Quasi-War IV

Here are some minor updates to the European Map for Quasi-War 1860.

I accidently left Prussia with a bit more of Pomerania than I had intended.
I changed "Iberian Morocco" to "French Morocco".
I added a few more of the smaller states of Germany to give an example
of how equally spread out the land/population had become and that no
German state had overly much influence, not enough to push out his rivals.

Quasi-War - Map of Europe 1860.png
 
Looks like USA is winning these races due to greater naval presence.

And if the Ainu like the Americans over the Russians and Japanese, no doubt the Ainu on Sakhalin and the southern Kuril's are already pro-American, meaning there are more than just 200 Americans on Sakhalin. And if the Americans have Sakhalin and Hokkaido, they have already landed and claimed the southern Kuril's by default. You just cannot miss the smaller islands if you are aiming for the bigger islands as well, does not make any sense.

Yeah, most of America's gains in the Pacific would be impossible if France and Britain had not been at war. Neither would accept the US eating up all these minor island chains. This was opportunism at its finest.
 
So when you have the map of the Caribbean, the USA OTL Dominican Republic will be a USA territory?

Yeah, I made that update.

How about the Virgin Islands, are they still Danish or British? ???

British, taken in Napoleonic Wars (and kept) when Denmark sided with France.

Maybe the cash strapped British sell some of the Caribbean Islands to USA. Like Trinidad and some of the lesser Antilles that the USA uses as the link from Florida to Guyana. If the British control the Virgin Islands, these would be ideal to sell to the USA along with Trinidad.

I never put together a map of the Caribbean in full. After the Middle East and Africa, I may do one for the Carib. I don't think Britain, even in their "Down Years" were likely to be sellers. With the Dominican (Santo Domingo) and perhaps the similar purchase of Guantamino Bay, I think the US is probably pretty set on bases. Note the rest of the larger Caribbean islands as split between France (the largely independent San Dominigue or Haiti), Britain (Jamaica) and Spain (Puerto Rica). I doubt the US would ever feel particularly threatened.


USA would also probably covet Bermuda for defense reasons of the Atlantic coast as well. How vital is Bermuda to the British these days?

I would assume fairly important. It was well fortified in WWI and WWI for example.

I can totally see the USA purchasing some of this from the British, the time is right. The British are hard up for some quick capital, they probably have some of these Caribbean possessions that are more of a cash drain, more trouble than they are worth and would be worth more to the USA.

I think the prestige loss would be too much for Britain. The US wouldn't want the headaches either unless a truly great naval base was in the offing (Bermuda, Antigua, Jamaica), none of which Britain would sell.
 
Looking at Europe:

How are Swedish and Russian relations ITTL?

Poland looks tempting to Prussia, Austria, and Russia to tripple team and divide it up.

The Balkans look halfway stable. The minorities of Austria-Hungary and Serbia though may be the problems.

I see your foreshadowing of unrest in Europe could be:
1. Dutch citizens rise up, Flemish do the same
2. French citizens rise up overthrow empire, create next republic
3, Catalons rise up
4. The Germans in the French empire rise up to be free Duchy again, Hanover? or want to join the Prussians.
5. The Italians under French rule rise up want to be part of one of the kingdoms or create own kingdom of Piedmont.

Prussia goes after Mecklenburg as well, or Prussia and Austria duke it out for

France is chaos may have power moves elsewhere like the Russians and the Prussians going after Poland, the Austrians may come in for Silesia as well.

Minorities in the Balkans

The Bulgarians and Greeks go at it

Russians go after Swedes for more of Finland

Basically while the French have to deal with internal strife, they are distracted and the rest of Europe plays, old rivalries come back. Pax Francia in Europe is over. The British love it as they fan the flames of the French discontent. Maybe not a global war, just several local wars as rivalries and positioning come about. While the French focus inwards, the Russians strive to be the next continental power.

Would be great if the Americans get some payback to France as well for what they did to Georgia and the Carolinas. Not by threatening Quebec as by this time, the USA does not want or need Quebec, but by joining the British and supporting the unrest in France, Netherlands, Catalan, Italy, Flanders ... with weapons and supplies.

Thanks for the map it does a lot to see where current positioning and future conflicts rise up.
 
I think the prestige loss would be too much for Britain. The US wouldn't want the headaches either unless a truly great naval base was in the offing (Bermuda, Antigua, Jamaica), none of which Britain would sell.

Or maybe like Gitmo, the USA can set up a joint naval base for Bermuda, The rising USA naval power would want this to protect American coast from still threat of France and its allied presence. the memory of the sneaky French along the American coast (invasion of Carolina to Georgia, to Washington DC) is too recent with the sneakiness that they just showed Britain. America would wan to position its naval power the best. It would not want to fight on the coast but to have Bermuda and perhaps Halifax to base out of as first defense against the French nannies.

This would not be a prestige loss for the Brits, it would actually help them out as the USA would have coverage of the western hemisphere and the Brits could focus where needed. Basically, the special USA British relationship is renewed.

How can they have any more prestige loss, they have lost India and have had the homeland invaded. In fact there might be a move in Parliament to divest of unneeded possessions. The USA would find itself in the right time at the right place. The economically effected masses that are represented in the House of Commons may demand it so Britain can focus on Britain and the colonies that are keepers.
 
Last edited:
How can they have any more prestige loss, they have lost India and have had the homeland invaded. In fact there might be a move in Parliament to divest of unneeded possessions. The USA would find itself in the right time at the right place. The economically effected masses that are represented in the House of Commons may demand it so Britain can focus on Britain and the colonies that are keepers.

