The Eagle's Nest, An Alternate 1812 French Invasion Of Russia TL
- Thread starter Kronistry
- Start date
I see You read in Bernadotte's mind😉
Only Time can tell us this...
There will surely be no blue top and Red trousers uniforms as it would be irrevelant here with the Napoleonic regime and the Empire. However, there's still a possibility of seeing this in the future. For the moment, there will only be gradual changes, with less "superficial" features to favor a more practical side of it, but the red, the blue and the white will stay on the uniforms, even if will not be as flashy as in the late 19th century. The white and the dark blue colors (with a little bit of Red) will stay predominant, just like during the Napoleonic Wars, for quite some time I think, at least until the 1840's.
Last edited:
TBH, I don't think so. In 1850, Paris population was of 1 million, when for London it was more than twice this number, with 2,4 million. However, the French Empire will be more decentralized in terms of cities and industrial hub: cities like Mainz, Cologne, Lyon, Marseilles, Lille, Bruxelles, Nantes and Bordeaux or areas like Belgium, the Rhineland and Northern France (as well as Great maritime regions) will be far more populated, together, than the whole of England. I'll have to show how the population evolve in some countries, areas and cities in the future.
ITTL what do uchronies/alternate histories about Napoleon's defeat or a failure of the French Revolution look like, or even the one called "Napoleon and the Conquest of the World"?
Something like Napoleon doesn't invade Russia or just crushes the Russians by marching to Moscow or St. Petersburg and then goes on to conquer the entire world?
from what i remember of the book not everything was linked to russia, there was the invasion of great britain the reorganisation of europe as well as the invasion of asia, like alexander the great and the pro-french revolution in america
But wasn't the first step winning in Russia?
And after winning in Russia Napoleon pacifies Spain and conquers England. And eventually the entire world.
I think such uchronies wouldn't be written before quite some time ITTL. Imagining Napoleon's victory is way much better in terms of fictional work than seeing him lose, especially since he had a become a central figure among the Romantic and Liberal movements, both artistically and ideologically, which isn't the case in this alternate reality.
However, I can imagine maybe Russian authors writing alternate histories where Napoleon did win against Russia, perhaps in a kind of anti-French / anti Revolutionnary ideas propaganda. Alternate histories where the French Revolution failed would appear much later, maybe not before the 20th Century, as IOTL it wasn't and it's still not a very popular subject of uchronia, and it would be the same ITTL.
As for let's say very optimistic versions of what happened ITTL (where Napoleon and his Empire kept their hegemony over the whole of Europe just like before 1812), such books and stories could become a literary trend later the 19th Century in France. Bonapartists nostalgic of the "Good Old days" between the Treaty of Tilsit and the Two Russian Campaigns or simply pre-sci-fi authors could write about such scenarios, but it wouldn't be realistic at all and most of the time, it would be really laudatory to Napoleon I. However, they could have the support of the governement if the Empire is still in power in France at this time.
We could even go further and imagine the ramification of this potential literary trend, which could bring a new genre: what we would call "Fantasy". Indeed, IOTL Fantsay was "invented" or at least coined in the UK in the late 19th Century / at the beginning of the 20th Century by authors such as George MacDonald, William Morris, and of course in the interwar period, by J.R.R Tolkien and C.S Lewis. These people were known for their nostalgia of the Middle Ages. In France, writers such as Jules Verne or Guy De Maupassant could be the first authors of this alternate "Fantasy". Here, the focus would be made on "Steampunk"-ish, revolutionnary, and modern features, and not on medieval and ancient ones. So yeah, ITTL, Sci-Fi and Fantasy genres could be completely altered up to the point of having significantly different defenitions. At least, it's a possibility.
Oh and to answer your original question, I don't think "Napoleon and the Conquest of the World" would be written at all ITTL. Such books could exist, but as I said, they would have been published later than in the 1830's and with different authors and aims.
AFAIK, the POD of this book is the Grande Armee winning against the Russians in 1812-1813, as here Moscow has not burned. However, this book isn't realistic at all, and it wasn't aiming at plausibility. It was just an imaginary and very much laudatory story, a kind of a tribute to Napoleon.
