The Colossus Of The New World - a worldbuilding project

Reader mode
Entrerriano

Entrerriano

Two things:
The borders in *Argentina look too squiggly to me
I was thinking on having a couple of small changes by 1830, most notably a Córdoba-Tucumán Union (only temporary, it would dissolve after a couple of years). I'm not completely decided yet but just so you know.
 
Višeslav

Višeslav

Entrerriano said:
Two things:
The borders in *Argentina look too squiggly to me
I was thinking on having a couple of small changes by 1830, most notably a Córdoba-Tucumán Union (only temporary, it would dissolve after a couple of years). I'm not completely decided yet but just so you know.
Click to expand...

I'll make them straighter for now, and wait for your decision on the union before I change that on the map. It sounds good to me, these sort of short lived unions kind of fit, especially considering that these countries share a lot in common culturally and historically. I was thinking that there would be some stuff going on with Cordoba, Britain and Chile in Patagonia, what were you thinking, and if you had anything in mind, when would it happen?
 
Entrerriano

Entrerriano

Višeslav said:
I'll make them straighter for now, and wait for your decision on the union before I change that on the map. It sounds good to me, these sort of short lived unions kind of fit, especially considering that these countries share a lot in common culturally and historically. I was thinking that there would be some stuff going on with Cordoba, Britain and Chile in Patagonia, what were you thinking, and if you had anything in mind, when would it happen?
Click to expand...
Between Cordoba and Britain there would probably be border wars and skirmishes, as some Cordobese generals and politicians would still want to reclaim Buenos Aires, with no success. Patagonia would be in native control for a long while, although the British would probably start expanding a bit earlier than Argentina OTL. Chile and Britain would most likely be allied, but there aren't many border issues between Cordoba and Chile (for now). I can imagine that for a while the British had to deal with various Criollo insurrections, but by the 30s the situation would have stabilized. There would also be border conflicts between Paraguay and Brazil, with Brazil being likely to occupy stuff on the eastern bank of the Uruguay River.
I'll write something more detailed later as I'm a bit busy right now
 
Višeslav

Višeslav

Entrerriano said:
Between Cordoba and Britain there would probably be border wars and skirmishes, as some Cordobese generals and politicians would still want to reclaim Buenos Aires, with no success. Patagonia would be in native control for a long while, although the British would probably start expanding a bit earlier than Argentina OTL. Chile and Britain would most likely be allied, but there aren't many border issues between Cordoba and Chile (for now). I can imagine that for a while the British had to deal with various Criollo insurrections, but by the 30s the situation would have stabilized. There would also be border conflicts between Paraguay and Brazil, with Brazil being likely to occupy stuff on the eastern bank of the Uruguay River.
I'll write something more detailed later as I'm a bit busy right now
Click to expand...

Alright. I'll keep that in mind. Also, to clear up a mistake, i meant central Argentina and southern Las Pampas, not Patagonia, I just have a bad tendency of referring to any of Argentina south of the original provinces as Patagonia.
 
Višeslav

Višeslav

Well, I continued work on the world map. Eurasia is done and I added the bigger/older Aral sea, I haven't fixed much in the southern cone.

ERWKAd2.png

Working on Egypt and the Ottoman Empire got me thinking about something though. IOTL Muhammad Ali Pasha's revolt is starting up in 1831, when he tries to take Syria (and possibly more, maybe even the whole empire) from his nominal overlords, the Turks. His son managed to quickly take all of the important cities in Syria and southeastern Anatolia due to local support and being an actual modern army rather than halfway into its transition as the Ottomans were at the time. The Egyptians seized Konya and captured the Grand Vezir, and were about to attack Constantinople, but winter stalled them long enough for the Ottomans to invite the Russians to help, which in turn provoked the other great powers to politely tell everyone to hold the frick up, and forced Muhammad Ali Pasha to sign a peace treaty allowing him to keep Syria as an Ottoman vassal.

