Welcome to the forum! I too joined to comment on a timeline - but Jonathan's far surpasses that one, great though it was. This is a wonderful timeline on a excellent site.
And you should consider yourself an AH fan now!
Cheers,
Ganesha
Malê Rising
- Thread starter Jonathan Edelstein
- Start date
Welcome to the forum! I too joined to comment on a timeline - but Jonathan's far surpasses that one, great though it was. This is a wonderful timeline on a excellent site.
And you should consider yourself an AH fan now!
Cheers,
Ganesha
Indeed. Britain "has" India and Canada and Australia, but there is zero prospect of political incorporation into the UK. It just won't happen.
Algeria and Gabon, on the other hand, are integral parts of the French Empire. To compare to OTL, they're legally more French than Kiva or Bukhara were Russian in 1914.
Considering OTL France does'nt have Provinces anymore..
That said French Guiana IOTL is an integral part of France the same way Hawai'i is an integral part of the United States, it may not be on the same continent, but it's fully integrated and is politically, legally and constitutionally equal to the Metropolitan Regions and Departments.
Considering OTL France does'nt have Provinces anymore..
That said French Guiana IOTL is an integral part of France the same way Hawai'i is an integral part of the United States, it may not be on the same continent, but it's fully integrated and is politically, legally and constitutionally equal to the Metropolitan Regions and Departments.
I think he means in 1900.
Bruce
It would be interesting to see formation of integral provinces for other European nations. I don't think JE is going to go that way though.
Although at least he could directly incorporate Man, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar into the UK proper
Although at least he could directly incorporate Man, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar into the UK proper
Modern French usage seems to be to refer to the "hexagon" rather than "metropolitan France", possibly because all those overseas departmenrs are supposed to be inegrally part of France these days.
L'hexagon only refers to the actual continental part of France, Metropolitan France refers to it plus Corsica and France in general refers to all territory under French sovereignty.
The good thing about Orthodox churches, at least from the standpoint of avoiding conflict, is that they're autocephalous, so the Russian church doesn't really have to concern itself with what the independent Ethiopian church does. Russia and Ethiopia were friendly in OTL and, as far as I can tell, the differences in doctrine between the ROC and the Copts was never a problem - in fact, the ROC tended to support the requests of Ethiopian diplomatic missions.
Of course, now that the Tsar himself is in Eritrea, there might be more trouble, but on the other hand, most of the Russian exiles realize that they're now tenants and need to mind their manners.
First of all, welcome to the thread, and I hope you keep reading and commenting. As you said, the conversations with other forum members are among the best things about this thread - I've learned a great deal about OTL history from my readers, and many of their ideas have become part of the timeline. You, yourself, have just educated me about 19th-century Malaya! Please keep contributing to the story.
Anyway:
As of 1900, the Brookes are still there. I assume that the population is roughly the same - an Iban/Dayak plurality with Malay and Chinese minorities, all of whom were there at the time of the POD or soon after. There may also be some Bugis and Hadhrami merchants who fled the Dutch East Indies during the colonial wars.
TTL's Islamic liberalism will have limited potential in Sarawak because Muslims are a minority and, if I remember correctly, most of the army was Iban. But I also seem to remember that Malays were prominent in the administration, and they might be influenced by reformism, particularly the Ottoman variety. Maybe they, with the Bugis and Hadhrami exiles, would be the first to push for constitutional rule and limits on the Brooke family's power, although the changes (if any) would be gradual - an advisory legislature or an appointed legislative council might be the most that would happen in the early 1900s.
I wish I'd known about him before - he's a fascinating person! I don't know nearly as much about Malaya as I should.
He would certainly have played a part in the Great War - he might have encouraged the development of light industry in Johor for war production - say, soldiers' kits to be shipped out of Singapore. This could be the foundation for a postwar textile industry or maybe cutlery and hand tools. And he would certainly be interested in the ideas that are developing in TTL's Islamic world - as a Sultan, the paternalistic reformism of the Ottomans might be attractive to him, and he might implement some of the Ottoman reforms in his administration. He could also seek investment from TTL's Indian industrialists, especially the Muslims.
How possible would it be to prevent his illness? It seems that he died of kidney disease - was this a chronic condition or something he caught shortly before his death? If the latter, then it should be easy to prevent, because he would be in different places doing different things during the war. Maybe he could live to his seventies, dying around 1910, in which case Johor might become as modern as TTL's Travancore or Baroda.
And the Hawaiian connection opens even more possibilities, given that in TTL, it's still an independent kingdom which is open by treaty to investment from all foreign powers.
