I have many questions on the 19th Century...

So why did Peru join the war in the first place? Were they declared upon for the same reasons as Bolivia?
Chile declared war on Peru because Peru was already in a defensive alliance with Bolivia; declaring war on Bolivia meant that war with Peru was not far behind, so they just kind of cut to the chase and directly declared war on them.
 
As other have said, Brazil had no interest in the Pacific. But if Argentina declares war to Chile (due to opposing claims over Patagonia), Brazil might declare war to Argentina, and become a Chilenean ally...
 

maverick

Banned
Chile would negotiate and reach an understanding with Argentina before allowing a two front war. IIRC, the same thing happened in 1901 when the possibility of a second Pacific war was in the air. Ultimately, Roca doesn't want a war.

Besides, the war takes place in 1879-1884.

A. Avellaneda is not interested in foreign entanglements;
B. Alsina just died and Roca is in charge of the War Ministry, meaning the army is dealing with Patagonia;
C. The Paraguay War is still fresh in everybody's mind;
D. Once Roca is President, the Generation of '80 is in charge, meaning the Conservative Oligarchy model based on the idea of "make business, not war."



Don't see why Brazil would declare war on Argentina, or Colombia on Peru in any case.
 
Wait, when did Argentina come into this? Argentina has no relevance as far as I'm concerned. Let's look for a way to have Bolivia keep its coast. We can't necessarily avoid the war, but if we can have Peru smashed fast enough we can shorten it, and Chile and Bolivia can make a deal...

I've editted the first post to get rid of the questions I have already found answers for. It leaves very little ;)

Oh, and Mav, what about Ecuador? What was Ecuador up to during this time? Might Ecuador want a piece of Peru? They could join the war to settle conflicting claims (in OTL these claims weren't settled until 1942 I don't think).
 
Bump. Why did Italy unify when it did? I know the Austro-Prussian War made it the ideal time, but could it have happened in the 1850s? If so, under what circumstances?

Also, what kinds of tensions could have caused the Balkans to blow up in, say, 1900?
 
Can we have Italy unify even a few years earlier? If so, what events (probably to do with Austria) could preceed this to cause this? Would it necessarily have to be as a result of the 1848 Revolutions (a done to death POD?)?

Napoleon III was nearly assassinated by a group of Italian bomb-throwers in 1855. The bomb that come closest to hitting his carriage actually bounced underneath it before exploding; the carriage was a new design specifically for Napoleon III that featured a large and heavy metal plate underneath the carriage to protect the passengers from exactly those such explosions. Simply have the bomb not bounce so that it explodes to the side of the carriage, killing Napoleon III and you have the political atmosphere needed for an earlier Italian unification.
 

maverick

Banned
Aren't we forgetting the support Napoleon III gave to Savoy in their War of Unification in the 1860s? :rolleyes:


Random thought: avoid the Crimean War or have it take a different turn that doesn't involve France and Savoy. Maybe this way you could have Napoleon III support an Austrian-Italian War in the mid-1850s. But don't quote me on that, I'm not an expert and I'm not sure about how Britain or Prussia would react to this.
 
I thought Nappy III was an advocate of Italian unification? Or was this only when Austria was getting beat up by Prussia?

Napoleon III was only an advocate of Italian unification to the extent that it removed the Austrians from Italy, allowing for French influence on the peninsula without competitors. As well he wished to avoid angering French Catholics by attempting to protect the Papal States from being absorbed into a unified Italy.

The Italian assassins in 1855 weren't simply anarchist bomb-throwers. They correctly assessed that Napoleon III was a major force blocking full Italian unification and independence, and sought to remove him. Allow this to happen and you have unified Italy (minus Venice, but still retains Savoy and Nice).
 
Last edited:
Hmm... It could still get Venice later though. Better yet, have a second Hungarian Revolution, have Prussia preoccupied with France, giving Italy a free hand to support the Hungarians and in this case France can't do jack shit. Of course, this is all after Italy has already more or less unified after the death of Nappy III in 1855. So without Nappy III, are the Papal States completely without an ally?

Mav, I think the Crimean War might take an earlier POD to avoid having France involved, and I'm not really prepared to take it back much further.

Since you're a South America expert, I'd still like to know if Ecuador would declare war on Peru to settle claims during the Pacific War. Once Peru is smashed from both ends, Bolivia makes its deal with Chile to absorb parts of the Peruvian Coast, while Chile keeps its conquests. Peru becomes nothing more than a rump state, and later an Anglo-American protectorate?
 
Hmm... It could still get Venice later though. Better yet, have a second Hungarian Revolution, have Prussia preoccupied with France, giving Italy a free hand to support the Hungarians and in this case France can't do jack shit. Of course, this is all after Italy has already more or less unified after the death of Nappy III in 1855. So without Nappy III, are the Papal States completely without an ally?

Without Napoleon III's the Papal States will get over-run during the general Italian unification period.

If/when this earlier Italy makes a move on her irredentist claims in Austria, if the Venetian campaign is concluded quickly she'll likely move on both the Austrian Littoral and Tyrol. If the Venetian campaign goes poorly though Italy will take Venice and make peace quickly.

For a second Hungarian Revolt, how will you stop the Russians from getting involved? IOTL it was the Russian Intervention in 1849 that stopped the 'first' Hungarian Revolution from succeeding. ITTL a second revolt would likely result in Hungary increasingly being pulled out of Austrian orbit and into Russia's.

EDIT: I highly recommend Mike Rapport's 1848: Year of Revolution for more background on early Italian unification attempts, as well as the Hungarian Revolution.
 
