Joubert 1799 and Carnot's Amiens 1801 (*TL)

[Tom_B]

This seems very logical to me.

Against or on the side of the USA?

Indeed! Perhaps they shuttle Francisco Miranda to an ignominious defeat?

Initially I would see him as against the USA but might be persuaded to switch sides partially out of a desire for self preservation if things go badly and maybe some disgust with the extremism of T & T (oops a pun). The Sioux were a frequent enemy of Black Hawk and may muddy the waters.

The Lafitte brothers are wonderful wildcards that can go in a wide range of directions

 

[DuQuense]

Thus 1804 remembers Jackson as commander of a wing of an American army that failed to take New Orleans and returned home in despair after Washington (DC) signed away most of their gains

I was thinking that with only a couple thousand Spanish soldiers [only 1/4 professional -other 3/4 local Auxulliery ] The US would take New Orleans, Before the Spanish in Madrid even hear about the War. Same for most of Florida.
The War would be Spain Attacking to regain the lost territories.

I think Colonel Jackson would be taking the Upper Louisiana, [Missouri]

And I am not sure that Britain would side with Spain. Spain had just been a French Ally in the 1790's.

?How does this Affect the US treaty with Naples, for Bases against the Barbary pirates? ?The whole Barbary Wars?
Whe will have less money to continue paying the tribute, but War is expensive.

 

[Tom_B]

I assumed Pope Pius VI still died in captivity at Valence. Is the conclave of 1799-1800 still held at Venice instead of Rome? Can we assume it has the same outcome? In any case what is the relationship of France to the Pope esp. over the Papal States?

 

[Grey Wolf]

The US-Spanish War would include a heavy naval element. It seems difficult to see beyond the example of 1812 as to how this would go - Spain is a naval power with a substantial line fleet, it can blockade and ravage where it will, the US has a smaller navy, and even if it began expansion isn't going to get far in the time period.

Regarding Jeffersonian support for revolutionaries, I could certainly see it strategically and temperamentally amongst the government. But if I read it correctly, it was British seizure of Buenos Aires in 1806 that set many of the balls rolling, something which is not going to be even imagined in this TL (it was pretty difficult to imagine in OTL until someone did it, having an army at the Cape he had not much to do with). This in turn set in train a follow-up operation to Montevideo, and because Pitt's government didn't see much hope of a European front, that's where the grandiose idea of sending Wellesley to invade Venezuela came from - his force, sitting at Cork ready to embark, was eventually sent to Portugal instead.

I don't doubt that something else will occur, and wonder at how the economies will be affected by the war. The US is going to be hit hard with at least a pretty hard blockade; one finds it difficult to fully credit that Spain would do it as well as Britain could, and did, but do something they surely would. Would any US raiders get into the Atlantic, is there scope for them to menace the Spanish treasure fleet for example ?

Will anyone retaliate against the Spanish ? Presumably other nations' trade is being stopped, or at least substantially disrupted, by the blockade. Would Carnot's France give any sort of support short of war to the USA ? With the resumption of British trade to the continent after Amiens, is there scope to change markets, boycott Spain or is this a tactic from another age ?

Returning to the Indiana Territory, is there potential for civil war amongst the Shawnee (*and I use them as short-hand for "Shawnee and other allied and associated Indian Nations") ? The problem is that those who favour an accommodation with the US are basically the more pacific sort as far as I can see. Also, Tecumseh by refusing to sign Greenville has already made a name for himself; he also comes from both the lead clan and the war tribe (or the other way round) so has the right position to lead resistance. As I think I mentioned somewhere, also, decisions on war etc were usually taken, it seems, at a village level rather than a 'national' one. This explains why Tecumseh toured a load of places in 1812-or-so trying to convince people to join him, and why his brother's 'prophecies' were so useful. If Jackson does something like massacre the Chickamaugee (sp?) West of the Mississippi it could add to the power of Tecumseh's rhetoric.

I think the theatres would be distinct, though. You would have what was happening in the North-West, raids across the Mississippi into Louisiana, fighting around New Orleans and into Florida. Neighbouring theatres may briefly merge, but there seems little likelihood to me of the NW being tied in any direct way to the Southern front. Thus if Jackson raiding West is seen as supporting (who ?) in attacking New Orleans, then his focus would be primarily to the South not to the North.