Now, the reason Muhammad Ali came to power in the first place was Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, and I'm assuming that the whabbi revolt happened as IOTL and that the Greek revolution just happened a bit later, so he should be in more or less the same situation as IOTL by 1830. His motivations were as follows: 1) he wanted power, as most leaders do and 2) he wanted to modernize either in the whole Ottoman empire (with him somehow in charge, say as Grand Vizier or even Sultan, ideally some position that his descendants could inherit, maybe a sort of Ottoman Shogun is an ideal middle ground for him if the Emperor accepts it, which i find unlikely) or alternatively into a large chunk of the empire which he carves out for himself (at least, the Levant, the Hejaz, and Egypt, Crete, and Sudan, which he either already had or we know intended to conquer). These motivations all still exist ITTL. If he is more successful, Muhammad Ali might also go for Libya or at least Cyrenaica, but that's neither here nor there as I'm not sure whether he would be. IOTL, a few years after the war, Muhammad Ali tried to secede when the Turks tried to strip him of the lands gained in the peace treaty.

Basically, I was wondering, how might the changed situation in Europe and the world at large effect Muhammad Ali's success. Russian intervention, however it may happen, automatically brings in the other Europeans, who would still, as IOTL want to maintain a balance of power, especially considering that Russia, having more of Poland is in an even better position than IOTL. However, the Napoleonic wars having ended more recently may impact Russia's willingness to become involved. Whether the Ottomans would still invite the Russians to help is also a question. It was only possible because of Muhammad Ali's timing. Given even slightly different timing (ie. without the winter delaying the attackers), it is possible that even if they reached out to the Russians, the Ottomans could already have lost Constantinople by the time a significant Russian forced managed to mobilize and get there. This is a double-edged sword though, Muhammad Ali's son could be forced to stop at, say, Alleppo rather than Konya, making it easier for him to be pushed back and giving the Egyptians a worse peace deal. There are also other geopolitical changes, but I don't think too many effect the Ottomans and the middle east so far (unless I'm forgetting something, maybe the revolts in the Balkans were bigger or something).

Anyway what do y'all think might happen with the Egyptian campaigns? Would they even happen and how might they change?
 
Višeslav

Višeslav

World Map 1830
​
This isn't getting threadmarked yet. For one, I'm thinking of adding some kind of information on the sides, though I'm not 100% sure what (maybe flags for all of the colored in countries, though that would be quite a big task), and maybe a frame. But also, I just want to make sure I haven't missed anything, and generally hear your thoughts on everything.

Also, I was thinking, we need to provide more write ups or other information, because as it stands, a lot of TTL isn't exactly easy to figure out for those who haven't been part of the discussions. I'll try to do this for my posts, and you folks do what you can/want to. I'll put it on the to do list as low priority or ongoing, so I don't intend to pressure or pester you to get it done. You can do it whenever, and only on the posts you feel need it.


4JbuOTP.png


Colossal_world_map.png


@ST15RM


Here's the link for those who can't see either map:



Good luck with your lives outside of AH :).
 
ST15RM

ST15RM

Banned
Višeslav said:
Damn. That would be a problem. Can you usually see images uploaded through Imgur?

I'll try to post it again and do it a few different ways and I'll see if you can see it.
Click to expand...
i can see it now, i just couldn't on my phone. perhaps it could be that the file was too big for it to handle.
 
Višeslav

Višeslav

There are a few errors in the map. For example, I meant to separate Wallachia and Moldavia. Algeria not being French is something I'm not sure about. They will likely eventually try to take it, but I can't decide whether to do it in 1830 like OTL.

[edit: also Yemen. That was supposed to be an overall "yemeni states" thing, but it's confusing and makes it look like one state. Sukadana being around to resist the Dutch is also wrong]
 
Last edited:
Višeslav

Višeslav

So, sort of expanding on the fact that a lot of my lone maps and graphics need write ups, I think that this whole TL needs a bit more cohesion and coherence. So I figured a rough summary of what we've decided on so far and logical outcomes and connections might help to give us all some direction, and would help me visualize generally where the TL is going and how I should deal with that.

So, without further ado, here is a rough summary of history so far, from my memory. Not cannon necessarily, just an overview for us to discuss/me to see if anything doesn't make sense or needs to be changed/retconned. Those of you contributing or the zero people reading/following this project, feel free to remind me if I've missed anything.

