I mean, I don't know what you have planned, but it depends. Alaska and Russian Poland could definitely be used as bargaining chips to balance out gains elsewhere. And, yeah, Prussia and Austria may like the idea of having another country between them and the bear.
Pride Goes Before a Fall: A Revolutionary Greece Timeline
- Thread starter Earl Marshal
- Start date
On the topic of Alaska I'm curious what some other people think. I have always viewed timelines where the Russians build up a strong presence there as unrealistic. It's at the end of a very long logistical chain, even with the TSRR. It's an inhospitable region that needs supplies coming from elsewhere and the Russian Far East is not a breadbasket or industrial powerhouse. So in all cases it is dependent on or subject to interdiction from the US and BNA. It only works coupled with a strong alliance to one or the other. The only way to hold it is to have it protected by someone else or avoid war and both are tall orders for Russia. I'm sure Earl Marshal has great plans for it, but felt the need to call this out.
The Russians giving Poland independence in exchange for doing as they please with the Ottomans? An interesting idea but perhaps unlikely. How'd you force Russia to give up Poland? Well the obvious way involves the French army, pushing the Russians out but France and Prussia just fought a war. Why would the Prussians allow the French army to pass through to go fight their ally in order to force him do something they don't want to see.
And it's likely about half a century too late to do a Prussian-Polish dual monarchy...
No matter what Britain still controls the seas. It can't be forced to do anything. Actually if it wasnted to continue a purely naval war it could continue blockading and raiding Russia indefinitely. The Russians can take concessions from the Ottomans but that's about it.
Minor nitpick but what pre-war debts? The Ottomans start taking loans at the time of the Crimean war. Prior to that they were debasing their currency... which had reached quite epic proportions. In 1808 1 kurus contained 5.9g of silver. In 1832 it had gone down to 0.5g before stabilizing in 1844 to 0.9g, That's an 85% loss of value in a generation.
The Ottomans are still at the start of plunging down a debt hole of their own, in OTL they accumulated 260 million pounds of debt within 2 decades of the end of the Crimean war, their last loan being 40 million pounds at a rate of 40%, ie they added 40 million in debt but actually received 16. TTL of course they've already made an even more enthusiastic jump down the hole, they've already taken 30 million as opposed to 8 million.
Well frankly they are not in an exactly enviable position. Remaining competitive militarily and modernizing infrastructure needs even increasing funds. But this in turn means ever increasing debt. Add in chronic maladministration and an apparently very costly set of royals...
Forming an independent unified Romania seems a more likely and subtle compromise here IMO. It removes any vestige of Ottoman power but also direct Russian influence. OTOH it creates a moral debt to Moscow by the young Romanian state and a huge amount of goodwill. Serb and Montenegrin independence should be taken as granted at this point as well probably. Come to think of it I think we also have the ideal candidate king for independent Romania... here. Granted he'll need a regency for a few years but that should be doable.
Romania will be very convenient for this given it will be inevitably looking towards Transylvania...
So the Ottomans can chose between losing a relatively rich area with a relatively limited Muslim population (emphasis on relatively), or less valuable regions that are heavily Muslim. Were I Ottoman I'd prefer retaining as much of the Muslim population as possible, they are the future army recruits after all, but that's a matter of opinion...
Well if 200,000 French show up in Thrace or half a million in Poland it could be a bit of a bother to put it mildly, but what is in for Paris at the moment and after the Porte and Britain just antagonized them in Egypt. Which will be likely their price or part of their price... call it independent Egypt in her current borders and French protectorate over Lebanon....
And these are all sound considerations. The decision to sell Alaska in OTL did not come out of thin air or caprice.
True, but I see time and time again people pushing for a continued Russian Alaska. And I wasn't sure if it was just foolish hope or I was missing something. The way I see it there's nothing Russia can do to hold it. They can only hope that it continues because no one bothers with it.