There is also, I suppose, the fact that Britain is neutral. Even if not friendly to the aims of the USA, this won't stop British merchants trading with the USA where they come into contact - even if at the same time, other British merchants are supplying the Shawnee. Thus, the great lakes become, not as per 1812 a war zone, but an area of booming trade since no Spanish blockade is going to interdict this. In fact, British trade in British vessels may completely replace American trade in the NE states, coming down from Canada, since I don't see Spain trying to deny British merchantmen access to Boston !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

The Essex Junto was a group of lawyers and merchants from Essex County, Massachusetts. These Federalists supported Alexander Hamilton and the Massachusetts radicals. When Hamilton was offered a place in the plot to secede New England from the Union, he denied the offer. Consequently, the Essex Junto turned to support from Aaron Burr, who agreed to help the radical group because of his dissatisfaction in the office of Vice President. This plot, to have Burr elected governor of New York and launch the secession, was eventually foiled by Hamilton himself.

What plot is this ? It must date to the 1801-1804 period when Burr was in office and could be important... Hmmm, if it is 1804...

During an unsuccessful campaign for election to Governor of New York in 1804, Burr was often referred to in published articles written by Alexander Hamilton, a long-time political rival and son-in-law of Philip Schuyler, the first U.S. Senator from New York whom Burr defeated in his bid for re-election in 1791. Taking umbrage at remarks made by Hamilton at a dinner party and Hamilton's subsequent failure to account for the remarks, Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel on 11 July 1804, at the Heights of Weehawken in New Jersey at which he mortally wounded Hamilton.

How would Burr deal with being Vice President during the 1803-4 Spanish-American War ? Would it make him even more fed up with the relative lack of power, and spur him to support extremists ? OTL, New England saw some moves towards secession in the 1812-14 war with Britain, but would a Spanish blockade be effective enough to cause this kind of distress, and how much would it be offset by British trade over the Canadian border and the lakes?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

In 1798, the Quasi-War with France led Hamilton to argue for, organize, and become de facto commander of a national army.

Hamilton's opposition to fellow Federalist John Adams contributed to the success of Democratic-Republicans Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr in the uniquely deadlocked election of 1800. With his party's defeat, Hamilton's nationalist and industrializing ideas lost their former national prominence. In 1801, Hamilton founded the New York Post as the Federalist broadsheet New-York Evening Post.[2] His intense rivalry with Vice President Burr eventually resulted in a duel, in which Hamilton was mortally wounded, dying the following day.

If in 1803 war breaks out with Spain, what chance Hamilton pressing for a military command ? Would his rivalry with the incumbents prevent this, or could they see it as a way to take the heat out of their opponents ? Harrison as Governor of the Indiana Territory has control of the North, but who would be in overall control in the South ? He had after all supported Jefferson over Burr in the final votes in the disputed 1800 election, and his intense rivalry seems more to have been with Burr than the president.

...or did someone succeed Hamilton in command of the army when he gave it up in June 1800 and if so, were they still so employed in mid 1803 ?

Most interesting, always something new to research !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Are we any closer to getting anything sorted ? I've got a book on Tecumseh on order from the library, and hopefully it will arrive this week, in a day or two. I'm also considering Nelson as a politician and think I have a few relevant books around.

Apart from Bryant, I don't have any books on the overview and political side of the Revolutionary & Napoleonic Wars - I have loads on Napoleon himself, on Egypt in this period, on the armies etc but none of those is relevant ! I don't think I have ANYTHING on British politics in the early 19th century or on Ireland (I used to have a couple, including on Lord Edward Fitzgerald, but they went).