  • So, the first effect of the POD is that the ARW is larger and longer, and obviously, the US gets Canada. This would keep the British focused on North America quite a bit longer than IOTL. Even after the war ends, there would be continued British involvement in North America. OTLs conflicts over forts in the American west would be somewhat amplified as the British attempt to hold onto major trading posts in Rupert's land for as long as they can, and thus do not evacuate them. The relocation of loyalists, and the problem of Newfoundland's population capacity would keep the British occupied for some time as well and be quite a strain.
  • Australia gets a huge population boost, with many of the earliest settlers being American loyalists, the Penal Colony system would still be in place and influential on Australian history, but would not be such a defining feature of Australian colonization. With the larger settler population, and for a time being Britain's largest colony, Australia will be invested in more heavily.
    • It would also have a much larger, though not necessarily huge, African population, as slaves and Black Loyalists are brought over from the American colonies. This may mean that Slavery might be a bigger thing in the colony, with the slaves initially brought over as well as imported Melanesians and enslaved Aboriginals being used for farming and pearl collection. This (with the exception of Africans) was all happening on a small to medium scale IOTL as well, so it could happen ITTL, or it might not. It all depends.
    • Australia might have ever so slightly more in common culturally with OTLs Ontario than it did, as both would be largely settled by the same groups, though different geography, increased distance from Britain and the US, and a completely different environment would still produce a different culture, so these increased similarities would be pretty insignificant. Maybe a different accent though.
  • The US ends up less centralized and with a weaker Federalist party and the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans survive longer than IOTL. The US has a bit more of a pro-French lean in trade, and takes longer to reconcile with Britain. The US is also less expansionist, and the south is less influential due to there being less balance in the number of states, but due to greater decentralization, likely feels less threatened than IOTL, and is more confident in its ability to hold onto slavery within the union.
  • Sierra Leone may get a big population boost as well, with Newfoundland being less able to hold freed Black Loyalists and their descendants than all of Canada was.
  • The third Anglo-Mysore war either does not happen or, more likely goes a lot better for Mysore due to the British being focused elsewhere. The fourth might not happen when it did IOTL either or it would also go better for Mysore. Mysore and its allies of Cannore and Arcot do pretty nicely and all remain independent. Not winning in the 4th Anglo-Mysore war has the added effect of British rocket technology developing quite a bit slower. The captured rockets from Mysore were used to develop new rockets that gave the British a slight advantage in the Napoleonic wars IOTL. Nothing game-changing, just a small advantage.
  • The British focus quite a bit on their Caribbean colonies, resulting in them keeping the Mosquito coast much longer than IOTL. They also eventually bring Central america into their sphere of influence, likely in the early 1820s
  • The invasion of the River Plate is successful, resulting in the British establishing a colony there. I can't remember what the specific reason(s) for that were. Argentina becomes disunited, and the British and Chileans develop good relations to help against their mutual enemy and neighbor, the locally powerful republic of Cordoba.
  • The Napoleonic wars go a little bit better for the French, with them managing to secure a temporary peace with the coalition rather than losing when they did IOTL. Basically, the British are a bit weaker in a few small ways. Slower advancement in India means less wealth and resources from there, the lack of the Canadian fur trade and lumber is yet another small reduction of British wealth, the aforementioned lack of rocket developments, the US being less forthcoming in trade with Britain and a little more so in trade with France is also a problem, and the fact that they are engaged in the Rio de la Plata all detract a bit from British performance in the wars. Not too much, just a minor change, but it prolongs the wars a bit. Austria is also more compliant with France. It was fairly willing to stop fighting Napoleon IOTL, and seeing a slightly more successful France pushes them to be a bit more collaborative, this culminates in the period of peace towards the end of the war, the "Grand Interlude", where Austria is completely compliant with the French and is seen as an ally. This Napoleonic stuff is all me working from memory. A lot of things are probably wrong.
  • During this interlude, the British seize all Dutch colonies, but eventually return Indonesia and most of the Caribbean islands, keeping South Africa, and splitting the Guyanas with Brazil.
  • The treaty that ends the war (ITTL signed in Madrid rather than Vienna I believe) gives Austrian Galicia to the Russian protectorate of Poland, it is a bit more punitive in its treatment of France than IOTL, giving Spain some lands across the Pyrenees, Luxembourg is restored to its full size, including formerly French lands, and France loses *Alsace and Lorraine (the former Napoleonic departments of the upper and lower rhine and with Moselle). The Prussians gain Saxony, while the Wittelbachs are given *Alsce Lorraine (Kingdom of the Rhine? Kingdom of Lothrignen? Prussia gets a little bit more within Germany than it had IOTL, Austria does not get Lombardy and Venetia, which instead become independent states, maybe Kingdoms or Duchies. Then there's Brandenburg. But other than that, everything is largely as IOTL in the treaty.
  • American miners and settlers in California seek independence from Mexico, and initially seek to join the US but the American movement for the annexation of California being driven by the south pushes anti-Slavery Californian leaders to establish their own country, ending in a partition of the region between an independent California and the US state of Shasta.