I think that ITTL Fantasy could integrate elements of steampunk, like "modern" industrial technologies and "modern" ideas of the French Revolution. So basically Fantasy would be inspired by a "glorious" time in the History of France, that is to say the Revolution and the years from 1799 and 1812, when Napoleon rose to power and crushed his enemies. More broadly, the alternate Fantasy could be divided between the "French" branch, where the focus is on this era, and the "British" one, where the focus is on the Middle Ages, with inspiration coming from the Romantic movement and their idealization of the pre-industrial and pre-modern world. So, to sum this up the French Frantasy would be more "progressive" and connected to more recent times and to the Industrial world (so basically, a thing very much close to steampunk and even Sci-Fi, but with magical stuff), while the British Fantasy would be more "reactionnary" and attached to the Middle Ages (Tolkien's Fantasy if you prefer).
I think that Jules Verne could have the potential of being a Tolkien-like figure for the French. The style would be very much different though: instead of having long, lyrical and "romantic" books, you'd have shorter, more "understandable" and more steampunk novels and short stories. The two men didn't live at the same period (Verne was born in 1828 whereas Tolkien was born in 1892). Another thing, there would be far less Christian and religious symbolics and features within Verne's works.
As for classis Fantasy races, they wouldn't exist in France, as dwarfs and elves and so on come from Anglo-saxon and Germanic legends. In France, you'd have local creatures, like the beast of Gevaudan, the Tarasque, Werewolves and farfadets (a different type of traditonal elves). Celtic monsters from Britanny could also be integrated, like the Ankou or even German creatures, like the Rhinemaidens. However mutual inspiration between French and British is still very much likely, if not outright certain. So there would be a mix between these two cultures and folklores.
Thanks for the luck!!
Highly questionable. The genre of alt-history was practically non-existent in the Russian/Soviet literature prior to 1990s. And a book on Napoleonic victory would be definitely unpopular if it would be published, which is extremely improbable: censorship would not allow this to happen.
In its popular Anglophonic form, yes. But the literary works based upon folklore (magic, non-human creatures, talking animals, etc.) did exist much earlier, especially in poetry.
Interesting choice but based on what? Balzac in his LES CONTES DROLATIQUES (?) at least “got medieval” but Jules Verne was “electricity freak” and Maupassant, AFAIK, did not write anything not just medieval but even really “historical”. Well, Dumas father could probably go into this genre if he saw any marketing potential in it.
Of course.
Judging by the posted quote, the author had a blissful ignorance regarding the quoted subject. The excuse is a general garbage written in XIX century on it. This, unfortunately, applies to some “eyewitnesses” who went through the experience and then wrote grossly exaggerated reports of their experience.
I know, but ITTL Russia of the late 19th century will be quite different from that of OTL. But I still agree with you, that's why I said "maybe". It was just an idea I had. And if it was a propagandist book to show a "dystopian" world where Napoleon did win agaisnt the Tsar, would it still be censored?
I agree, but AFAIK these previous works were coined as "fantastic" and not as modern "Fantasy". I find it questionable TBH, but that's how it is classified most of the time. The argument used is that most of these poems and tales did happen in our reality with many elements of our real world, whereas, from a certain point of view, Fantasy stories are much more distant form our reality. However, to me the King Arthur legend is really apart from our world whereas the Chronicles of Narnia do happen in our reality at some points.
Yeah, that's my point. In France the Middle Ages weren't such a source of inspiration. So if a thing close to Fantasy was to appear in this country in the 19th Century, then most of the authors would have taken recent and "glorious" historical events (such as the Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars) as example and sources of inspiration IMO. At this point, it wouldn't have been "fantasy" as we know it IOTL, but there would still have been a heavy presence of magical things and events and a distant background, distant from our world. We could even say that Steampunk, Sci-Fi and Fantasy could stay a unified literary genre ITTL. As you said, Verne was very much an "electricity freak".
Translated version of a quote from the Wiki: "The narrator states on many occasions that he is writing an authentic story. Many documents, official newspapers, public statements, are also reproduced and create an effect of reality. The story is fictional but it subverts the codes of the historical genre, there is a constant play with plausibility."
Yeah, it sounds as a... mockery, to say the least. I don't even know why this passage was written TBH, it's obvious that the author was writing a completely implausible story. But to me this book doesn't need to be blamed, as it was just a silly fiction, at least it's only my opinion.