I may seem to rely too much on Wiki, but it has several advantages
-1- It appears top of Google's list so is easy to get to
-2- As I have limited internet time and need to download as many pages as possible, I need to be able to cut down time searching, and Wiki's in-text links give me instant pages on people, places etc that the page I am reading have as important
-3- Where I don't know bugger all anyway, a condensed version like Wiki is useful in giving me a quick sudden immersion

- - -

I got a couple of books out of the library, all that I could find in stock that were relevant but they aren't THAT useful. One thing that they did seem to indicate was that Irish troubles continued to bubble after the 1801 Act of Union
- 1802 the conspiracy which involved Despard, leading to his execution
- 1803 Dublin rising, resulting in the execution of Robert Emmet

With peace in Europe, would Ireland sit back and give up, or would they (a very amorphous 'they') see in peace and disarmament the chance to put pressure on London to give in ? I would imagine there would be those proposing direct measures, seizure of their own destiny etc (as above) and those who would hold the threat of such over the polticians in London

If events such as the 1802 conspiracy and the 1803 Dublin rising do occur in a situation of peace with France and no overt support from Paris, then it could very well seem to sections of parliament in London that Ireland has a life of its own and could blow up

A good question is also that of radical politics within England (primarily). With peace more assured than OTL, would calls for reform get stronger, and would organisations based on the Irish underground begin to agitate in England for change ? If Carnot's good faith is proved Radicals would feel confident in pushing their agenda without any worry about undermining national strength etc.

In OTL elements of this came forth during the peace anyway, but when it became clear that Napoleon was going to break the treaty everyone settled down to what was now not an ideological war against revolutionaries, but a more traditional hegemonic war against France. Without that aspect to things, the ideological strains could well remain

The breakout of the Spanish-American War in 1803 might actually exacerbate this, throwing into sharp relief monarchy against republic. It could well begin to felt in certain circles that the longer the war goes on, the more risk there is to the British body politic. And with Ireland playing a strong role in British disturbances, it could well see Grenville and Pitt come together on a belief that Catholic emancipation is the only way forward

If this coincides with George III's address to "My lords and peacocks" then it could see a Regency, but would be, unless times have changed, in late 1804. Things could certainly come to a head earlier, especially if the old guy was under a lot of pressure and refusing to give in - he might crack, and political pressures might be too much for (whoever makes the decision) to avoid a Regency.

In such circumstances, a Pitt-Grenville ministry dedicated to Catholic Emancipation may well see Canning at the Foreign Office to pursue a vigorous course in N America aimed at bringing the two sides to a negotiated peace, and could include Fox as a way to show its reformist principles on the domestic scene

Its still formative times within my brain, but some of this is beginning to make a bit of sense !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Godoy looks an interesting candidate - he was born in 1767 so would only have been about 30 when he rose to prominence as Prime Minister of Spain. What I hadn't realised was that he fell from prominence in 1797-8 only to be reappointed Prime Minister in 1801. Presumably this restoration to power is not affected by the POD, and he thus helps negotiate Amiens and its attendant treaties

The Prince of the Asturias with his court in waiting would regard him as the dangerous young upstart minister, no doubt, but his personal star would be in the ascendant with his role in bringing about an end to the Revolutionary Wars. Thus, when matters between the USA and Spain deteriorate enough to end up in war in 1803, he will be in a strong position which he needs to retain by strong action

If he can be sure of Britain's and of France's neutrality then he is also in a strong position vis-a-vis sending Spanish forces to the Mississippi and Gulf fronts.

With Carnot intending to stick to the peace, his thought processes are going to be dominated by that - ie he would be thinking that if France did anything to attack its ally in the rear then Britain would react, rather than thinking as Napoleon would of what he could get away with. Anyway, Godoy has been a good ally to France and another change of leadership is unlikely to alter that fact.

As for Britain, it just signed a peace that its merchants are celebrating, and is unlikely to do anything to resume the war unless forced to. Godoy could surely take the gamble that Britain would sit back and watch, especially if by 1803 Addington's government is beginning to be besieged by Irish problems and English radicalism

- - -

One thing to wonder at is the subsequent history of many of those we associate with the Napoleonic Wars. Nelson I am reckoning would be happy to be a politician, though what his fate would be when Addington falls in 1803-4 and Pitt and Grenville return to office is unsure. Maybe he would take command of the fleet to Canada, or some such, before later returning to take up his seat again

Wellesley is, I think, in India and although without war with France things would go differently there, it looks as if he and his brother (the senior of the two) could well carry on something of a pacification war. Have to admit I am almost totally ignorant here !