Now for some conclusions about the future that I've drawn from that:
  • We've discussed US state relations with their Indigenous populations already, but just to give my take on it:
    • Areas in the north, mainly OTL Canada (think Ontario, Assiniboia, Athabasca, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan) will likely have fairly good relations with Indigenous people. These areas have a fairly long history of Indigenous-European collaboration, simply because the fur trade necessitated it, and there was a fair degree of intermixing in these regions (I include Ontario because ITTL it would remain primarily fur and lumber focused for a longer time without the Loyalists to settle it, and would have more in common with the prairie states and northern territories).
    • The deep South hated its Indigenous population IOTL, don't see why it wouldn't ITTL but a less centralized government means more varied state policies on dealing with the First Nations Peoples
    • The plains would likely have similar issues to OTL, wherein the settlers want to use the land for farming, while the Indigenous people don't want to lose hunting land, and so they would be drawn into conflict. The big change would be that since Northern and Southern states are already much more out of balance to begin with, there may not be such a push to only admit as many territories as are needed to maintain the balance, so we might see the plains getting admitted a bit quicker, which could change this dynamic, likely for the worse.
    • The rockies and the mountainous parts of the west would likely, like IOTL have bad relations with Indigenous peoples, because Americans would want to mine and settle wherever they found minerals, and they'd want the coast to get that sweet sweet pacific trade, so they inevitably end up in conflict with the people already living there. There were genocides in the area IOTL, so I'd expect them ITTL as well.
  • With regards to the post Napoleonic situation, there are a few changes I might make. First of all, Prussia would likely get at least a bit more land in Poland than IOTL. With Russia gaining so much land in Poland, for balance of power reasons, some more of Poland would probably go to Prussia. This, however, paired with them getting Saxony, might need its own balancing, so Prussia receiving Danish Pomerania might be a problem. With that said, if Prussia doesn't get Pomerania, either Sweden keeps it but Denmark gains Lauenberg or Denmark gets it like it did for a while IOTL, but Hanover retains Saxe-Lauenberg. I think that the latter makes more sense as the loss of continental holdings like Pomerania was meant to counterbalance Sweden's acquisition of Norway and would likely still happen ITTL. These are pretty small changes, but they make sense to me given the differences in the postnapoleonic treaties, and they might do quite a bit to avoid convergent borders.
Europe changes.png
  • There is the question of Germany. I know we chose to have it the way it is (kleindeutschland but with less Prussian domination) because it's not a common thing to see, but we need to stop and think about the logic and realism of it. In a TL where Austria does not gain lands in Italy post-Napoleon, they would certainly focus more on Germany, but would they be the overbearing tyrants that I've made them out to be in order to achieve the Kleindeutschland in the 1848 analogue? I think it's certainly possible. If you keep Klemens Von Metternich in charge like IOTL, his opposition to liberalism and to growing Prussian influence and his TTL focus on German affairs would certainly see him going out of his way to stifle both movements. However, he may not remain in charge. He had to work hard to distance himself from Napoleon post war (he proposed many pro-French treaties and such, though the general consensus is that he was only doing so to keep Austria alive), so ITTL he might be seen as too much of a collaborator to be allowed to continue his work as Austria's chancellor and foreign minister. Alternatively, his connections to the English might help him to save face. Still, his staunch conservatism may not stop Austrian liberals from making the Germans still want to unite with Austria and/or he might be good enough of a diplomat to prevent a revolution from succeeding. So I think we may need to revisit the whole Germany thing. But then again, I think it could still realistically work out as it is.
  • As for the idea of a more successful 1848 analogue, I believe it is quite plausible but not guaranteed. I like it though, so...
  • New Zealand will be changed on the final map. It will not be incorporated by the 1830s. However, I think the larger population of Australia would mean more whaling activity in the area, meaning it gets settled faster and the British feel the need to implement laws and taxes on the islands sooner than IOTL, but not much sooner, as they would be busy with other things like Plata and Napoleon. I think around the early 1840s is a reasonable time to integrate NZ. As for the autonomy of the Maori that I mentioned, it is still possible with a larger white population in the Australasian colonies. Just because there's more white people, doesn't mean that they will be spread out across more land. With Plata being more attractive to settlers at the time and Australia being more developed than New Zealand and thus holding on to most of its population, I don't think New Zealand will be settled too much more than IOTL and that most of that population will gravitate to whatever the main centers are ITTL as opposed to going off to live in Maori-held wilderness. So given that the actual land being settled is more or less the same as IOTL, and that there is another more important colony to develop, the British may very well let the majority of North Island be a protectorate.
  • Moving onto the future of India, I can see either the Afghans or the Sikhs (more likely the Afghans due to them being larger and less reliant on the personality of one ruler to hold their state together at that point and their greater isolation/distance from the British area of influence) benefiting greatly from the slowed British advances into the northwest of the Subcontinent. I expect the Afghans to carve out a sizable sphere of their own in the area, mainly in the Baloch states and OTL Pakistan. While IDK how long they will last once the British deal with the Marathas and Rajputana, but who knows. The Russians may also gain a lot from all of this, but that's pretty far ahead so I'll leave it for now.
  • I feel that during the longer Napoleonic period, with the British basically basically only occupying the major cities of western Java, Indonesian sultanates previously under Dutch influence like Sukadana and Blambangan might start doing their own thing and be pretty reluctant to come back under Dutch rule. They would eventually be subdued, but you know, the dutch get an additional little pain in the butt when colonizing Indonesia.
  • The British, as we previously said, are the most likely to open up Japan. I'd expect it to happen at some point in the 1850s, and, seeing as the British are a bit more directly colonially inclined even than OTLs US was at that point and more active in the region, I could see them taking a treaty port somewhere in the south of Kyushu, maybe Kagoshima (which they attacked IOTL but for reasons that would not exist ITTL) or maybe Nagasaki. I'd have to look into it further though.
  • Then there is the matter of French colonialism going forward. There are two options: 1) the French try to minimize their colonial exploits so as not to scare the other European countries (unlikely IMO) 2) the French, having lose more land following the Napoleonic wars, get very into colonizing to make up for the lost land and prestige. I'd assume Algeria would be among the first targets as IOTL.