Without Napoleon III and a Russia favourable to the creation of Romania, it means goodbye to the heavily francophile Romania, A romania under Russian influence instead of a french one will elvove diffrently.
I wonder what their constitution will look like, and how they will modernize without the heavy french involvement.
Another possible candidate for the throne... Alexander III of Russia since Nikolai is alive and well at the moment. Make him king of Bulgaria...
Don't be sorry, we are all glad to read youBelated Happy New Year everyone!
I'm sure you all were expecting me to have the next chapter out this past weekend(I was too), but between traveling, spending time with family, and celebrating the holidays, I haven't had as much time to write as I'd like these past two weeks. That being said, I have managed to do some work and I should have the next part ready in the next day or two.
Thank you very much! I won't spoil where the Russians end up - the next chapter will do that for me, but they are definitely making the rest of Europe worry.
Thank you very much!
Indeed. Britain spent the entirety of the 19th Century and the first few years of the 20th Century trying to prevent a single power from dominating the continent. ITTL they've had less success as Russia is now poised to emerge as a real threat to the established order.
Interestingly enough, both Palmerston and Napoleon III did consider liberating Congress Poland as part of their terms in OTL. Sadly, it wasn't a viable option as doing so would antagonize both Prussia and Austria, whose help they would need in order to force such terms upon Russia. Even then, it would require a far larger commitment to the war effort that neither the British or French were willing to provide. ITTL the British only have to worry about upsetting Prussia, who could be brought on board over their growing concerns of Russian expansionism, but a victorious Russia makes all this moot.
In OTL, Tsar Nicholas died from Pneumonia in early March 1855. While not confirmed, it is believed that he intentionally let his health collapse by not wearing proper winter clothing, refusing medical attention, and working/fasting constantly as a result of his guilt over provoking the Crimean War. For all his faults, Nicholas did adored his soldiers and was truly gutted by their suffering in the war. Suffice to say, the better Russian performance in the war alleviates his guilty conscious somewhat, prolonging his life just a little longer.
The 2nd Anglo-Persian War will be covered in the next chapter, but I'm leaving the Sepoy Mutiny to a separate update which I'll release once this current war is finished. I'll also cover China, Japan and the rest of East Asia in the near future as well, since butterflies have started reaching that part of the world.
Hopefully, what I have in mind for Alaska is interesting enough for all of you.
Interesting proposals. While I won't spoil the exact terms, I will say that some of these predictions will be on the final peace deal and some of the others will be part of Russia's first set of demands.
This war will definitely be a dark blemish on Britain's reputation for years to come.
They convinced the Ottoman Empire to start this war with Russia, based largely on false promises from Britain of support from the other Powers of Europe. At best these were overly ambitious projections that were unlikely to happen. At worst, they were bold faced lies. As a result, the Ottomans paid the price in treasure, lives, and territory because of the British.
To their credit, the British did give the Ottomans with nearly 30 millions of Pounds in loans, they've provided over 80,000 Minie Rifles, they've sent over 100,000 soldiers to fight alongside the Turks, and they've dispatched almost all of their fleets to fight in the war. Still, its not a good look for London as the Turks still bore the brunt of the war's costs.
Aside from money, there isn't anything the Russians can realistically take from the British in this war. Outside of Alaska, they don't share any borders (yet) and they have no means of enforcing military restrictions on the British. They won't be able to occupy their territory or loot their cities, nor will they be raping their women or enslaving their children. As a result, most of the Allies' concessions will be coming from the Ottoman Empire, which will be forced to give up quite a lot. You are definitely right, though that Britain gaining Alaska either by choice or not, would definitely turn the Turks against them even more than they already have.
The Russians are definitely the victors in this war, but it has been a very costly war in both lives and coin. I'd say that the real winners of this war are the states that haven't gotten involved like Greece and France.
In the end, the Ottomans, the British, and the Russians will all need to enact reforms after this war, some more than others, but whether they choose to do so or not remains to be seen, however.