Oh yes. The whole idea of such a possibility would be calling for the reaction along the lines “A moron or a scumbag? Find out” (OTL comment of NI on some well intended act, which he considered outrageous but which was definitely much less offensive than what you are proposing 😉). The Fire of Moscow was a permitted subject within general victorious feamework.
Speaking of which, a strategic importance of the Fire was grossly exaggerated by the French (and the Brits who picked all types of crap from them). With a big part of the wooden buildings being burned (black on a map), there were still plenty of the surviving dwellings within the city and definitely even more so in the close proximity. In OTL Murat’s cavalry was placed at least 15 km outside Moscow and there was absolutely no reason (except for participation in the looting) not to place at least part of other troops in the numerous villages, estates and small towns immediately outside Moscow.
As far as the supplies were involved, there was seemingly no serious shortage of them in Moscow even after the fire and, by the contemporary Russian accounts, if the French were ready to pay local peasants for food in gold, they’d have no supply issues throughout winter. Plus, there were considerable magazines in Smolensk.
But, as Clausewitz wrote, staying in Moscow with 90,000 did not make any practical sense in the terms of forcing AI to agree to peace: the number was too low to be scary enough.
Well, in Russia terminology was different and, for example “fantasy” poems of Zhukovsky, Pushkin and Yershov considered just a poetry. The fantastic books by “Baron Brambeus” (Osip Senkvsky) would belong to the different genre and the only “Fantasy” (Фантазия) was a play by Kozma Prutkov, which was much more entertaining (IMO) than Tolkien’s endless drivel and, while involving a quest, did not involve any magic. 😂
I can assure you that none of the relevant Pushkin’s poems was taking place in an ongoing reality: to the best of my knowledge the flying sorcerers, magic swords, the talking heads separated from the body (unlike the conventional talking heads), the hats of invisibility, talking magic fish, witches, enchanted princesses, and the demons were not routinely found in Russia. Ditto for the talking wolves, and the strange talking creatures looking like a hybrid of a pony, a donkey and a bactrian camel with the levitation abilities.
The question is when something stops being a fairy tale and starts being a fantasy. When it becomes unbearably long?
Well, IIRC, WC declared that if Arthur even did not really exist, it had to exist as something important for a national spirit. So why don’t you consider it a “historic novel”? 😂
At which time?
Not necessarily. The best known French historical novels written in the XIX, ‘Three Musketeers’, ‘Queen Margot’, and ‘Notre-Dame de Paris’, are about much earlier times and so are other less popular books spanning period Francis I - Louis XIV.
Well, blaming a pretty much unknown book hardly makes too much sense because it did not have a big impact upon the historic and social perceptions. OTOH, I’m not too fond of the idea of evil races appearing in some popular fantasy books.
Mmh, I'm glad not to have to write on the fire of Moscow as You just contradicted all the research I've made on this subject. Even modern and recognized historians (most of them being French, but still very much not into the "Roman National") said that the fire actually did burn down the majority of shelters that could have been used during the winter. And also, spreading the whole army outside Moscow wouldn't have been too dangerous when cossacks and Russian light cavalry were continuously harrasing the Grande Armée ? And did the countryside had the ressources and the peasants the will to feed 90 000 soldiers (taking into account that a soldier usually eats as much as about two people each day on average)?
Again, I think Smolensk was too distant from Moscow to relieve the GA, even more with the Russian cavalry harrasing the supply lines (even if winter could have reduced their efficiency). I'm still dubious on how peasants could have fed 90,000 soldiers almost on their own, when winter should have surely hit them hard too.
Of course, I wasn't talking of Russian literature, but these pieces of information could really be useful for my TL. I had heard of these poemes but there were Always described as tales, and not as fantasy. BTW, I'm now wondering at how we should describe Wagner's Works: it does happen on earth as the Rhine and certain regions are most of the time present in his operas, however the background is very much different from our reality, with creatures, Epic fights and magic without it being considered strange. To me, it really looks like modern-day fantasy, less the Nationalist symbolic of course. However, I'll disagree with you on Tolkien's Works: even if I don't especially like Fantasy, to me LOTR is a literary classic and one of my favorite Books (three of my favorite Books I should Say instead).