To summarize for those with better things to do than read all of this:

  • I basically went over the major happenings of TTL, basically just so I and anybody who might still be contributing can see how (and really, if) everything fits together (I mainly wanted to make sure that the TL didn't seem too much like an incoherent string of separate and unrelated PODs)
  • We might need to think Germany through a bit more before I continue with it, just a little realism check.
  • I've made some small changes to the post-Napoleonic map. Basically, Denmark has formerly Swedish Pomerania, Prussia has a bit more land in Poland, and Hanover retains a small sliver of land that IOTL went to Denmark.
  • Britain is opening Japan, it might take a treaty port. Not sure about that though.
  • We gotta start thinking about what places it makes sense for France to colonize.
  • Afghans or Sikhs, but more likely Afghans, are going to do quite a bit better than IOTL I think.
  • Yemen and Indonesia have been fixed on the final version of the 1830s world map (there were some problems, like the confusion grouping together of all of the Yemeni states)
  • [Edit] we should also decide on a specific length for the ARW, but I can just do that myself.
  • It took me way too long to write this post and congratulations if you actually read through it all. You get an imaginary medal.
 
Last edited:
Entrerriano

Entrerriano

Yay I got an imaginary medal!
The reasoning behind Britain taking Plata was that given their greater losses in North America, the government would be more willing to support Beresford's expedition to compensate for Canada. If it turns out this doesn't make much sense, we could retcon it, I can come up with other stuff for Argentina, but I really like the uniqueness of this setup
 
Višeslav

Višeslav

Entrerriano said:
Yay I got an imaginary medal!
The reasoning behind Britain taking Plata was that given their greater losses in North America, the government would be more willing to support Beresford's expedition to compensate for Canada. If it turns out this doesn't make much sense, we could retcon it, I can come up with other stuff for Argentina, but I really like the uniqueness of this setup
Click to expand...

