Penny Flick

[Grey Wolf]

Of course there are certain elements of convergence which have a useful value - as we leave the 1850s we see the tensions between the industrialising North and the slave-holding South becoming ever greater. Clay's third presidency lacked the energy to sort it out, and in the 1850s both the administrations of Lewis Cass (Democrat) and Millard Fillmore (Whig) fail to put a cap on the issue. Various compromises are suggested but by the 1860 election it is clear that a major issue is rising to a head.

The showdown between Douglas and Hamlin in that election sets the scene for the secession of the South and the National Crisis that the newly-elected President Douglas is ill-equipped to deal with

The American crisis draws in the naval powers (Britain and France), and in the latter's involvement allows Austria to consolidate its hold on Lombardy-Venetia despite Piedmontese advances.

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

UNITED STATES
Presidents

1832 - 1836
Andrew Jackson
Democrat

1836 - 1840
Martin Van Buren
Democrat

1840 - 1852
Henry Clay
Whig

1852 - 1856
Lewis Cass
Democrat

1856 - 1860
Millard Fillmore
Whig

1860 +
Stephen A Douglas
Democrat

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Someone else feel like commenting rather than just me ?

Thanks to David for his comment

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Someone else feel like commenting rather than just me ?

Thanks to David for his comment

Grey Wolf

Just me

OK

Grey Wolf

 

[G.Bone]

Interesting premise. Do you think you could lump this into one TL so that it's all together?

 

[Grey Wolf]

Interesting premise. Do you think you could lump this into one TL so that it's all together?

Um, isn't it ? Its all here in one thread... Or do you mean put it into one post ?

Grey Wolf

 

[tom]

I think he means one post.
If (like me) you believe in the Generational Theory of American History (William Strauss and Neil Howe) than a Crisis in the 1860s or 1870s is almost certain, and given the nature of 19th Century America that crisis most likely involves a North-South division and even a Civil War.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I think he means one post.
If (like me) you believe in the Generational Theory of American History (William Strauss and Neil Howe) than a Crisis in the 1860s or 1870s is almost certain, and given the nature of 19th Century America that crisis most likely involves a North-South division and even a Civil War.

Well, I sort of incline towards it but the point of the Penny Flic, Penny Toss approach is that its possible, quite possible and it fits a timeline aimed at making the 19th century more interesting

The aim of the US Civil War here is to see an independent Confederacy - things will be quite different in North America with the Maine/New Brunswick border further South and most of Washington state part of Canada. Mexico retains New Mexico and Tejas, and the USA has its W coast outlet in California and Oregon state. The CSA in victory would probably include as the price of peace the areas we know as W Virginia, Kentucky and Oklahoma.

Grey Wolf

 

[DuQuense]

IIRC The state of Maryland came very close to Secession, dispite MR Lincoln's haveing Union soldiers sitting in the Visitors Gallery during the Vote. The deciding Votes came from the Senators fron the Three Western Counties.

They arived late to the Vote, Have some thing delay them just a little more, when they finally arrive the vote is over, Md has seceeded. In disgust they leave and West Md seceeds from Md.

The peace then would have the US withdraw from MD in return for CS regonizition of WVa & WMd.

 

[DuQuense]

Interesting premise. Do you think you could lump this into one TL so that it's all together?

I think he mean make it more Chronological 1801..1802..ect

I kind of like the more Narrative style

 

[Admiral Matt]

Interesting. It does have a certain aesthetic (did I spell that right?) appeal. I can't think of anything to comment on though, sorry.

 

[Grey Wolf]

SPAIN

Ferdinand VII
1808-1833

Charles V
1833-1855

Charles VI
1856-1861

Juan III
1861 - 1887
(Republic 1872-1877)

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

FRANCE

Louis XVIII
1814-1824

Charles X
1824-1830

Louis Philippe I
1830-1848
abdicated 1848

Ferdinand I
1848 - 1874

Louis Philippe II
1874 - 1894

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

UNITED STATES
Presidents

1832 - 1836
Andrew Jackson
Democrat

1836 - 1840
Martin Van Buren
Democrat

1840 - 1852
Henry Clay
Whig

1852 - 1856
Lewis Cass
Democrat

1856 - 1860
Millard Fillmore
Whig

1860 - 1863
Hannibal Hamlin
Republican

1863 - 1864
John C Fremont
Republican

1864 - 1872
John Lane
Democrat

1872 - 1875
Henry Wilson
Republican

1875 - 1876
John A Logan
Republican

1876 - 1880
Daniel W Voorhees
Democrat

Grey Wolf

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I think perhaps that you underestimate the unity of the Ottoman Empire in this period. While the figure of Mahmud II was important in beginning the reform process, the entire bureaucracy was very much aware that reform was necessary to save the state, and a Giray ruler would not stop the process. Mahmud's direction was actually quite destabilizing, as he utterly destroyed existing structures and many of his replacements were unsucessful - so in a way, his removal in the short term would make the empire MORE resiliant.

