So, I've found something in my folder for this project.

rdJmoM2.jpg


It got me thinking. @Bennett you said that you thought that the UKCA would form or gain independence relatively late. Maybe, as IOTL, Central America (the republic set up immediately post independence) is invaded by Mexico in 1822, and then Mexico tries to take the Miskito coast from the British. The Brits would obviously not be super thrilled with this, but would be fairly busy as at this point there would be renewed war against Napoleon IIRC from the postnapoleonic discussion. So, in order to hold onto their colony without diverting too many resources, the British offer the Central Americans independence from Mexico and guarantees protection under 2 conditions: They recognize British control over the Moskito coast, and they select a King.

What do you think? I feel it could need some revision, but it is a rough idea.
 
So, I've found something in my folder for this project.

It got me thinking. @Bennett you said that you thought that the UKCA would form or gain independence relatively late. Maybe, as IOTL, Central America (the republic set up immediately post independence) is invaded by Mexico in 1822, and then Mexico tries to take the Miskito coast from the British. The Brits would obviously not be super thrilled with this, but would be fairly busy as at this point there would be renewed war against Napoleon IIRC from the postnapoleonic discussion. So, in order to hold onto their colony without diverting too many resources, the British offer the Central Americans independence from Mexico and guarantees protection under 2 conditions: They recognize British control over the Moskito coast, and they select a King.

What do you think? I feel it could need some revision, but it is a rough idea.

I had some of my own ideas, but the idea of protection for exchange of a kingdom is a good idea.
 
So, I've been getting a little distracted recently, but I want you all to know that I haven't abandoned this project. I want to get back to work on fixing the second page of German Unification in the Platian textbook. I was also considering adding making a wikibox on the United Provinces of Cordoba and a write up on its founding as new tasks on the to do list. What do y'all think?
 
So, I've been getting a little distracted recently, but I want you all to know that I haven't abandoned this project. I want to get back to work on fixing the second page of German Unification in the Platian textbook. I was also considering adding making a wikibox on the United Provinces of Cordoba and a write up on its founding as new tasks on the to do list. What do y'all think?
I'm back from my vacations so I want to help with stuff
 
Just to give you folks an idea of what I've been working on, here are some WIP wikiboxes.

LMKALk4.png
UdeerFI.png

The first one is just going to be about the German Confederation and should be fairly similar to the one for IOTL with minor differences like the titles, name of the legislature, and currency. The second one is the "joint" (read Austrian) police force that was created soon after the confederation formed to combat liberalism (and, not so subtly, pro-Prussian nationalism). Basically, the idea is that there were a few incidents with liberals that the Austrians played up to get these states to agree to create a joint police force to operate across their borders, practically allowing the Austrian police to be active in some other countries. Some of these states also set up a unified court to try "revolutionary agitators and enemies of the state", which might also be getting its own wikibox.

Apologies for the bad German, and any input is welcome.


On another note:

Considering that the Dem-Reps and some successor of theirs are so much more powerful ITTL, the US is going to, at least initially, have a better relationship with France and a worse relationship with Britain and the south is going to, again, also at least initially, be quite a bit more powerful. So, how do you think that the relationship with France would affect history? I think we need to figure this out, as we don't want to get too far into the history before realizing we have to change a lot.

With the South, I think we just get a later and more gradual phasing out of slavery and potentially avoid the civil war, but end up with an even less industrially developed south than the US had IOTL. The greater decentralization also effects things like the removal of First Nations people (ie. what IOTL would have been the trail of tears). I believe someone made a map about this, and I think it's worth continuing to discuss as well.
 
This is the map about First Nations people I was talking about:
Apologies, also, for triple-posting, but here's a rough idea for treatment of Native Americans in the USA:
View attachment 484438
I did no research and went offa memory, so I expect people to challenge this and ammend it. Please do so!
The "other" is mostly in reference to boarding schools and other morally questionable that aren't technically genocide but not quite good either.

While I was looking for it, I came across some other interesting stuff:

There's this map about slavery, but I think that the decision on that at the time was that it was being looked into too early and is potentially distracting.

Alright, here's the map I was talking about!:
View attachment 488127

My thought process for some of these:

The territories in the west were mostly abolitionist, but it's based off of Date of Admission. The State of Sabine was a location of significant black migration, and as such achieved abolition soon after it achieved statehood. Louisiana was subject to a slave revolution in 1845, forcing the abolition of slavery in the years following. Florida was a massive stronghold of the Seminoles, and as such their system of slavery (in which Africans were autonomous feudal subjects to Seminole chiefs -- think vassals, not slaves) remained in effect for a fair amount of time -- even finding African supporters to keep it in power.

There was also some stuff on the cabinets of some of the first presidents, we might want to revisit that at some point.


And there's this nice little worlda patch for TTLs USA that I kind of want to threadmark.


Keep in mind, none of the stuff in this post is high priority or anything, just stuff I stumbled upon and found interesting.
 
So, to keep the thread alive while I very slowly try to get away from all of the little side projects I've been doing, I've got a few discussion points, mainly about Asia.

Japan, Korea, and the Pacific:

Since we said that the US, being more Dem-Rep than Federalist-leaning ITTL, is a bit less expansionist, and thus is unlikely to be the one opening Japan, and may be less involved in Hawaii (or more, given the lack of a British Pacific Coast, and the expanded American one) than IOTL. I'd expect Britain to open Japan a bit later than the US did IOTL.