The Duke of York no doubt gets to reform the army, but Addington would gut it as per historical. Sir John Moore I am wondering if he would make a good military liaison to the Shawnee in 1804 to show Harrison and the US government that Britain is serious ?

Sadly Barham would never get his final starring role, unless Pitt brings him back also in this ATL, but without the danger of war with France, and the combined threat of the French and Spanish fleets, it seems unlikely he would bring a 75+ year old veteran into his government.

And what of Napoleon;s Marshals ? Without war, some would still get commands but none look likely to get the fame of OTL and without Jena/Austerlitz Bernadotte would certainly not get the fame that propels him to a throne

Lucien Bonaparte might still have a role to play in Carnot's France, though maybe, as a sort of twist that might make sense, he could end up as French Ambassador to Washington ?

- - -

How stable would the peripherary republics prove ? I was reading about the late 1790s invasion of Holland, and was struck by the fact that the Dutch on the French side fought against their hereditary prince. Sure, there was a lot of hope on the British side and worry on the French that they could desert or turn against the French, but with the French holding their own they never did.

I would see in something like this a sign that if the Batavian Republic continues and holds its own, then the majority of its people would be happy enough with it. I think it has a two-fold priority
-1- Prevent the Prince of Orange from fermenting rebellion, or even making a landing
-2- Hold onto the colonies and positively develop them and their defence

Since Amiens gave most of them back (other than Ceylon) this might on the surface seem simple enough,but one supposes there are Orangist elements abroad, and that it is even possible that the Prince of Orange might decide to descend on the Cape (for instance) with a load of volunteers and raise it to his standard.

Britain, however, could neither officially support him diplomatically abroad, or politically at home. The mass of the people couldn't give a monkeys about a foreign hereditary prince. Addington, wedded to Amiens, certainly would not be the man to do it. But other elements exist, and one wonders if a restored Hannover might see the Viceroy (who was it at that time, Clarence ?) clandestinely support him ?

- - -

Switzerland as the Helvetic Republic, I think, would be fine, but the question of what of the two Italian republics - the Cisalpine and the Ligurian ? I think I need some maps for a start...

Ah, a merger of Milan, Mantua, Parma and Modena-Reggio...plus other bits... OK, I am assuming this is the same as when it later became the Kingdom of Italy under Napoleon. Its an undefined area in my brain, since it doesn't include Tuscany so must presumably include only the Romagna from the Papal States, rather than further South ?

Liguria presumably is just old Genoa with its larger coastline.

- - -

Heck, I can only find bits and flaming pieces ! Never a whole picture anywhere

So, I read now of French general Auguereau's reactionary coup in the Batavian Republic in 1801 bringing it closer to Paris. If we get rid of this, and we could assume that Carnot is sincere in his republican beliefs, then the Batavian Republic would remain free to pursure a more independent, but not opposite, course

So many elements, so difficult to reconcile all of them...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

The world is a big and curious place when you realise that you don't know buggery about it at any set moment. So I ask myself what 1801-2 was like, and find it throwing up places, people and consideration I know nothing about !

So I am learning about an entire world in trying to set this timeline up. Joubert never knew the trouble he caused by not dying at Novi !

- - -

If Alexander Hamilton is actively involved one way or another in the war effort, and I really can't see any reason for him not to be, then Burr won't shoot him dead in Summer 1804.

If Jefferson does drop Burr from the platform for 1804, fought under the 12th Amendment, then I think it might end up reflecting better on Burr as he was not associated with the drowning ship

BUT would Burr be doing something in New England in this ATL ? Ambitious as he is, one assumes that the idea of running for Governor of New York in 1804 would appeal to him, and if Hamilton is involved elsewhere and not around to oppose him, he might get in. And what of his association with radical secessionist elements ?

Could a war with Spain in 1803-4 really hurt New England that much ? Reading more of the 1812-14 circusmtances one could say NONE of them are occurring in 1803-4, in fact that New England is likely to be actively supporting Harrison in Indiana Territory ? Tho in 1812-14 that same war was being fought and did not seem to matter, but in this ATL they have a neutral Britain trading with them from the North... Grrr, permutations !

