Look to the West: Thread III, Volume IV (Tottenham Nil)!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thande

Donor
I am going to take a crack at doing a map or two at some point because I realise things have got a wee bit complex now.
 

Thande

Donor
We're British. The reaction to parts of Durham flooding was, by and large, to put the kettle on.

My favourite example of British understatement (which Doc What even put in his Snake Oil book) is this news story from 2005 about a Somali pirate attack on a cruise ship.

"They were firing the rifle and then fired the rocket launcher twice. One of the rockets certainly hit the ship - it went through the side of the liner into a passenger's suite. The couple were in there at the time so it was a bit of an unpleasant experience."
 
I walked past Thande at Sheffield Station yesterday and was tempted to blame him. I wasn't quick enough. Opportunities like that don't come very often.
 
This update is pretty interesting. It seems like Carolina has practically written off the Caribbean as a lost cause, at least until after the war. I am curious as to how they and Louisiana intend on basically fighting a two-front war. It will be incredibly difficult for them to simultaneously fight off ENA forces from the East and deal with constant slave revolts. Their only solace it seems like is the fact that the ENA will have to fight both the Superians and the New Spanish in the West which will likely draw off a lot of troops.

Also reading a lot of the Sanchez quotes in the last few updates, it is pretty clear how a lot of what he says might appeal to a lot of people. If so many conflicts appear to be fought over lines on a map or caused by minor differences between to groups then getting rid of those differences might seem like a solution. Given that appeal, I wonder what country might be the first victim of a Sanchezist revolution. It will likely be a country with major ethnic and/or religious tensions such as Carolina or the Ottoman Empire as I doubt a more homogenous country will bother.
 
How are the Indians taking all this? I assume for obvious reasons the Cherokee are firmly in the Carolinian camp, but I am curious about the others.

Likewise I'm wondering if the Brazilians will seize the moment to try to regain their lost territories.
 
Ah, I've been eagerly awaiting the ATL version of the Des Moines settlement to be mentioned, but IIRC wasn't it in Britannia province, not Wisconsin province?
 

Thande

Donor
I walked past Thande at Sheffield Station yesterday and was tempted to blame him. I wasn't quick enough. Opportunities like that don't come very often.
Alright, from now on that's going to make me paranoid :p

Likewise I'm wondering if the Brazilians will seize the moment to try to regain their lost territories.
Brazil will definitely come up in the near future, but it's more directly tied to events happening in Europe so it basically has to wait for a European update.

Ah, I've been eagerly awaiting the ATL version of the Des Moines settlement to be mentioned, but IIRC wasn't it in Britannia province, not Wisconsin province?
You're absolutely right, I was looking at the wrong river. :eek: Will edit now.

That reminds me, I want to ask readers' opinion on something now I'm going to sit down and do an ENA map. The assumption I've been making up till now is that no more provinces were created after Gualpa in the 1820s because:

1) The existing western provinces were admitted too early for dodgy reasons to try to create rotten boroughs (and shires) and since then laws have been passed to stop that and put population requirements into place;
2) That plan backfired though because western voters proved hard to control and ultimately helped groups like the Neutrals, so the establishment east coast parties then became hostile to creating more provinces.

Tying in with the Supremacists' cause of splitting up the Confederations because the east coast power bases are now squashing attempts to create provinces even though the population requirements have been met.

However, looking at the map I'm wondering if it's too far-fetched for this tug-of-war to have been going on for thirty years (or more in some places) with no more provinces being created, only boroughs. Do you think I should stick with this version of events, or retcon a few new western shires to have been created (but still not enough to fit the actual situation on the ground) and redo the election results to fit that? The thing is that it's not as if the OTL USA had actually admitted any states further west than the point that the ATL ENA has admitted provinces, so it's more that the ENA admitted provinces 'way too early' by OTL rules (which I have justified above) - what do you think?
 
That reminds me, I want to ask readers' opinion on something now I'm going to sit down and do an ENA map. The assumption I've been making up till now is that no more provinces were created after Gualpa in the 1820s because:

1) The existing western provinces were admitted too early for dodgy reasons to try to create rotten boroughs (and shires) and since then laws have been passed to stop that and put population requirements into place;
2) That plan backfired though because western voters proved hard to control and ultimately helped groups like the Neutrals, so the establishment east coast parties then became hostile to creating more provinces.

Tying in with the Supremacists' cause of splitting up the Confederations because the east coast power bases are now squashing attempts to create provinces even though the population requirements have been met.

However, looking at the map I'm wondering if it's too far-fetched for this tug-of-war to have been going on for thirty years (or more in some places) with no more provinces being created, only boroughs. Do you think I should stick with this version of events, or retcon a few new western shires to have been created (but still not enough to fit the actual situation on the ground) and redo the election results to fit that? The thing is that it's not as if the OTL USA had actually admitted any states further west than the point that the ATL ENA has admitted provinces, so it's more that the ENA admitted provinces 'way too early' by OTL rules (which I have justified above) - what do you think?

Seems to me that the aftermath of the GAW is the ideal opportunity for those western proto-provinces to be formally admitted, especially if they play a somewhat pivotal role in the war. As long as they remain sparsely populated outside of the boroughs, the scenario you present makes sense.

I'd have to go back and look, but are ENA subjects who live in unorganised territories entitled to vote under the aegis of a borough or confederation anyway?
 
Last edited:

Thande

Donor
Just to clarify, wouldn't this only affect things before the Radicals' reforms?
I see what you're getting at here...I don't think there are many viable western provinces not yet created between the reforms putting population requirements on things and the war in 1849...maybe I should stick with things as they are then.

Seems to me that the aftermath of the GAW is the ideal opportunity for those western proto-provinces to be formally admitted, especially if they play a somewhat pivotal role in the war. As long as they remain sparsely populated outside of the boroughs, the scenario you present makes sense.
That's what I was thinking up to now.

I'd have to go back and look, but are ENA subjects who live in unorganised territories entitled to vote under the aegis of a borough or confederation anyway?
It's similar to territories in the OTL US - they get to vote for unofficial local territorial assemblies but don't get to elect any MCPs to Parliament. The Confederate level of government complicates matters though so perhaps I could say they get to elect delegates to Confederate assemblies (but fewer than they would if they were a full province, or say they can only vote on some issues).
 
It's similar to territories in the OTL US - they get to vote for unofficial local territorial assemblies but don't get to elect any MCPs to Parliament. The Confederate level of government complicates matters though so perhaps I could say they get to elect delegates to Confederate assemblies (but fewer than they would if they were a full province, or say they can only vote on some issues).

The MCP thing makes absolute sense when you include the population stipulation.

For Confederation-level, how badly would it skew things for them to be included within their home 'seat' within the Confederation (a sort of "Go West But Still Have A Say" thing). Early postal voting...
 
How are the Indians taking all this? I assume for obvious reasons the Cherokee are firmly in the Carolinian camp, but I am curious about the others.

Likewise I'm wondering if the Brazilians will seize the moment to try to regain their lost territories.

Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if what is left of Brazil gets overrun by the UPSA as a result of the Great American War...

teg
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top