Weren't there also references to the pre-christian slavic mythology? I Can remember a collection of stories and tales from this period where certain gods were common characters. Especially Jupiter and Neptune-likes divinities, with a story Happening in a kind of local Russian Atlantide myth under the Volga IIRC. I also know that Romantic painters were fond of such "fantastic" subjects, in Russia, in France and in Germany. However, I don't think a fantasy trend really existed in France during this period. Even a writer like Prosper Mérimée wrote short stories about sudden irruptions of Magic and horror within normal life, but it did happen in our World. Maybe I'm not knowledgeable enough on the literature of these years.
To me the borders between these two genres are really thin. AFAIK, tales are most of the time recollection of oral traditional stories whereas Fantasy stories were written independently without a unique source inspiration.
Living in Brittany, I also know that Arthur is also useful as far as tourism and marketing are concerned😉
For the same matter, I would also consider making of Nessie and the Big Foot subjects of research for young biologists!!
In the 1800's, apart from Hugo's Notre Dame Of Paris and some short stories from Balzac. The thing is that it wasn't a Big trend.
Notre Dame De Paris takes place in the 1480's, so technically still in the MA. However, we're talking of magical and fantastic things here, and Dumas' or even Rostand's Books and plays weren't part of the fantastic or fantasy genres. It was "historical" as You said. To me, Verne, Maupassant (who did write many gothic and fantastic short stories, with "La Horla" for example) would be more fitting candidates. Balzac and maybe Hugo would be too, as well as Lamartine maybe.
To me it's just an easy (lazy?) way of creating ennemies, but it is efficient too. Christian influence was very much important in Fantasy (Both Tolkien and Lewis were very pious for example), so these evil races might just be like demons, and the Big Bad Guy is most of the time a representation of the devil. But it's true that nuance and complexity are really not caracteristics of this genre, and that's why many dislike it.
Yes, it did, as can be seen on a map. What I’m saying is that there was still plenty left.
There was no need to spread the whole army and definitely no need to do so far away from Moscow. The city was ”evolving” into the numerous villages and estates which were within two-three hours of a leisure walk from Kremlin and became a part of Moscow only in the XX century or even after WWII.
These peasants had been routinely feeding a much greater population of Moscow. As I said, opinion of the Russian participant of the event was that, if paid in meaningful money, the peasants and even nobles would oblige. The story about the suicidal patriotism is a later invention and there was enough of cooperation in the rear. The main “activities” were against small disorderly groups of the looters on the way back.
It seems to me that after taking Moscow Napoleon was pretty much passive administratively allowing discipline to disappear and doing little in the terms of supply organization or any organization whatsoever. The soldiers had been routinely making cooking fires inside the buildings with the predictable results and on the way back, which was quite disorganized from the very beginning, the baggage train had been overloaded with the loot, not supplies.
BTW, the food was routinely stored in the cellars well protected against the fires, which were a commonplace.
Don’t overpay the Cossacks: most of these stories were a product of the memoirists quite understandable fear. The partisan detachments were not big enough to make a serious impact as long as the French were in a good order. As for the communications, even those with Paris were not interrupted. Of course, there would be difficulties but attack of a light cavalry upon a strong convoy would have a good chance to end up as a costly failure.
Yes, because the Anglophonic terminology did not settle in the Russian language until quite recently.
The ‘Song of the Nibelungs’ is medieval (XIII century) and the Scandinavian source is even older so Wagner’s operas did not introduce anything new except music. Of course, the source is vaguely connected to the historic background, destruction of the Burgundian kingdom by the Huns so it is not quite a fantasy. But does “fantasy” have to happen outside planet Earth?
See above. By the time the epics was created there was no German nationalism. 😉
Well, “De gustibus non est disputandum”. I managed to get only through few pages and found it boring but this is my personal taste.
Some of the minor personages of this mythology survived in the Russian literature all the way to the modern times.
You are definitely better familiar with the subject than I do because I can’t recall anything of the kind.
I can recall something of the kind in “Lokis”, “Venus of Ille”, and few vampire stories in “Guzla” but where else? OTOH, with not all of his works being translated to Russian, I can’t claim a complete knowledge.
I completely missed those.