It is of course perversely possible that the following all happen
-1- Jefferson dumps Burr
-2- Hamilton commands an army and raises his positive profile
-3- Burr gets the governorship of New York
-4- Jefferson loses to Pinckney/King
-5- Burr's disassociation with Jefferson is seen as a good thing
-6- post-1804 both Burr and Hamilton have strong national profiles

- - -

I think Nicomacheus has a good point re the East bank of the Mississippi - OTL what is now Eastern Louisiana (state) was actually a part of West Florida, so any US victory could well include all land up to the Mississippi and thus give the Americans a sure position over New Orleans which by this they could easily overwhelm

- - -

Looking at a Pinckney/King administration one wonders how it was supposed to work in OTL - presumably they would have buried their differences ?


Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Trying to break away from the tyranny of 1804, where do we go slightly more long-term ?

If we posit a Regency in Britain, allowing Pitt, Grenville and Fox to bring about Catholic emancipation and a degree of political reform, then it seems unlikely that the Prince Regent would relinquish this if he were supported by a cross-party selection of leading politicians

IIRC Prince George in this period is living with, one way or another, his Catholic mistress/alternate wife, and is far more amenable to compromise and reform than he would become by the 1820s of OTL

If he doesn't DO much specifically but allows the government to get on with things, then the Regency would be viewed as a success, especially if Pitt and Canning bring about a settlement to the Spanish-American War that looks good from a British point of view

So if the Regency comes into being let's say early 1804 and lasts beyond the Spanish-American British-brokered peace of later 1804, then it could end up seeming permanent

- - -

Prussia will have been pushed off in a different direction by this ATL too - it retains its Westphalian/Rhineland possessions, its core Brandenburg and Prussian ones and it has Warsaw too. But it never gains parts of Saxony, and tho it dreamed of Hannover it never gets it as Britain strongly retains its royal family's patrimony

What might emerge down the line could be more of a Prusso-Polish state than is imagined by German nationalists. It has a greater focus in the East, and it has far more Poles than historical.

Of course, all of this is dependant on what happens after 1804...

- - -

Its hard not to get too bogged down in the minutiae, especially when you didn't know any of it beforehand !

I'm still convinced that Russia has to DO something, not just react, and that whatever is going down in the Ottoman Empire in this ATL may well determine where and how Russia deploys its energies

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

I assumed Pope Pius VI still died in captivity at Valence. Is the conclave of 1799-1800 still held at Venice instead of Rome? Can we assume it has the same outcome? In any case what is the relationship of France to the Pope esp. over the Papal States?

I'll look into it more as usual I think part of the Papal States, maybe just the Romagna, is now part of the Cisalpine Republic, but the rest is the Pope's ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Tom_B]

I'll look into it more as usual I think part of the Papal States, maybe just the Romagna, is now part of the Cisalpine Republic, but the rest is the Pope's ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

The biggest question is whether Rome is some place the Cardinals can safely conclave. In OTL it was not and the result was they met at Venice under the thumb of the Emperor who used his veto not once but twice. If they met in Rome he might not get away with that and you can end up with a different Pope.

 

[Grey Wolf]

The biggest question is whether Rome is some place the Cardinals can safely conclave. In OTL it was not and the result was they met at Venice under the thumb of the Emperor who used his veto not once but twice. If they met in Rome he might not get away with that and you can end up with a different Pope.

Ah ! But didn't the Emperor's own choice fail to get in ? (presuming we mean Francis here)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Tom_B]

Ah ! But didn't the Emperor's own choice fail to get in ? (presuming we mean Francis here)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Yes but the ultimate choice was a compromise which was why the conclave dragged on so long. If held in Rome I don't think the Austrians would get away with the second veto.

On some other topics. I've already expressed how I think Tecumseh might pan out and Nico seconded my opinion. You seem to be putting him into an 1812 Procustean bed which I do not agree.

I don't see Burr getting involved in a Federalist seccessionist plot which was due in part to their discontent with losing power steadily. In TTL they have happy prospects at least in the short term. That will incl. the NY Governor.