India and the rest of the subcontinent:

British colonization is delayed by wars with Mysore. Colonial activity happens in between these wars, but is slower that IOTL. Expansion into modern Uttar Pradesh happens only in 1815 (during the ceasefire in the prolonged Napoleonic wars) as opposed to around 1804 as in IOTL, by some point soon after 1820 when the war ended, let's say 1823, all of that region is conquered. The British focus more on the Principalities just inland from Orissa, and end up a bit further ahead there than IOTL before the Napoleonic wars. The Gulf of Khambhat is significantly colonized much later as Mysorean naval and pirate/privateer I guess attacks make accessing the region harder for the British . Individual cities are controlled, but not a lot of inland territory. We might see more cities coming under British rule though. After Central India is conquered though, they will have an overland connection and expansion in the region should pick up speed. Basically, the Bombay Presidency ends up the most screwed out of all of them.

I’d say that by 1830 the British mostly fill in the gaps in central India, but still don't have the northwest and OTL Pakistan. Maybe after the 1830s (Ie. 1840s ish), they finally subdue Mysore, because, after all, without significant allies and with the rocket technology gap closing, it is going to happen eventually. I would guess that with the west coast being more problematic, the British would focus on expanding into the east, gaining a bit more land in coastal Burma by 1830, and later making northern Burma a protectorate. Given slower British expansion, I can see both the Afghans and the Russians expanding more into the region. I’d imagine the Afghans expanding a bit into India, and this in turn delaying British entry into Baluchistan and Central Asia, allowing the Russians to gobble up a few more small local states, like taking more of Badakhshan and maybe even Kashmir, though this is for later, once we have the rest of the world up to the 1830s figured out. I could also see slower British expansion meaning ever so slightly larger Portuguese land holdings around Goa. Not too much larger, but a smidge.

The Gurkha wars would either not happen or go differently, given the fact that a different king would be in charge (Rajendra Bikram Shah rather than Girvan Yuddha Bikram Shah). We might end up with an even longer Nepal or a shorter one. What do you guys think about this (assuming any of you are even still watching this thread).


Here's a SUPER ROUGH map of what I was thinking of, borders are definitely subject to change if someone with better knowledge of the region is willing to help. Especially Princely States and Afghanistan.

3yq9XeU.png

Other Topics:

The Second Opium War is something to think about, though IOTL, it starts a bit after the point that TTL is at rn.

The white Raj of Sarawak. I find it interesting as a historical concept, there's no reason for it not to, so it happens ITTL. The question is, how do TTLs events impact Sarawak.

The Chinese Kongsis on Borneo. Family/clan-run mining companies that hold sizable tracts of land in northwestern Borneo, south of Sarawak. I kind of want to do something with them but I'm not sure.

US of A:

Moving away from Asia for a moment, the USs increased anti-British and Pro-French leaning after TTLs revolutionary war was just kind of brought up, but its effects never discussed. There are two things that come to mind. First of all, the "pseudo war" after the French revolution. I see the Dem-Rep governemnt being more supportive of the French Revolution, and it either not happening or being even less pronounced. There's also the Haitian revolution. While I still think that the Haitians will eventually win, what would a more pro-French but less expansionist US do here? Would they send more aid to the French? Troops? Blockade Haiti? Impose even worse sanctions? Or maybe just do nothing differently from OTL? I'd imagine Newfoundland would be quite poor to begin with, being reliant on the US and Britain, but the US likely restricting trade with it, Newfoundland would have to import almost everything from Britain, which would be a pain in the ass and ramp up prices.
 
Last edited:
Love the map of India!
As for American foreign policy and interventionism, it seems to me that the USA would support France, but not get directly involved in any wars.
Also, are we basically saying that the Democratic-Republicans are the only political party in America until the *Civil war? Or do we eventually see the splitting of the party into the Democrats and the Whigs like OTL? Do the Federalists persist, or eventually just disappear? All this might contribute to Bennett's idea for New England to secede in the civil war
 
Love the map of India!

Thanks. :)

As for American foreign policy and interventionism, it seems to me that the USA would support France, but not get directly involved in any wars.
Also, are we basically saying that the Democratic-Republicans are the only political party in America until the *Civil war? Or do we eventually see the splitting of the party into the Democrats and the Whigs like OTL? Do the Federalists persist, or eventually just disappear? All this might contribute to Bennett's idea for New England to secede in the civil war

I would say that the Federalists survive, they're just a smaller party confined mainly to the "deep north", that is New England. They either continue to exist and evolve into a more anti-Catholic Know Nothing-esque party or a party like that splits off from them. This distatste for Catholics evolves out of two things: 1) the existing anti-Catholic sentiment in New England where the party elite and support base are 2) the idea that Catholic groups, like the French and Spanish, being given language and cultural preservation rights erodes America's national unity and is a threat to the centralized, united country that the Federalists want.

The Dem Reps are pretty likely to split up IMO. The Federalists and Democratic Republicans are already both fairly broad parties in terms of ideas, and lack cohesion. The shrinking of the Federalists preserves their unity, but I think that, at the very least, the Dem-Reps are going to split into factions, however, I doubt that the Whigs will exist as we know them (they are named as successors in the Dem-Rep wikibox though). IOTL, the Whigs were formed essentially to oppose Andrew Jackson's centralization policies and borrowed heavily from Hamilton's Federalist ideas, like a federal bank. The Whigs and Democrats had pretty similar views other than Slavery, Andrew Jackson, and a Federal Bank, both were anti-centralization and pro-agrarian. The Democrats seemed to have had a slight lean towards the working class (artisans and farmers). I could see maybe a split between a pro-Southern, pro-slavery faction and a faction with more of a focus on minority rights for the Quebecois, leftover Acadians, and later Hispanic Americans and Cajuns/Louisiana and Arkansas Francophones.

This is just my take though, and I'd be interested to hear what you, @Bennett or anyone else have to say, because, as always, I'm worried that my knowledge is all wrong.
 
Top