Well, I'm not fussed on what happens to Hungary, I'm more interested in Italy. A second Hungarian Revolution could happen if the first is more successful, or less successful (either way, Hungarian nationalism would peak). Russia might get involved to grab Austrian Galicia and/or Ruthenia, and definitely to increase her influence over the Balkans, whether that's Hungary, Rumania, or both.
 
Slightly perplexing thread since I'm reading answers to questions that aren't here anymore. Regarding Mongolia, its a Chinese vassal akin to Tibet, so its becoming independent is moot without external impetus - its happy enough being autonomous, and note that Tibet even had its own vassals.

Britain's role in the War of the Pacific needs to be looked at as the best way to get an alternative outcome - British business basically backed Chile.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Slightly perplexing thread since I'm reading answers to questions that aren't here anymore.

Yes, sorry about that, it's just that what's not there I already have answers to. Such as the below:

Regarding Mongolia, its a Chinese vassal akin to Tibet, so its becoming independent is moot without external impetus - its happy enough being autonomous, and note that Tibet even had its own vassals.

I've figured out a way to have Mongolia be slightly better in the 20th Century rather than the 19th, so independence can still come in 1911 from the Qing, as in OTL.

Britain's role in the War of the Pacific needs to be looked at as the best way to get an alternative outcome - British business basically backed Chile.

Best Regards

Grey Wolf

But also Peru. The main issue is having Bolivia keep its coast. At this time I have two possibilities --> Somehow have Peru and Bolivia win the war, which would require Chile screwing up (this idea was thrown out there, but I can't figure out how Chile could screw up). The other possibility is the Chilean proposal to Bolivia - if Peru is defeated, Bolivia can have part of the Peruvian coast rather than that it originally had. I need Peru defeated as fast as possible in that case to encourage Bolivia to accept the deal.

Britain aiding Chile might be a possibility, but wouldn't that pull the USA in on the opposite side? British interests in the Americas are purely commercial at this point, but European commercial interests in South America can get tricky, especially if America deems it 'neo-colonialism'. The USA wouldn't want Britain dominating Chile's markets in return for military aid, and might call it a breach of the Monroe Doctrine (even though Britain was an avid supporter of said doctrine).
 
The solutions to Africa are not all just other countries colonizing it. There are plenty of African states that could have made it. The Lozi, Bornu, Bunyoro, Buganda, Zanzibar, Samori's state, the Sokoto Empire, Madagascar, etc.

If Britain hadn't occupied Egypt and instead maintained a system of indirect influence and free trade, there could have been more independent African states, with the capability to maintain their independence.
 
The solutions to Africa are not all just other countries colonizing it. There are plenty of African states that could have made it. The Lozi, Bornu, Bunyoro, Buganda, Zanzibar, Samori's state, the Sokoto Empire, Madagascar, etc.

If Britain hadn't occupied Egypt and instead maintained a system of indirect influence and free trade, there could have been more independent African states, with the capability to maintain their independence.

Indeed. But if the POD is, say, in 1850, can these states be truly saved? I'm trying to do some hardcore study on African colonialism actually (for some reason it really interests me). I suspect with all the information I'm gathering I'd need more than one POD (sadly not for a timeline. If I started that it would never be finished. More for a mini-timeline). I often enjoy an independent Morocco as well (as a British ally, Morocco could have been a good way for Britain to have even more security over the Mediterranean).

As for the issues with colonial Africa, I'm thinking near-full colonisation, but more evenly divided (and more protectorates, so a lot more degrees of independence). My original idea was to have a less intense Anglo-French colonial rivalr in Africa, but I think a more intense rivalry is a lot more interesting. So busy trying to win over tribes and African states, Britain and France miss the boat when it comes to the Scramble. While they still pick up massive slices (i.e. France still gets Algeria, the Sahara and Dahomey), areas like the Congo and Madagascar are gobbled up by alternative powers.
 
Indeed. But if the POD is, say, in 1850, can these states be truly saved? I'm trying to do some hardcore study on African colonialism actually (for some reason it really interests me). I suspect with all the information I'm gathering I'd need more than one POD (sadly not for a timeline. If I started that it would never be finished. More for a mini-timeline). I often enjoy an independent Morocco as well (as a British ally, Morocco could have been a good way for Britain to have even more security over the Mediterranean).

As for the issues with colonial Africa, I'm thinking near-full colonisation, but more evenly divided (and more protectorates, so a lot more degrees of independence). My original idea was to have a less intense Anglo-French colonial rivalr in Africa, but I think a more intense rivalry is a lot more interesting. So busy trying to win over tribes and African states, Britain and France miss the boat when it comes to the Scramble. While they still pick up massive slices (i.e. France still gets Algeria, the Sahara and Dahomey), areas like the Congo and Madagascar are gobbled up by alternative powers.

A good POD would be no British occupation of Egypt. That raised acrimony between France & Britain, but it actually decreased colonial rivalry, because Germany and France could blackmail Britain because Britain's position in Egypt was dependent upon international consent.

Britain didn't want formal colonial territory, but ended up getting a whole lot to counterbalance French and German claims which she was powerless to resist because of Egypt.

Without an Egyptian occupation, Britain would have had much more interest in maintaining her traditional policy of informal control over native polities. By the 1880s, Zanzibar was developing varying levels of control over today's Tanzania, Kenya, much of Somalia, Malawi, Zambia, Uganda, and the Congo. Over time that could easily have developed into a more coherent state.

Madagascar was well-balanced between French and British interests, and could easily have maintained itself as an independent kingdom. Ditto Morocco.

Bornu and Sokoto are other excellent candidates, as is a large Egyptian empire.

A much lesser Scramble would have been a much more interesting Africa, and probably a lot more fun to create a TL for. You'd probably still have a Congo Free State, which would be a stark contrast to native states.
 
Top