Thank you very much!
The British garrison in New Zealand wasn't drawn down at all so there shouldn't be any significant changes there.
Isolationism is certainly a possibility, but I'd don't think losing this war will have that effect on the British. The Russians really won't be able to take much of anything from the British as they lack means of enforcing any terms upon them. Without a navy to challenge the British Royal Navy, the Russians can't occupy British territory and they can't hurt the British economy, at least directly. The best they can do is threaten India, but right now there are several hostile hordes, a couple mountain ranges, and hundreds of miles of desolate land between Russia and British India so the threat of a Russian invasion of India is really unlikely. At worst, they'll have to pay some reparations to Russia.
The one thing they will definitely lose is prestige. They went into this war believing they were the greatest power in the world, they'll come out of it humiliated and bloodied. More than likely, the British will blame their defeat on the Ottomans being incompetent (at least in Anatolia), the Indians rebelling at the worst possible time, and the lack of support from the other Powers of Europe (France especially). They'll also take a hard look at their Army which is desperately in need of reform. Although they did perform as good as they could given the circumstances, there is definitely room for improvement. So greater militarism by the British is definitely a possibility too.
The Ottomans are definitely in a tough spot financially. Not counting their pre-war debts, they've now accrued over 30 million Pounds in loans to the British and while the interest on those wartime loans aren't terribly high, it is still more than the Porte can afford right now.
The Polish Question has definitely been simplified, but it is still an issue needing to be resolved. While I won't spoil what the final results are, I will say that the geopolitics of the region will be different after this war.
They are both in a difficult spot right now. The Ottomans will be quite weak and vulnerable after this war and could easily fall into the Russian camp if Britain pushes too hard in their search for recompense. Similarly, if the Ottomans refuse to pay back their loans then they would risk deterring other nations from providing loans to the Ottomans in the future.
I won't get too in depth here as it could spoil my future plans, but a Russian victory here would effectively end any illusions of Ottoman suzerainty over the Danubian Principalities. That would likely lead to increased Russian influence over the Romanians, which may result in any number of things, from a proxy being appointed Prince of Romania to Russian garrisons being stationed in the country, to annexations of their territory.
An independent, or autonomous Bulgaria is certainly a possibility, but if it gets too large it could alienate the Romanian principalities and Greece. A Russian proxy in control of Dobruja also runs the risk of antagonizing the Austrians and Hungarians as a lot their commerce runs through the Danube.
The border in Anatolia will be interesting. The most value region of Eastern Anatolia is the Pontic coast, with Trebizond being the most valuable, but as of now, the Russians don't have Trebizond. So if they wanted to take it in the peace treaty, they'd need to give up a lot elsewhere which they may not be inclined to do. Meanwhile, they've occupied a lot of territory to the south around Erzurum and Erzincan, but outside of the large Armenian population in the region and the general defensiveness of the area, there isn't much value to be had in taking this land as they lack natural resources and are really only good for agriculture and pastoralism.
The Persians have managed to occupy all of Afghanistan by this point and have done some minor raiding into Northern India. Apart from that, not much is really happening on that front. I'll address the Rebellion in India in its own chapter.
Its not so much snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, but snatching a minor victory out of the jaws of a greater victory. Russia will still win the war, barring all the other states of Europe declaring war on Russia all at once (which is completely ASB), there isn't really any way for them to lose at this point.
Despite fielding a standing army of 1 million soldiers, the Russians only had around 200,000 trained reservists available around the time of the OTL Crimean War. Suffice to say, they've managed to burn through all of these reservists and more ITTL. Overall, they've suffered around 400,000 casualties between May 1854 and July 1856, most of which were due to diseases such as cholera.
If you think the 1860's will be crazy technologically, just wait till we get to the early 1900's!
Welcome back Zealot!
