I am more than happy to help out with the India lore
I'll put that under your name then. It's good to have someone working on the TL who (at least from what I've seen) has a solid base of knowledge about South Asian history, rather than having, for example, me, looking at Wikipedia articles and Britannica pages for hours and getting half of that information before I give up.

I'm happy to see you want to help.
Ok guys I have the thing done but I don't know where to make the gif, I tried with Giphy but it's super low quality, does anyone know any other place? Alternatively I can just post the images.
I use GIMP, put every frame as a diferent layer and save it as .gif, a menu will be prompt to adjust the rate and other stuff.
I'm not that knowledgeable into Colombian history, sadly, but I'd assume it would be around the same time as IOTL
I'll try to do a bit of research, but yeah, I'd imagine it would be soon after their border war with Peru, as there's nothing about the POD keeping them alive for longer.
While I work on fixing the earlier Germany post and getting the next one out, I thought I'd leave you one question: What direction would you like to see the Balkans go in?

ITTL, with their roles in the Napoleonic wars and German Unification war, Austria will likely come out weaker than IOTL, however, as IOTL, being unable to project power into Italy, Poland, or Germany, the only direction they can go is south. This means Austria becomes VERY interested in the Balkans, but is in a weaker position, so Russia will likely dominate in the region.

Lots of Background information:

Following the unification of Germany and that of Italy, the South Slavs wanted to emulate these states and unite. IOTL, Russia supported this as a way to drive Austria and the Ottomans out of the Balkans. Their alternative was to unite the Balkan peoples' around Orthodox christianity (as this was also an identity that was common in the region that neither the Ottomans nor the Austrians fit into). So basically there were 2 options. One was to support Greek and Slavic nationalists and endorse the unification of the South Slavs and the Greek reconquest of their lands, this can be called the Yugoslavist approach. The other was a sort of Pan-Orthodox Balkan "Rumelian" movement, which was about as popular as you would think. The Rumelian approach would only be favored in Russia if it wanted to avoid war with Austria, which it would not ITTL, and was never super popular within the Balkans. This means that the Russian diplomatic approach, as well as the goals of the Balkan groups would be for Romanians, Slavs, and Greeks to work together to create their separate states, all allied with each other and Russia. This would work out nicely in Serbia and Greece.

The problems are Romania and Albania, as well as potentially Bulgaria. Romanian nationalists ITTL, as IOTL, have overlapping claims with Russia, with the Romanians wanting Bessarabia (modern day Moldova), which is a part of Russia, and the Russians potentially wanting to annex more Romanian land. Albania is neither Slavic nor Orthodox, and is doing pretty well under Ottoman Rule. Many Albanians would aspire towards independence, but they would not want to ally with Russia in particular. A less powerful Austria might even see them as a useful launching-off point for further spreading of their influence into the Balkans. Bulgaria is a large nation with a strong separate identity from Serbia, both culturally and historically. Why is this important? Well, Serbia, as the first large South Slavic kingdom to gain independence will ITTL likely still see itself as a leader of Yugoslav unification, and try to use the movement to further its own strategic goals, namely, getting swole as heck. Croatia may also emerge as a leader (the Illyrian movement is going strong at this point in the timeline, I'll get to that soon), however, Serbia and Croatia, though they have been part of separate states for a long time, share a lot culturally and linguistically (don't get mad, I'm not saying that they don't have their differences, they're just VERY similar, more so that either of them is to Bulgaria), so the idea of unifying to face larger and more powerful enemies would make a lot of sense to people. Bulgars (and Macedonians, whose identity at the time was not yet fully and clearly established), would likely seek a separate state from the Serbo-Croatian Yugoslavia, and if the Serbs do not interfere in Macedonia, the animosity that existed IOTL might not transfer over into TTL. The Serbs weren't super interested in Macedonia IOTL. Bosnia and Croatia, with their large Serb populations and *Serbocroatian-speaking majorities were the goal. The expansion into Macedonia was a result of Austria's presence in Bosnia. Macedonia was a place for the Serbs to expand into, to grow stronger, and eventually take Bosnia, rather than the main ambition. So this means that if Austria expands less or breaks up earlier, Serbia and Bulgaria might not hate each other. If the Russians and Serbs don't piss off the Bulgarians as much as they did IOTL, full South Slavic unification is possible. On the other side, Austria could end up even bigger than IOTL, and cause more problems for the unification of the Southern Slavs.

Now, these Illyrians I've been talking so much about. They were pan-Yugoslavist romantic nationalists from Croatia and Slovenia, though they were, as would be expected of such a movement, accepting of Serbs, and quite a few of the major members were ethnic Serbs. They wanted to unite the south or southwestern Slavs under the blanket name "Illyrians", and developed a whole orthography for a central dialect for the South Slavs which is actually quite different from modern standard Štokavian Serbocroatian (speakers of the modern languages can understand it, but things like noun cases are a bit different, and more closely resemble other Slavic languages and favor Ijekavica rather than Ekavica as the OTL standardization and modern Serbian did, though neither manner of speech is incorrect in this or the OTL official standardization, also spelling was very different and favored the Latin script). IOTL they revolted against Hungarian rule semi-successfully but were destroyed following the revolutions of 1848. For the Illyiran movement to be the driving force behind South Slavic unification (which at this point is a given, regardless of how long that unity will last), Austria-Hungary would have to break up earlier than IOTL and the movement would have to survive longer. The latter is quite plausible, the former depends on other developments in the TL.