Last edited:
Mmmh, interesting, as some showed the same map you used to say how much shelters were destroyed and how the GA was trapped as winter was approaching. However I won't go further on this subject as this is no more the subject of this TL, but I find it interesting that two completely opposed interpretations can exist about the description of a same map.
So the logistical situation of the GA wasn't that bad in Moscow? There's maybe proof of that as the umber of soldiers ddin't plummet during the occupation of this city, even if it lasted a month. It went from around 95-100 thousand men, to about 90,000. In comparison, the GA is thought to have lost nearly 100,000 men in the first month of the Campaign, most by desertion AFAIK.
The thing about Napoleon being indulgent is an argument almost universally used by historians AFAIK. Murat and Ney were too, I would add, as many horses did die during the occupation of the city and there was a lack of winter clothing. If you're right about the relative fluidity of the coming supplies, then it shows that the lack of discipline was even worse than I thought, as the retreat was a complete disaste of course.
It's true that Napoleon was still able to write his propagandist articles for the "Moniteur Universel", at least until October 1812, so it tends to show that the communications weren't as bad as often imagined. However, it did become worse in October, but I don't know if it is because of the disastrous retreat or because of the rise in power of the cossack attacks.
I know, and it shows that the limits between Fantasy and fantastic tales are really thin. As for the definition of fantasy, I think it is about bringing the readers into a very different and strange world, where magic and monsters are normal and common. AFAIK, in these old tales the reality presented is one where magic and so on is common, so IMO it could be counted as Fantasy. However, maybe it is considered too old to fit into this genre. After all I'm far from being an expert, so I'm not sure.
If you read Wagner's letters, you'll see that he connected his works to the German Nationalism of his time. But of course, you're right to say that the original tales weren't nationalist propaganda
Of course!
Yeah, the Baba Yaga figure was even used recently in a very famous movie, even if it had no connection to the original creature. As for modern Russian literature, I don't know but I believe you.
After some research, I think I found the original legend: this mythical city is called Kitezh and is thought to have been built under the Lake Svetloyar by Georgy II of Valdimir:
Here is the Wiki link .
I think that in both these stories the magical elements are added in our "normal" world, so it sounds more "fantastic" to me. Maybe the Mask of the Red Death By Edgar Allan Poe would be a better example, as the whole reality presented to us in this short story is magical and strange.
That's logical I think, as Maupassant is not very famous outside of France, where his works are studied in High School.
The Eagle's Nest - Chapter XV
CHAPTER XV:
Extract from the Memoirs of the Spanish statesman Evaristo Perez de Castro, published in 1850:
“My role as a diplomat had required me, after the liberation of our country with the help of our British allies, to deal with one of the most important issues, which was already of great concern to the Cortes of Cadiz when the fighting was still taking place on our soil. Across the Atlantic laid the greatest wealth of Spain for centuries: its Empire, and more importantly, our brothers of the Hispanidad community [1]. While the homeland alone had only about ten million inhabitants, with our brothers overseas this number rose to more than 60 million. Without America, our nation would have lost the vast majority of its people. We could not let this happen. That is why, as early as the autumn of 1815, both our recently liberated King Ferdinand VII and the assembly of the Cortes ordered our diplomats to do everything possible to calm the situation in the Western Hemisphere. Indeed, since the treachery of the French in 1808, when Napoleon and his army had attacked our nation, then taken by surprise, our brothers in the Americas had rightly decided to rise up against the agents of the usurper Joseph Bonaparte. Overseas, thanks to these good deeds, the Afrancesados were driven out and Juntas were set up to fill the power vacuum and administer the territories in the name of our legitimate king and with the agreement of the viceroys of the different lands of the continent.
