would probably go along anyway. When I say Bell, any person like him would probably work, the trick would be to get someone who has the support of the people who were previously southern Whigs.). Still, I doubt that the north, at least New Egland, would except slavery in their own state. The south supported states rights above the federal system, so states like New Hampshire would probably localy vote to keep slavery abolished. A larger immigrant wave does change alot though. New immigrants would both be
a. against slavery do to their beliefs and b. against slavery because its more competition for low wage jobs. It would make it harder to survive in the US. Especially is a more powerful mob was pushing for immigrant rights behind the scenes.

Eventualy, of course, international opinion would force the US to abolish slavery at some point.

How come places like Greece are able to industrialise so quickly?

Am I right that nationalism is less of a force in this ATL?

Good job so far, keep it going.
 
Well you could look at 1820 for the Two Sicilies, the so-called Spanish constitution etc and no Laibach, maybe requiring an earlier end to Metternich and a less clever successor

Grey Wolf
 
Imajin:

I don't think that there'd be an independent East Karelia, as Finnish independence would be a result of the coastal geography and its place as a rallying point for the anti-Tsarist rebels. I do, however, think that a Sweden-Norway-Finland union (possibly with the benefits of Denmark as a junior partner in the future, and Livonia and Courland as within the sphere of influence) could work.

reformer:

I wasn't thinking so much of a Russian invasion of Scandanavia, more an attempt to regain control of Finland.

The demographics of the Netherlands plus Flanders pushes the nation into a Catholic majority with a Protestant elite, in which case, I can see 1848 happening here as well, although quite how successfully remains to be seen. I was thinking of a kind of Catholic trading republic with Christian socialist and corporatist leanings, although I'm not quite sure how those political elements can be successfully reconciled.

The question of the Kingdom of the Two Scilies could be summed up as a grass-roots kind of Christian socialism. An earlier development of trade unions and suchlike. A decentralisation of power, perhaps? That would appease the black marketeers and their associates, who would probably be able to manipulate their way into positions of control.

America is not my strong point, unfortunately. However, I stand by the idea of a Douglas/Breckinridge ticket for the Democrats. The Democrats take a similar supportive stance towards protectionist policies, but - unlike the Republicans - are willing to compromise on the issue of slavery. Both protectionist tarrifs, government intervention in the economy, and the maintance of slavery are portrayed as 'neccessary evils' in the economic climate of the time. The higher proportion of immigrants in TTL are torn between the anti-slavery measures of the Republicans, and the economic intervention policies of the Democrats, which seem to support the working class. (I'm thinking of something similar to a smaller and more targeted version of the New Deal)

Greece was able to industrialise quickly as a result of *massive* British and French investment, a pro-modernising monarch, and shrewd investment and government policy.

Nationalism isn't less of a force is this timeline, it's just taken a slightly different tone. Pan-Hellenism is the first instance of a totally artifical romantic form of nationalism. The survival of the French monarchy impacts heavily on the French national identity, which is far more assertive and akin to that of the 'British', than in OTL. There is greater weight given to national self determination, although admittedly not in the colonies. Admittedly, even in the colonies this has had an impact, with greater autonomy granted over domestic affairs, on the whole, in TTL. Overall, nationalism is more civic and peaceful - there is, for example, no coherant image of a German nation as in OTL, and yet there is a gradual movement towards a loose economic grouping of the Germanic states, and one that might grow larger than the Zolleverien in OTL. The North Italian Confederation is another example - despite being formed of a combination of republics and a constitutional monarchy, with plenty of infighting and jockeying for position, the members have too much invested in the apparatus for it not to work.

Grey Wolf:

Unfortunately, 1820 is slightly before my POD. However, the 1820 Constitution could prove a ralleying point for rebels when those in charge go one step too far. Or upon the death of Ferdinand II in 1859. Any ideas?
 
Justin Pickard said:
Belgium’s declaration of independence was met by a Dutch invasion (1831), which was in turn countered by a mass mobilization of French forces. This signified the start of the Belgian War (1831-37) – a six year war of attrition, which ultimately ended in a partition of Belgium between the French (who annexed Wallonia) and the Dutch (who retained Flanders). The British are not happy that – fifteen years after Waterloo – the French have already started territorial expansion. This leads to a cooling of Anglo-French relations.

How come the Dutch force the French to a truce after a six-year war, while they're mobilizing massively and only one army was enough OTL to drive the Dutch back in a few days OTL?

Geographically, the French are very likely to hold on to Southern Flanders - the Dutch may get Liège on the other hand, where there was a strong Orangist faction.



As a result of the integration of Flanders into the Netherlands, there is a rise in tensions associated with a significantly larger, and more influential, Catholic population. Huge population explosion over the following twenty years.

[1848 sees revolution, with the Catholic majority overturning the dominance of the Protestant elite… Catholic republic – conservative oligarchy?]