In Summary:

There are a number of directions in which South Slavic history could go ITTL, and I want your opinions on which you find most interesting and which you find most realistic/plausible

If Austria Gains as much or more than IOTL:
  • Like IOTL, Serbia, as the only major independent state other than the not too interested Bulgaria leads the struggle for independence, resulting in a Serb-dominated Yugoslav state which has bad relations with Bulgaria over preexisting tensions around Northern Macedonia (regardless of who owns the region)

If Austria breaks up early:

If Austria breaks up on its own, this may mean a larger than IOTL Austria and Hungary, and thus likely a smaller Romania, Italy, Czechia, Slovakia and Slovenia.
  • Serbs again, just bigger, but likely with a bit less power over the other groups in Yugoslavia
  • Illyria, a Croatian-led Yugoslavist state, likely has tensions with Serbia over Bosnia, Serbia may unite with Montenegro. There are two, much more distinct languages.
  • Illyria but with Serbs. It ends up being sort of like TTL Germany. Serbia is still a major player, but is not so completely dominant, Ljudevit Gaj's Illyrian language likely has greater influence. Croatia is likely quite large territoriality within the union, and possibly post-breakup.
  • Fully united Yugoslavia (this may require some help from the Russians to stimulate the Bulgars)

If Austria stays around but doesn't grow significantly:
  • Serbian-Dominated state containing Serbia, Bosnia, and Montenegro, in good relationship with Bulgaria, possibly a slightly larger Croatia, maybe a larger Hungary.

Here are some layers of Irredentism. They might help. Blue is the Illyrian movement/Croatian Pan-Yugoslavists, Red is Serbia and to an extent Serbian Pan-Yugoslavists, Green is the sort of general Yugoslavist ideal. Keep in mind, these are all VERY rough maps i quickly slapped together, but they might help you visualize things.

layers and layers Serbia.jpg
layers and layers Croatia or Illyria.jpg
layers and layers Yugoslavists.jpg

  • I need more time to do research, I'm a South Slav, so I know a lot about South Slavic history, but not so with Romania.
  • Possibly:
    • Smaller Romania if A-H breaks up on its own due to Hungary ending up with more Transylvania.
    • Romanians could go anti-Russian over Bessarabia, this may result in Russian annexation or occupation of western Moldavia to keep control over the area and push its borders further away from lands it cares about.
      • This may mean a more divided Romania later on ITTL
    • Same as IOTL more or less


Again, some of the same problems as with Romania.
  • I'm seeing Greece expanding into the Epirus/Western Rumelia thing on the postnapoleonic Europe map, meaning Greece might end up with a lot of OTL Albania
  • Or not, and instead the Greeks focus on Southern Macedonia, Thrace, and Ionia, causing problems in their relations with Bulgaria.
  • Or it stays roughly the same as IOTL

Have I rambled on for too long again?
Have I rambled on for too long again?
Nope, I like this kind of discussions, sadly I'm not very versed in Balkan history to contribute much.

My impression is that if Austria is weaker than OTL, her position will be to support Ottoman integrity, the same as the UK. If and when the Sublime Port crumbles, they may support Greece and Bulgaria over Serbians counter Russia, but I don't really see them occupying Bosnia.
Nope, I like this kind of discussions, sadly I'm not very versed in Balkan history to contribute much.

My impression is that if Austria is weaker than OTL, her position will be to support Ottoman integrity, the same as the UK. If and when the Sublime Port crumbles, they may support Greece and Bulgaria over Serbians counter Russia, but I don't really see them occupying Bosnia.
I'm glad I'm not being too annoying.

Ok, so if you don't think that the Austrians would occupy Bosnia, but rather, supporting Ottoman territorial claims, I don't see that being feasible in the long run, so the idea of them shifting to support another power makes sense. Greece is on fairly good terms with Russia already (the Orthodox connection works wonders, and all that help in securing independence is also kind of a huge deal), so I'd say Bulgaria is the best candidate. I didn't bring up these problems before, but it was kind of an open secret that the Russians wanted the Straits zone in Turkey, which the Bulgarians were kind of interested in as well, and thought they had a better claim to due to proximity and history. Add to this the facts that Bulgaria sees Greece as a natural/historical enemy and has conflicting claims over Thrace and Macedonia, and that Russia has a better established relationship with Greece, and it is quite plausible that Austria would be able to bring Bulgaria over to its side.

If Austria never seizes Bosnia, you can bet your ass that Serbia is going to gobble it up fast in some equivalent to OTL's First Balkan War. In such a war, Greece and Bulgaria would squabble over the coast, with Greece likely still getting to Thessaloniki before the Bulgarians do simply due to their hugely superior naval capabilities. The Romanian principalities (just western Moldavia and Bessarabia, as the others are not part of the Ottoman Empire), with the Turks distracted closer to Constantinople and the Russians closer by and able to provide support, would break off a bit more easily, though the Turks would likely still send ships and troops to the area. I'm not sure how unified the Romanians would be at that point.