In Black Hawk Up TL I had the Democratic Republicans split into 3 parties:

1] Constitutionalists - led my Randolph who felt that the republic had abandoned its founder's ideals

2] Nationalists led by Clay who opposed the treaty and wanted to fight on

3] Democrats - who held their nose and voted for peace

I can see the same tensions in your TL. As I already suggested I believe the tertium quids will make a formal split and form their own party. Whether the Nationalists split or merely remain an internal faction within the Democrats can go either way. I see Burr trying to dominate the Nationalist faction with Jackson as one of his inner circle though Clay would also be in the same group. Burr's political future is just beginning in TTL.

Moving on to Russia this is Alexander I's relatively liberal idealistic period. Shouldn't he be pressing for a League of Exceptional Empires to enforce peace, human rights and domestic tranquility?

 

[Grey Wolf]

Yes, sorry

You've got to remember I wrote all the stuff I posted this morning last night, before reading the comments you all posted after I logged off yesterday afternoon

How about Henry Benedict Stuart for Pope ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[DuQuense]

Italy will be interesting
Cisalpine OTL included Venice & Milan and after 1808 Tuscany and Dalmatia.
ATL It is not going to get Tuscany or [Dalmatia - remains part of Austria]
No Occupation of Rome.
No Conquest of Naples -Ferdinand remains King, Britain does not get Malta.

?What happens ITTL to Piedmont [Savoy]? If it remains part of France, then no Unification of Italy under King Emmanuel.

 

[HJ Tulp]

- - -

How stable would the peripherary republics prove ? I was reading about the late 1790s invasion of Holland, and was struck by the fact that the Dutch on the French side fought against their hereditary prince. Sure, there was a lot of hope on the British side and worry on the French that they could desert or turn against the French, but with the French holding their own they never did.

I would see in something like this a sign that if the Batavian Republic continues and holds its own, then the majority of its people would be happy enough with it. I think it has a two-fold priority
-1- Prevent the Prince of Orange from fermenting rebellion, or even making a landing
-2- Hold onto the colonies and positively develop them and their defence

Since Amiens gave most of them back (other than Ceylon) this might on the surface seem simple enough,but one supposes there are Orangist elements abroad, and that it is even possible that the Prince of Orange might decide to descend on the Cape (for instance) with a load of volunteers and raise it to his standard.

Britain, however, could neither officially support him diplomatically abroad, or politically at home. The mass of the people couldn't give a monkeys about a foreign hereditary prince. Addington, wedded to Amiens, certainly would not be the man to do it. But other elements exist, and one wonders if a restored Hannover might see the Viceroy (who was it at that time, Clarence ?) clandestinely support him ?

- - -


So, I read now of French general Auguereau's reactionary coup in the Batavian Republic in 1801 bringing it closer to Paris. If we get rid of this, and we could assume that Carnot is sincere in his republican beliefs, then the Batavian Republic would remain free to pursure a more independent, but not opposite, course

So many elements, so difficult to reconcile all of them...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

It's all about the economy. The war and especially Napoleons Continental system ruined the Republics economy. The early Batavian Republic and the Kingdom of Holland showed that the Dutch weren't necisarilly (sp?) anti-French. A independent Netherlands with it's colonies and a peacefull Europe (guarenteeing full moneycoffers) will make every Orangist attempt at restauration in the near future futile.

 

[Grey Wolf]

In 1796 Napoléon Bonaparte invaded the Italian Peninsula, defeated the papal troops and occupied Ancona and Loreto. He did not continue and conquer Rome, as the French Directory ordered, being aware that this would not win favour among the French and Italian populations. Pius sued for peace, which was granted at Tolentino on 19 February 1797. The Treaty of Tolentino transferred Romagna to Bonaparte's newly formed Cispadane Republic (founded in December 1796 out of a merger of Reggio, Modena, Bologna and Ferrara) in a hope that the French would not further pursue the Papal lands. Several reforms were made in the French-controlled regions, where much property of the Church was confiscated

I've found a map of the Cisalpine Republic to go with this, so I've at least got an idea now what's going on where

(see attached map)

Despite beginning on 30 November 1799 the assembled cardinals could not overcome a stalemate between three candidates until March 1800. Thirty-four Cardinals were present at the start, with the late arrival of Cardinal Franziskus Herzan von Harras who was also the imperial commissioner and used the imperial veto of Francis II twice. Ercole Consalvi was almost unanimously voted as secretary of the conclave; he would prove an influential figure in the election of the new pope. Carlo Bellisomi seemed the sure winner, with wide support from the Cardinals, but his unpopularity among the Austrian Cardinals, who preferred Mattei, subjected him to the veto. The conclave added a third possible candidate in Cardinal Hyacinthe Sigismond Gerdil CRSP but was also vetoed by Austria. As the conclave was in the third month Cardinal Maury, a neutral, suggested Chiaramonti who, with the support of the powerful Conclave secretary, was elected.