The bureacracy with any Sultan would still move to increase central authority, and it might be remembered that the effort engaged against Ali in Janina cost the empire Greece. The Albanians at this point would not countenance independence, and it was universally recognized that it would be impossible to escape foreign domination without Ottoman protection.

If Mahmud died, I would expect the empire to continue as it is, perhaps centralized slower, less chance of a loss of Greece. Ali Pasha would eventually die and the empire could move back in. Egypt could possibly declare independence, as their tie to the Ottomans was to the dynasty (there was no distintion between dynasty and state). Iraq could slip away, but Syria/Palestine was fairly integrated into the Ottoman polity.

The claim to the Caliphate would definitely be weakened, as it was earned by right of conquest by the Osmanlis, not the Giray.

All in all, I see a less significant Ottoman Empire, although focused on its core of Anatolia and Rumelia it might be easier to reform effectively.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

But all that being said, the 19th c was a chaotic and exciting time for the Ottomans and the death of Mahmud and the installation of the Girays would produce a situation difficult to imagine or predict, so you can pretty much do whatever you want, as what is possible is largely subject to the will that can be applied by foreign powers - but keep in mind that it would be very difficult to keep in subjection a hostile populace anywhere in the Balkans - note the long and effective resistance of Algeria to French occupation, the great difficulty of subduing Tunisia, and the failure of the Italians to ever occupy the whole of Libya. Albania would be on an even higher plane of capability for resistance, especially to a Christian power.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I'm not sure. I looked closely at what was going on in this period, and also what went on afterwards as the later events indicate where the current as-yet unperceived weaknesses are.

Ali Pasha had Janina, regardless it seems of whether the local chiefs etc thought it overall a good idea to operate outside of Ottoman control (if not rule). The war as you say seriously weakened the empire and cost it Greece - if the war effort in itself cannot be made, then Ali Pasha who has been there quite a while and is firmly established would continue.

Bosnia was also similar in that the local nobles no longer took any notice of Istanbul

I'm not ignoring the great powers - for example Bosnia ends up as an Austrian client state, independent in name but this enforced by alliance to Vienna

Egypt in the period afterwards conquered Syria - I don't see why the Ottoman Empire being weaker would mean that it should not. With the empire falling apart, it seems more likely that the great powers would take a less united stand and that Egypt could play them off

What do you see for Iraq ? I don't see Mosul as leaving the empire, but Baghdad and the South being independent...

Grey Wolf

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

That depends upon what you do with Persia - the late Ottomans were waging a losing battle against Persian influence in Mesopotamia - they just didn't have the resources to combat Shiism in what was a peripheral area when so much was going on in the Balkans.

I would think it would remain autonomous until the late 19th c or early 20th, when Persia might have enough stength to seize it - or the Ottomans have enough power to reassert their authority. Nobody else would bother with it.

I'm not sure. I looked closely at what was going on in this period, and also what went on afterwards as the later events indicate where the current as-yet unperceived weaknesses are.

Ali Pasha had Janina, regardless it seems of whether the local chiefs etc thought it overall a good idea to operate outside of Ottoman control (if not rule). The war as you say seriously weakened the empire and cost it Greece - if the war effort in itself cannot be made, then Ali Pasha who has been there quite a while and is firmly established would continue.

Bosnia was also similar in that the local nobles no longer took any notice of Istanbul

I'm not ignoring the great powers - for example Bosnia ends up as an Austrian client state, independent in name but this enforced by alliance to Vienna

Egypt in the period afterwards conquered Syria - I don't see why the Ottoman Empire being weaker would mean that it should not. With the empire falling apart, it seems more likely that the great powers would take a less united stand and that Egypt could play them off

What do you see for Iraq ? I don't see Mosul as leaving the empire, but Baghdad and the South being independent...

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

That depends upon what you do with Persia - the late Ottomans were waging a losing battle against Persian influence in Mesopotamia - they just didn't have the resources to combat Shiism in what was a peripheral area when so much was going on in the Balkans.

I would think it would remain autonomous until the late 19th c or early 20th, when Persia might have enough stength to seize it - or the Ottomans have enough power to reassert their authority. Nobody else would bother with it.

Hmm, the problem with Persia is that Britain is weaker in 'The Great Game' - initially because it is severely distracted by the Americas, later because of internal problems and India. This means that Persia is facing an ever greater Russian threat, and by the 1880s its viability will be in question. It won't be at collapse but its lost all its bufferzone vassals (tribes to the North, plus in Afghanistan) and it is not seeing great power competition to keep the rivals interested in helping it. Maybe Britain will revive ? Maybe Persia cannot resist Russia ? Maybe it can keep the Russians at bay, but has the price been its own ambitions and domination elsewhere ?

Grey Wolf