Serbia and Montenegro might seek lands in northern Albania. Montenegro definitely would, and Greece would attack Northern Epirus. Albania would have a strong Ottoman Loyalist faction but there would also be those who seek independence. This division may cause problems for Albania, however, I'd expect Austria to do whatever it can to keep Russian-aligned states from gaining too much land in Albania. This means that Austria would initially support loyalist groups, but later shift its support towards a large, independent Albania, which would end up either being slightly larger or smaller than IOTL.

Once the war breaks out and it is clear that the Ottomans are not going to keep their hold on the Balkans, Austria might want to put some more space between Serbia and their more important cities, which may lead to all sorts of things, possibly a partial occupation of Bosnia or the creation of a sort of Rump-Bosnia as a buffer state, though this region would likely not cooperate with the Austrians. I'd expect Austria to take Neum, just because it makes it a lot easier to get to Dubrovnik. While the the overland route isn't great taking Neum does mean that they have 2 options and then their border is almost entirely protected by mountains. They would just have to protect the end of the Neretva river valley rather than having to also protect 2 potential entry points where a foreign army could come down from the mountains and then enter Austrain Croatia along coastal foothills which are much easier to navigate than the mountains of Herzegovina.

Something important that we haven't discussed is how much expansion would happen prior to this larger Balkan war. I would expect Serbia and Greece to expand similarly to IOTL, though, without the Austrians taking Bosnia, the Serbs might expand into it earlier. The Romanians might even break away earlier.

So overall, I expect something like:

  • Prior to the main Balkan war (so in smaller-scale independence wars):
    • Serbia expands south into Niš and Podrinje and west into Bosnia, taking lands around the Drina (though only in the north), and takes Belgrade. Belgrade and Bosnia will be a struggle for the Serbs, as the Austrians would be working against them.
    • Greece expands northwards a bit, but doesn't get too far. About the same as IOTL, maybe a bit more.
    • Bulgaria gains independence, is smaller than IOTL
    • Wallachia may also gain independence, but would not yet have Dobruja.

  • During the main war:
    • Bulgaria moves south, seizing western Thrace (so most of the Salonika and Edirne provinces), as well as most of OTL Northern Macedonia (so Skopje Province and part of Kosovo province on the map). They get most of the territory they were interested in. They fight
    • Greece takes Ionia (Yanya), about half of Monastir, and a bit of Salonika (up to and including Thessaloniki at least). Who gets the chalkidiki peninsula, I couldn't tell you. I would give it to Greece, since this is already ending up as enough of a Bulgariwank.
    • The Austrians occupy the Albanian coast (Iskodra province more or less), and at first support loyalists there, but eventually shift their support to pro-independence movements. With their Albanian allies, the Austrians occupy approximately up to Stuga, Tetovo, and the east coast of lake Prespa in OTL Macedonia in the east, and up to southern Kosovo and possibly Ulcinj in the northeast and northwest respectively. This land eventually goes to the independent Albania, which has more land than IOTL in the north, but lacks most of Northern Epirus, which will likely fall to Greece. Bitola ends up in Bulgarian hands.
    • The Austrians seize Neum for themselves, and are present militarily in the Northwest of OTL Bosnia, possibly doing something with that.
    • Serbia occupies most of Bosnia and spreads south into Kosovo, approximately up to Prizren, a city which would be fought over a lot, but which I expect the Serbs to occupy first. They will probably hold onto it, as it was the capital of the Serbian empire under Stefan Dušan, and as you might now, Serbs really want to hold onto historic locations in Kosovo. It would be an important city symbolically, but the Albanians would also want it, and may have Austrian help in trying to push the Serbs out. If Serbia wins in Prizren, it would be a huge morale booster, though, regardless, there will be a bloodbath in the region. Most of the Sanjak of Novi Pazar would fall to Serbia rather than being split with most going to Montenegro as it did IOTL (Serbia being more focused on westward expansion is the reason for this)
    • Montenegro would attempt to expand into northern Albania, but would be blocked by the Austrian and Albanian forces. They may expand a bit into Herzegovina instead as they have a historical and cultural connection to the region.

Here's an OTL map for reference:


Would you say that this makes sense?
Nah, I know I'll get around to stuff -- school's starting up in a day and I need to finish some stuff, is all.
Yeah, I'm fairly busy myself. I meant more readership, I wasn't trying to pressure people into posting. I always worry that I'm coming off as obnoxious and naggy.

I noticed from the wikibox that the Whigs evolved from the Dem-Reps ITTL. IOTL they sprung up from both Dem-Reps and feds. Did you see it as being the same ITTL? Because without the "era of good feelings" between the 2 founding parties, I don't see them exchanging ideas as much. Or are they more Dem-Rep-esque ITTL?

Should I add American political party evolution and wikiboxes to the to do list (under the long term section)?