There is no chance I'm retconning Plata. I'm way too attatched to your current work, I just forgot the specific reasoning. This makes a good deal of sense, especially since the Brritish kind of viewed it as the perfect place for a colony, I could see them working hard to get it if they lose almost all of their colonial holdings. If it didn't make sense, though, I would just consider it a secondary POD, because it's interesting and is more developed than most of the rest of the world by now.

Also, here's your medal: 🏅
I respect you for reading through all of that seeing as I barely had the energy to write it.
 
Višeslav

Višeslav

@Entrerriano I'm working on adding flags to the bottom of the world map, and that got me thinking, given that their wars of independence start over 40 years after the POD, some of the South American countries might have different flags than IOTL.

I was thinking some would remain like IOTL but others might be different. I want to keep the Gran Colombian tricolor in the northern countries, but I might change some of the others, particularly Peru-Bolivia, which I personally think is absolute trash. Maybe something like this or this with the national emblem or just the sun of Inti (the closest thing to a common symbol, more generally "Andean" than Peruvian) in the red part.
Peru-Bolivia Flag rough.png

Not the best flag, but something that took me 5 seconds is better than the OTL flag. This still shows both countries as equal, using the colors from their previous flags, and the larger/more noticeable stripe on the side of the flagpole is red, the one color that both flags share. I actually kind of do like it, so I might have one of the countries continue to use it afterwards.


Do you have any ideas for how these might look/any flags you hate and wish looked different? Maybe Chile continues to use blue white and yellow like on the Patria Vieja, or that might be seen as too monarchist, but it's just one of the first/most drastic differences that popped into my mind so I used it as an example.

What might the flags of the Argentine/Platine/Gaucho states look like?

[edit: if anyone else has ideas or suggestions, feel free to voice them too]
 
Last edited:
Entrerriano

Entrerriano

Višeslav said:
@Entrerriano I'm working on adding flags to the bottom of the world map, and that got me thinking, given that their wars of independence start over 40 years after the POD, some of the South American countries might have different flags than IOTL.

I was thinking some would remain like IOTL but others might be different. I want to keep the Gran Colombian tricolor in the northern countries, but I might change some of the others, particularly Peru-Bolivia, which I personally think is absolute trash. Maybe something like this or this with the national emblem or just the sun of Inti (the closest thing to a common symbol, more generally "Andean" than Peruvian) in the red part.
View attachment 544723
Not the best flag, but something that took me 5 seconds is better than the OTL flag. This still shows both countries as equal, using the colors from their previous flags, and the larger/more noticeable stripe on the side of the flagpole is red, the one color that both flags share. I actually kind of do like it, so I might have one of the countries continue to use it afterwards.


Do you have any ideas for how these might look/any flags you hate and wish looked different? Maybe Chile continues to use blue white and yellow like on the Patria Vieja, or that might be seen as too monarchist, but it's just one of the first/most drastic differences that popped into my mind so I used it as an example.

What might the flags of the Argentine/Platine/Gaucho states look like?

[edit: if anyone else has ideas or suggestions, feel free to voice them too]
Click to expand...
Ok so, regarding the flags of the Gran Colombia region, they would look fairly similar to OTL. Now, with Perú and Bolivia, iirc we had them become one upon independence instead of uniting later on. This would mean that the flag wouldn't necessarily look like OTL flags. The first national flag of Peru was created by Argentinian libertador José de San Martín, but he couldn't be part of the liberation given how Argentina doesn't exist. So I would try to just make up a flag using Inca symbology (as this Gran Perú would take a lot of inspiration from the Incas). Also remember that Bolivia probably isn't named like that. Alternatively, you could have the Peruvian flag take some inspiration from the Colombian flag as Bolivar would be the main man behind Peruvian independence, but not too much as Peru would become a rival to Colombia.
Regarding the Platinean countries, I haven't actually thought about flags so far, but I will probably will have to make some flags up as there was no regional symbolism that I know of in La Plata.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top