Yes, he's an ATL-sibling of a fairly distant sort. I wasn't sure about including him at all, because my usual rule for ATL-siblings is that both parents were born before the POD and grow up in places and/or social circles where they would be likely to meet and marry. But I figured that close analogues of Trotsky's parents were likely to exist, given that Ukraine in 1847-50 would be minimally changed, and I just liked the idea of Ottoman Trotsky too much to let it go. He isn't the same person as in OTL and has some different personality traits, and of course he'll never adopt the name "Trotsky."
8143885 said:Considering OTL France does'nt have Provinces anymore..
As Bruce said, I meant 1900. The OTL system of overseas departments wasn't created until the 1940s, and although some French colonies of TTL will eventually have that status through administrative reforms, those that are integral parts of France in 1900 are considered overseas provinces or overseas territories, which may themselves be subdivided into departments or smaller units.
France wasn't the only country to go that route in OTL - Spain and Portugal both did in the 1960s, and given that TTL's Spain has already made Puerto Rico and Cuba into autonomous provinces (the Philippines is more of a dominion), it might eventually do the same with Spanish Guinea or even northern Morocco. Whether the Fang or Rif will go along with the idea is another question.
It also isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that Germany might experiment with overseas province status, at least for settler colonies like Southwest Africa - the German Empire is federal to begin with, so an overseas "state" might not be unthinkable. On the other hand, the settlers themselves might oppose such a plan, given that it could disrupt the comfortable semi-feudalism they've built for themselves (which was not the original design of the colonization company).
Ah. I had not realized that Corsica was part of the Metropole. Thanks.
I think if Germany were to experiment with it, it would definitely be Southwest Africa, given that it isn't exactly the most populous of colonies. Now, is it even profitable, is the question.
Given that the area also includes the Diamond Coast and some copper deposits, I would guess that there would certainly be proposals for integration being shouted out in Berlin once the news gets out and the immigration numbers jump. Then again, whether or not the Germans could make a long-term profit out of the area is questionable.
Yeah, this is really the biggest factor, I'd wager. Plus, where would it end? Could Kazembe and Barotseland be directly incorporated into a Namibian province?
Thanks! And I will try!
That seems plausible, and with the success of the Aceh Crisis by the Ottomans and with Sultan Abu Bakar’s reforms in Johor in TTL, the Malays would want to get at least a small say in Sarawak administration early on. I’m thinking that the Brooke’s would try to present themselves as more paternalistic than in OTL and “give” some control to the indigenous population and the Malays in exchange for continued rule.
Agree. He is an amazingly fascinating character and it’s quite sad that there are almost nothing written left of his rule. He had a Western education, but he wanted to keep Johor independent, if at least for the short-term. He developed his kingdom, but he also landed it in debt due to his lifestyle of building palaces and touring Europe.
With the Aceh Crisis being resolved much better than in OTL, I think that Abu Bakar would give more thought into some Ottoman-style reforms. With Malaya at the time being more conservative than the Ottoman Empire, I don’t think the sultan could pull a full-on Tanzimat on the Malays. I can see him cherry-picking some of the reforms, though, and implementing it piece-by-piece as the years go by. I can certainly see him trying to create a crude state-wide education system, although I have no idea whether it will work out or not.
The conservatives in his kingdom resented the fact that he was an Anglophile in OTL, so the mixing of paternalistic Ottoman-style reforms with British-style modernization would probably make the whole package easier to swallow.
As for the war and Industrialization, I could certainly see him being influenced by the progress in India and the OE, as well as realizing that small-scale industrialization could provide him with a bargaining chip with the British during the war (‘I could help you with the war if you give me this and promise me that…’) It would also help him gain more income to help his spending habits and bring Johor to a more solid footing internationally.
About his death, I have no idea about this. Wikipedia (I know) says that in 1895 he was diagnosed with Nephritis, back then known as Bright’s disease. It’s caused by infections, toxins, and auto-immune diseases, so that could be butterflied, although giving his extravagant lifestyle I can only see him living to see the new century or at most until 1903-1905.
All in all, I think that his state would be more modernized than in OTL, although maybe not to the point of Baroda or Travancore (unless the Barodans or Travancorians want to set up shop in Johor due to the Raj and all. Also, If the British are up to smuggling rubber trees from the Amazon and planting them in Malaya, then I could see the Sultan try and make a few rubber plantations (a 'gift' from the British? I know they planted some in the Resident's house in Penang) and invite some Chinese and Indians to take care of them. Besides that, the Britsish/Johoreans would need foreign laborers and skills, so the industrialists might follow where the wind blows. If that happens, than everything’s up in the air.).