So, the question was how this might have gone in the ATL...

Since the POD occurs on the 15th August 1799 with Joubert defeating Suvorov at Novi, then Pius VI's death occurs only a fortnight after this. Thus Berthier will have taken Rome in 1798 as it occurs before the POD, and thus the conclave as far as I can see would have been held in Venice

If we assume that France follows up Novi with steady pressure, less spectacular than Marengo, but achieving the same end, then the main difference is that the Conclave is occurring during a period when French forces control more of N Italy than they did at this time historically, but the danger of Austria's collapsing and Venice becoming exposed does not look immediate.

Despite the changed political scene, I can't see immediately why events at the Conclave would have gone any different ? Maybe if French victories continued to build up slowly into Spring 1800, the Emperor would accept the Conclave's second choice and not use the veto a second time ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Oops, here is the attached map - doh !

.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I did indeed read the Tertium Quids article overnight (the night previous to this one) but it made no real sense to me at the time. Mainly this was my own ignorance as to Whom McKean, Lewis and Randolph were, tho at least I knew DeWitt Clinton, tho probably only because he had a freaky name and it had stayed in my memory. Maybe I need a better article than the Wiki one, which appears disjointed ?

I guess my problem is that OTL these things only seem to have gathered head towards the end of Jefferson's second term as president, so I'm faced with (1) it not necessarily reflecting or including changes from the ATL, especially the war, and (2) it possibly being motivated by factors which are more prevalent in OTL than they would be in the ATL. I freely admit this could be completely wrong, but if Pinckney/King get elected in 1804 then might not tensions between THEM become at least as important as tensions within the other parties ? For example, with Jefferson voted out, and the war ended with gains, but not all the gains they wanted, the accusations that Jefferson was going against the founding principles of the constitution may well have been superseded by events ?

If Burr IS elected Governor of New York (I wasn't sure of people's take on that one ?) and he doesn't shoot Hamilton then this could set him up for a greater role later, maybe a shot at the 1808 presidential election race ? But if Hamilton survives, performs some important and generally successful service in the war, then he too could be so set up ?

I read up on supreme commanders of the US military and the guy who has this from 1800 is some dude called James Wilkinson. Never heard of him, but on doing some reading about him it appears he was rather crap, so I could well imagine his lack of success in the 1812-14 war being replicated in the early stages of the 1803-4 war, and with Hamilton waiting in the wings and clamouring for a piece of the action, maybe he would be sent to show his true colours in command. After all, Lincoln sixty years later seems to have done similar things with his political rivals.

On the point that the US would just walk into Spanish territory before Madrid even knew there was a war on, I think there would ONLY be a war after months of crisis and failed negotiations. I don't think Godoy, in the situation he is in, is going to sit back and hope for the best. A display of strength and dispatch of a force, even if all it turns out to do is show the flag and come home, seems in character in this situation.

I concede that the war would probably start with the Spanish centred in New Orleans and in Pensacola, and that the US may by default carry Mobile and Biloxi. I am thinking that they then follow this up with a failed and premature assault on New Orleans - see comments on Wilkinson, after which the Spanish force arrives to reinforce their Governor, and a Spanish navy is in a position to blockade or ravage the US coast.

One thing to note is that I don't want to replicate OTL by different means, that would be completely pointless for the kind of different world I am trying to create. So, if the US just walks into Louisiana, takes it all over and the Spanish can't do anything about it, how is that different in effect than buying the place in OTL ? I am looking for a series of hard-fought gains, slow growth where it does occur, and a hemming in of the American state. After all it is only some 20 years old at this stage, and dreams of continental domination still have time to be shown up as just that - the dreams of madmen, in seeming retrospect

Best Regards
Grey Wolf