1. The Hungarians are in the Anti-Russian camp by necessity. After fighting against each other in the 1848 Hungarian War of Independence (Austria asked Russia for help), relations between the two have only gotten worse, what with Hungary supporting Polish partisans in the 8 years since. If Russia gains control of both banks of the Danube (either directly or through its proxies), the Hungarian economy would basically be at the mercy of the Russian Government, something which is completely unacceptable to Buda.
2. I completely agree, the territory Russia has occupied along the Caucasus/Anatolian front is really a bargaining chip for more valuable territories elsewhere. Outside of Trabzon, there really isn't anything the Russians want in Eastern Anatolia. All they would be getting is more Armenians, a bunch of farmland, and good grazing grounds for pastoralists. Now thats not to say that the Russians wouldn't take territory here, they most certainly will as it would secure their border and weaken the Ottomans, but they are more likely to take less land here in return for more land somewhere else, like the Balkans. Even if they don't get Trabzon directly, they can still gain great influence over the Trabzon trade route by taking cities like Agri, Erzurum, and Horasan which sit along the road to Tabriz.
3. Maybe.
4. Of course the Eaglet will get involved, he is a Bonaparte after all!
Sorry taking so long to reply, I should have the next chapter out in the next day or two.
I think they at least will take Kars because is a good defensive terrain and also a good staging ground for the next war.
Hey everyone hope you're all doing well. I'll be traveling halfway across the US tomorrow, for work and all that fun stuff. Suffice to say, I won't have the next chapter out tomorrow, but I will have it ready on Sunday. Sorry for the continued delay, but hopefully the next part is worth the added wait.
In OTL, Palmerston wanted to dismantle Russia as a threat to Britain, whereas Napoleon III wanted to establish a Polish Nation State allied to France. This was never going to happen in OTL as Russia would never give up Poland willingly and the British and French weren't willing to commit the resources needed to force them. More than that, they would need to convince Austria and Prussia to join the Crimean War against Russia. Of the two, Austria was more likely to join as they had actually threatened to attack Russia on two occasions; first in 1854, when the Russians were attempting to invading Rumelia and again in 1856 when Alexander II initially refused the Allied Peace terms and threatened to continue the war. Prussia on the other hand was not interested in fighting Russia at this time as Berlin was quite happy with their Russian ally all things considered.
ITTL, the situation is slightly different as Austria has collapsed and Russia controls Galicia-Lodomeria, but the fact remains that Prussia isn't willing to break with Russia just yet. Most importantly, Russia is winning this war and winning it decisively. If Poland were to somehow gain its independence right now ITTL, it would be on Russia's terms, not the UK's and certainly not the Ottomans.
Serbia is already an independent state in all but name, so it wouldn't really cost the Ottomans much to give up their lingering claims of suzerainty over them. Same with Montenegro.
If TTL's version of George is close to his OTL counterpart, then he and Romania should do just fine. That said there may be better options available. As of now though, I haven't made a decision on the Romanian King/dynasty yet.
Regarding Alaska, the British have occupied Nova Arkhangelsk (Sitka), Kad'yak (Kodiak) and some surrounding territory, but they haven't really tried expanding into the Alaskan interior yet.
In OTL, Palmerston wanted to dismantle Russia as a threat to Britain, whereas Napoleon III wanted to establish a Polish Nation State allied to France. This was never going to happen in OTL as Russia would never give up Poland willingly and the British and French weren't willing to commit the resources needed to force them. More than that, they would need to convince Austria and Prussia to join the Crimean War against Russia. Of the two, Austria was more likely to join as they had actually threatened to attack Russia on two occasions; first in 1854, when the Russians were attempting to invading Rumelia and again in 1856 when Alexander II initially refused the Allied Peace terms and threatened to continue the war. Prussia on the other hand was not interested in fighting Russia at this time as Berlin was quite happy with their Russian ally all things considered.