The Netherlands end up as a CORPORATIST state, Christian socialism meets capitalism.

More likely to have a revolt of all Catholic provinces (Flanders including OTL Dutch Limburg, but also North Brabant, Guelder and parts of Utrecht) setting up their own conservative Catholic confederation. Corporatist definitely, not sure at all about Christian streak socialism (did not really exist at the time, was starting in France with Lamennais, but probably few echoes in Flanders).
 
benedict XVII:

This is a war that the French don't really have all that much invested in. The Dutch wanted to annex the whole of Belgium. France wants to ensure the integrity of Wallonia. Wallonia ultimately seeks union with France. After the fairly static war of *attrition*, which is really little more than a long period of revolts, counter-revolts and varying degrees of French and Dutch intervention, both sides realise that a compromise of sorts has to be reached.

The adherance to Catholicism is a significant proportion of the Dutch population in *all* provinces in TTL. The 1848 revolution in Holland would be based not so much on religious division as the gap between the elite and the oppressed. It just so happens that this is split down broadly religious lines. As for the Christian Socialism, I didn't mean it in a formal way, I was simply suggesting some kind of left-wing religious analgoue to that which arose later in OTL.
 
Chances are if there is a Belgium/Holland Catholic 1848, it would result in the Catholics once again declaring independance. The geographic and cultural devide simply makes more sense with two nations.

I'm confused how an absolute monarchy such as the two sicilies can become a grassroots movement. It would require a revolution there. And any Italian revolution would probably become nationalist for a united Italy. Sicily, and to a lesser exstent Naples, were bassically controlled by all powerful landlords. To a world where the common people already don't own their property, socialism will probably look very unpopular. Typically socialism is more of a urban than an agricultural movement. Though some of the mafia will of course be bought off, due to the nature of Sicily, others will rise who support an independant Sicily.

Also, a grassroots Kingdom of Two Sicilies would probably change its name to Naples.
 
There are a few things I don't understand. First of all Byron came to be pretty disillusioned about the Greeks, who were essential a bunch of filthy ignorant peasant shepherds (the more sophisticated Greeks all lived in Istanbul). Also, for you to just wave away a vicious anti-Semitism engrained for approaching 2,000 years is just ASB. The Ottomans had to continuously protect the Jews from Christian massacre.

Also, why on earth would Britain and France launch a war to destroy the Ottoman Empire when this was horrendously against their interests and 180 degrees from their established policy? France, decades after occupying Algiers, had yet to pacify it - trying to swallow more would be disastous, both materially and politically. You have also just essentially given Russia control over Europe and the Mid East with virutally nothing to show for it. Also, you may be overestimating their ability to do it, at least not without Russian participation, which would hand all the rewards to Russia.
 
reformer:

1. The real political forces behind the Belgian uprising were the Catholic clergy, which was against the protestant Dutch king, William I, and the equally strong liberals, who opposed the royal authoritarianism, and the fact that the Belgians were not represented proportionally in the national assemblies at all. At first, the Revolution was merely a call for greater autonomy, but due to the clumsy responses of the Dutch to the problem, and their unwillingness to meet the demands of the revolutionaries, the Revolution quickly escalated into a fight for full independence.

In OTL there was an idea among the revolutionaries to join France, but after international pressure, Belgium became an independent state. In TTL, Wallonia followed this idea, and would have been perfectly happy with joining France. A co-ordinated Dutch movement in 1848 might have seen some constitutional reforms, with a move towards a less centralised state.

2. I didn't say that the Two Sicilies would have gone 'grass-roots' socialist by 1865, I was just saying that - in the longer term - I can a bottom-up social movement towards the Christian left as holding considerable sway over the population. As for socialism being "more of an urban than an agricultural movement", I would argue that that only applies to revolutionary socialism, particularly communism. Perhaps a better choice of terminology would have been 'populist communitarianism' - something economically on the left, whilst socially on the right.

ArchdukeofAustria:

Look at Costa Rica, Italy, Germany, and Iceland in OTL. Now add in large amounts of British support and European funding.

Abdul Hadi Pasha:

Byron died fighting for the Greeks. And, as for the ingrained anti-semitism, I had no idea - I was simply using that as an example.

And it wasn't Britain and France attacking the Ottomans, it was Greece and France. Primarily France, to be fair, as they saw a legitimate outlet for their colonial / territorial ambitions. Greece saw gains to be made in mainland Europe and felt that this would be their best chance of joining the colonial powers. Yes, France had yet to totally pacify the Algiers (although by the mid 1850s, the French were well on the way), but in TTL, they seized an opportunity when Russia had it's own problems to be dealing with - namely, a civil war. France and Greece may be weakened in the short and medium terms, but in the longer terms the economic rewards are going to be great.
 
Top