Give up the Empire!?!?!!? You sir, are a scoundrel and a Communist! Give up the Empire? Preposterous! BRITAIN IS THE EMPIRE!!!:p

This is the Age of Imperialism, remember. Britain has just lost India and China and has faced the loss of prestige from letting the French both sweep the Channel and invade without much resistance. Hell, one could argue they owe their existence to Prussia. The British will be clinging much harder to their empire now that they have lost the jewel and have been humiliated.
On a side note, does anybody know why it seems in every timeline Russia is a great power they suddenly become the Draka when heading East or South, i.e. they don't ever have to worry about supply lines?
 
Give up the Empire!?!?!!? You sir, are a scoundrel and a Communist! Give up the Empire? Preposterous! BRITAIN IS THE EMPIRE!!!:p

This is the Age of Imperialism, remember. Britain has just lost India and China and has faced the loss of prestige from letting the French both sweep the Channel and invade without much resistance. Hell, one could argue they owe their existence to Prussia. The British will be clinging much harder to their empire now that they have lost the jewel and have been humiliated.
On a side note, does anybody know why it seems in every timeline Russia is a great power they suddenly become the Draka when heading East or South, i.e. they don't ever have to worry about supply lines?

They paid for long supply lines in Vladivostok. They lost it to Manchuria.

North Persia was not a long supply line. Russia had taken Azerbaijon in 1810. That is about 100 miles from Teheran.

Their supply line was trouble in Kazakistan.
 
They paid for long supply lines in Vladivostok. They lost it to Manchuria.

North Persia was not a long supply line. Russia had taken Azerbaijon in 1810. That is about 100 miles from Teheran.

Their supply line was trouble in Kazakistan.

Oh, it wasn't an implication that it was unrealistic. Russia did it OTL. It's just I don't understand how Russia wages successful campaigns across distances similar or greater to the people who invade Russia and get flattened. Is it that they're really good at picking pushovers or is it a different reason?
 
Oh, it wasn't an implication that it was unrealistic. Russia did it OTL. It's just I don't understand how Russia wages successful campaigns across distances similar or greater to the people who invade Russia and get flattened. Is it that they're really good at picking pushovers or is it a different reason?

I think most of this is similar or identical to what happened OTL.

The conquest of Siberia occurred because there was no major opposition.

The conquest of Central Asia is going as as in OTL but bloodier.

Persia was the only true butterfly and would grant an easier path to the longed for port on the Indian Ocean that fighting through Central Asia (Kazakastan, Afghanistan, then Pakistan, then on to challenge the British in India. Now THAT is a long-assed supply line).

Also, I tend to agree that psycologiccally Britain would not surrender a grain of sand to anyone without a fight, no matter how worthless or expensive to maintain that territory may be.
 
Last edited:
How are things in Japan?

England will rise again and burn the French and it Allies to the ground. Germany shall be born. So will Italy.
 
How are things in Japan?

England will rise again and burn the French and it Allies to the ground. Germany shall be born. So will Italy.

Still a stalemate. France's ally the Shogun won Honshu, the Emperor is stuck on Kyushu and Shikoku. With the Anglo-French War over, neither is going to let their "ally" continue the war. This looks like the state of affairs for a while to come.
 
Hopefully the United Nations of Africa won't be Liberia 2.0 times a very big number.

You would hope the larger scale would eliminate the tribal "machete" type dictators as no one person would be able to declare a dictatorships.

Also, the fact that some measure of democracy would be included from the start might herald an easier transition to independence as opposed to the Colonial Leaders heading for the airport and leaving method that was common in the 1950's. It is not surprising that half of these countries fell apart within years.

Also, the greater "international" worldview granted by being part of an "India-like" confederation may spur an Pan-African movement that would aid trade within and without Africa and spur a greater than regional economy.

It may not be possible to have a single country from Dakar to Luanda in the long run but I think uniting for even a temporary time period would have long lasting positive effects.

Or it would just be a bigger mess, who the hell knows?
 
Not having a cold war where both sides support and arm who they want has to be a positive as well for Sierra Leone (United Nations of Africa).

In the 1860's, France probably does not care too much about this area of Africa.

Hopefully, Africa will be able to develop.

Would need to settle the tension between the Africans and the African Americans. This caused tension in OTL Liberia.
 
Not having a cold war where both sides support and arm who they want has to be a positive as well for Sierra Leone (United Nations of Africa).

In the 1860's, France probably does not care too much about this area of Africa.

Hopefully, Africa will be able to develop.

Would need to settle the tension between the Africans and the African Americans. This caused tension in OTL Liberia.

I don't see any way to avoid tension between the more modernized politically and technologically freedmen and the tribes. That may be the biggest source of friction over the years.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Remember that the British Army in 1859 was about 50,000 men in OTL (including the Irish) and this 50,000 was spread throughout the British Empire. I am thinking a MAXIMUM of 25,000 redcoat professionals would be stationed on Britain herself. Probably not that much.
...this might be late, but... no it wasn't.

The British Army in 1860 was 220,000 strong. 100,000 home, 50,000 colonial, 70,000 Indian establishment. And it also had a large corps of militia and volunteers as second line troops.
And here's the worst thing. I know you've been corrected on this before.

Originally Posted by robcraufurd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alt History Buff
the British Army (50-60K worldwide) was tiny
Actually, they had 70,536 men on the Indian establishment alone (1 November 1861). There were a further 148,680 men on the British establishment at the same date, 114,003 all ranks present at the 1861 militia inspection, and 162,935 enrolled volunteers (1863).
http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/860CAA.pdf

See above for the battalions - there's 140 battalions of regular and guards infantry alone in 1860.
 
Last edited:
Top