EDIT: I made the rubber speculation based on the assumption that the British wanted to create a separate rubber industry during the Great War.
As or Hawaii, I didn't have full access to the book being cited, but from what I could see from the snippets and from the Order bestowed upon him, it seemed that the Sultan did something to either the king or the kingdom to gain its/his respect. Other than that, I have no idea.
EDIT: From Wikipedia: "In 1881, King Kalākaua left Hawaiʻi on a trip around the world to study the matter of immigration and to improve foreign relations. He also wanted to study how other rulers ruled." That was the same year that Abu Bakar made his trip to Hawaii to meet him. I'm guessing in this ATT a lot of butterflies have flown, but maybe the Sultan's modernizing reforms was what impressed Kalakaua? (or a variant of him?)
Last edited:
It's going to be interesting seeing how the troubles in Ireland affect the White Dominions in the decades to come. In Australia tensions ran surprisingly high- Irish Australians were as a rule very loyal to the empire in the way that immigrants often are- Look how loyal we are! Trust us! Let us work!' - but they were also pretty ardent nationalists.
I did my honours thesis on the subject actually- lots of gold about parades for Home Rule which featured large placards of nationalist heroes like O'Dwyer and Emmet alongside Queen Victoria. But also thing like 100, 000 people turning out in 1898 for the anniversary of the United Irishmen and escorting the coffin of O'Dwyer to be reinterred in a special nationalist memorial to the Irish patriots.
At the turn of the century in Sydney, that's a staggering number.
When you add incidents like the abortive witch hunt for Fenians in 1868 after one of Victoria's kids got shot in New South Wales, the Catalpa Affair and the usual riots between the Orange Lodges and the various home rule organisations, I think the ingredients are there for real sectarian nastiness in Australia if violence in Ireland breaks out earlier and lasts longer.
On that note, if you do have anything to that effect look up Daniel Mannix- born 1864 in Ireland, so possibly non-existent in this timeline, but a fantastic character. A militant Archbishop who was seen as the great enemy of the Australian government, who during the Irish War of Independence marched 20, 000 veterans through the streets of Melbourne on St Patrick's Day with the Irish and Australian flags at the front of the procession and the Union Jack at the very end- all while taking salutes from a podium next to the Lord Mayor.
I did my honours thesis on the subject actually- lots of gold about parades for Home Rule which featured large placards of nationalist heroes like O'Dwyer and Emmet alongside Queen Victoria. But also thing like 100, 000 people turning out in 1898 for the anniversary of the United Irishmen and escorting the coffin of O'Dwyer to be reinterred in a special nationalist memorial to the Irish patriots.
At the turn of the century in Sydney, that's a staggering number.
When you add incidents like the abortive witch hunt for Fenians in 1868 after one of Victoria's kids got shot in New South Wales, the Catalpa Affair and the usual riots between the Orange Lodges and the various home rule organisations, I think the ingredients are there for real sectarian nastiness in Australia if violence in Ireland breaks out earlier and lasts longer.
On that note, if you do have anything to that effect look up Daniel Mannix- born 1864 in Ireland, so possibly non-existent in this timeline, but a fantastic character. A militant Archbishop who was seen as the great enemy of the Australian government, who during the Irish War of Independence marched 20, 000 veterans through the streets of Melbourne on St Patrick's Day with the Irish and Australian flags at the front of the procession and the Union Jack at the very end- all while taking salutes from a podium next to the Lord Mayor.
As the first major divergences in Germany ITTL start with the Prusso-Austrian war, I'd assume that the earlier German-Danish war happened as IOTL and that Schleswig & Holstein fell under Prussian and Habsburg administration as IOTL. I'd also assume that Prussia took Holstein from the Habsburgs as IOTL after the Prusso-Austrian war. As for Heligoland, with no Zanzibar-Heligoland treaty, it's probably still British, if it wasn't traded to Germany in some other colonial deal or perhaps ceded to Germany as a gesture by Britain to its war-time allies.
Last edited:
We should go back and take a close look; somehow or other the Hannoverian house and name of "Hannover" survived; IIRC the OTL expulsion of the dynasty from Germany was connected with the Danish war, or maybe the annexation of Hannover to Prussia happened some time before. Either way, since Hannover's fate was already butterflied, the outcomes regarding Denmark and Holstein are also clearly not necessarily just as OTL. "Close enough for government work" as they say, but not identical.