ITTL, the situation is slightly different as Austria has collapsed and Russia controls Galicia-Lodomeria, but the fact remains that Prussia isn't willing to break with Russia just yet. Most importantly, Russia is winning this war and winning it decisively. If Poland were to somehow gain its independence right now ITTL, it would be on Russia's terms, not the UK's and certainly not the Ottomans.
I agree completely, Russia can't really make any lasting demands on Britain.
I stand corrected.
Indeed, the Ottomans are in a bad place financially right now. Sadly, the alternative, not keeping pace militarily and not modernizing their infrastructure is just as bad if not worse given their neighbors.
Interesting, I know very little on 19th Century Romanian politics, but a united Romania does make a good amount of sense. I would think that a triumphant Russia would have quite a lot of influence over the country, so I'm not sure if "independent" is the right word for a Post War Romania.Forming an independent unified Romania seems a more likely and subtle compromise here IMO. It removes any vestige of Ottoman power but also direct Russian influence. OTOH it creates a moral debt to Moscow by the young Romanian state and a huge amount of goodwill. Serb and Montenegrin independence should be taken as granted at this point as well probably. Come to think of it I think we also have the ideal candidate king for independent Romania... here. Granted he'll need a regency for a few years but that should be doable.
Serbia is already an independent state in all but name, so it wouldn't really cost the Ottomans much to give up their lingering claims of suzerainty over them. Same with Montenegro.
If TTL's version of George is close to his OTL counterpart, then he and Romania should do just fine. That said there may be better options available. As of now though, I haven't made a decision on the Romanian King/dynasty yet.
By that same measure, the British don't want Russia anywhere near Constantinople, so they may be more less opposed to Russian gains in the East over Russian gains in the Balkans.
Napoleon II is definitely capable of doing something like that, but Russia would really have to screw up diplomatically for the French to jump into this war at the 11th hour. More than likely, France would sabre rattle and apply significant diplomatic/financial pressure on Russia to limit its gains in this war, similar to the 1878 Congress of Berlin after the OTL Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78.
Lascaris and Flosgon are correct, Russia took Kars after the 1828-1829 Russo-Turkish War ITTL. With Greece being more successful in their War of Independence, Russia found more success in their own war with the Ottomans, enabling them to take Kars 50 years earlier than OTL.
I definitely agree, the other Powers of Europe have a vested interest in limiting Russian expansion into the Balkans. As a result, most of Russia's territorial gains will be in Eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus as they will face less resistance from France, Austria and Prussia there than in Rumelia.
Regarding Alaska, the British have occupied Nova Arkhangelsk (Sitka), Kad'yak (Kodiak) and some surrounding territory, but they haven't really tried expanding into the Alaskan interior yet.
Good News forma armenians, they will avoid (at least in part) some of the massacres they were subjected in XIX century. Bad news for Muslim people in that area.
actually before the 1870s and 1880s, the Armenians were given a lot of autonomy by the Ottoman Empire. They were very loyal and many Armenians actually rose up against Russia aiding the Ottomans during the Crimean War otl and the 1878 War, aiding Ottoman authorities, and even paying more taxes voluntarily to aid the Porte. It was Abdul Hamid II's policies that ruined that, and one of the reasons the Armenians disparaged the Armenian massacres so much was that because they had previously been very loyal to the porte, felt that loyalty had been misused by the Ottomans. If the 1880 and 1890 Armenian Massacres hadn't happened, it is very likely that the Armenian population would have remained loyal citizens with their autonomy guaranteed by the 1863 Armenian Assembly.
Don't worry, we like to read you ! We are all adults who can wait for something as good as what you do
How much money has Greece made by the British buying supplies for the war? Also how big is the Greek national debt right now? Are you also going to show the process of integrating Greece new territories. Will land reforms happen there?
Last edited:
1.we don't know as of yet. 2. Down to 2 million pounds from around 5 to 6 million pounds. 3 and 4 yes the author Said that after the war he will turn his focus back to greece and land reforms should be the government's top priority