This situation lasted until 1812. That year, the assembly of the Cortes, meeting in Cadiz, adopted a constitution for our nation. It declared new rights, such as freedom of speech, of the press and of property, as well as a separation of powers between the Cortes, representing the legislative body, and the sovereign and his government, representing the executive. Voting also became a right and a duty for all adult and reasonable men over the age of 25 [2]. Finally, the Catholic Church, so dear to our hearts and those of all Spaniards, was recognized as the only official religion, although members of other faiths could still practice their religion with tolerance of course. I apologize for describing a text that for the majority of you, my readers, is well known, but honesty and love of truth push me to do so, because this text was, surprisingly, going to be a source of tension among our brothers overseas. Indeed, article 18 of our constitution openly declared: “Citizens are those Spaniards who, on both sides, have their origin in the Spanish dominions of both hemispheres, and are resident in any town in the same dominions”. Thus, whether we lived in Madrid, Mexico or Buenos Aires, we were Spanish as we were all part of Hispanidad. But, unfortunately, some inhabitants of the territories of America had another point of view. According to them, articles 21 and 28 of our constitution gave too many rights to the natives. In fact, the representatives of the nation in Cadiz had decided to accept with open arms the values well taught by Jesus Christ: tolerance of the other [3]. But some criollos [4], descendants of European Spanish who had settled across the Atlantic decades or even centuries ago, had ended up taking pride in their status and their misplaced feeling of superiority over the natives of these territories, although these latter had converted to the true faith and had learned our customs and language [5]. Others, even more radical, went so far as to deny their ties with their homeland to call for independence. These creators of nations without any sense and without any legitimacy justified their dangerous ideas by the desire to trade with nations other than their own. Thus, they privileged the love of money over the love of their fellow citizens and of Hispanidad [6].
The return of our King in the summer of 1815, and his immediate acceptance to sign and recognize the Constitution of 1812, further angered these troublemakers in America. It became clear that some of the so-called defenders of our sovereign Ferdinand VII were nothing but profiteers and traitors to the nation. But not wanting to start a civil war after a victorious war of liberation, the Cortes and the King decided to negotiate. It was at this moment that I entered the scene, at first to play a minor part, in this immense history that is that of our country. The sovereign appointed me as Minister of Foreign Relations, with the main aim of reaching a compromise with our fellow citizens overseas. While the war was still raging in the Pyrenees against the French who were this time on the defensive, I had to act with caution. First of all, our King and I had to secure the support of our British allies. Unsurprisingly, London reassured us and asked us in compensation for some benign guarantees compared to the help they had provided us in our struggle for freedom. We had no problem guaranteeing them certain commercial privileges both in America and Europe, as one thanks a friend who has always been faithful to him [7]. Once this was done, we could move on to the main task that awaited us: negotiating. First of all, we quickly understood that some territories in America were more prone to revolt than others.
The central part of New Spain as well as the viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata were thus particularly belligerent and insolent. On the contrary, the viceroyalty of Peru was the most peaceful, while that of New Granada was divided between federalist and centralist independentists and those respectful of the link that united them to Hispanidad. While the talks were beginning in earnest and our diplomats were doing their utmost to calm the situation, my British counterpart, Lord Castlereagh, contacted me with an interesting proposal: to guarantee the Criollo inhabitants of America greater freedom of trade. The idea would be to divide the commercial rights of these lands into three parts: first that with the homeland, the most essential, then that with our British ally, the main maritime power and the country that for years had defended our interests, and finally the other States, neutral or friendly, which for the moment excluded France and its allies of course. With this welcomed proposal, a new question was raised in Madrid. Should we favor a centralizing or federalist administrative and political system? On this point, many of my moderate friends attached to the constitution of 1812 were perhaps too narrow-minded [8]. Indeed, among the Cortes a large part wanted to preserve the unity of the nation by centralizing the territories, whether they were in Europe or in America. The debate was officially opened in the Assembly during the summer of 1816, and the least we can say is that it was complicated and long.
The centralist party was mainly composed of colleagues more than anything attached to our founding text of 1812 and its values of freedom and national sovereignty, while the federalist party was more heterogeneous, with in particular pragmatic liberals, like me, who shared the political views of our adversaries, but who wanted above all to preserve Hispanidad by finding a compromise with our brothers overseas. There were also more conservative elements, attached to the universality of Spain and who could not accept that America be left to its bandits and traitors. Finally, the merchants and all those who privileged the wealth of our people and our country, of course chose our vision of things, because it was the most likely to ensure the prosperity of everyone. Our King Ferdinand VII seemed more nuanced on this issue than anyone else. His Majesty was very attached to both our overseas territories and the unity of Spain, so he tried to reconcile these two objectives. Despite his good will, his unique position created some tensions with the Cortes. Moreover, his Majesty was sometimes perhaps a little too enthusiastic and some of his remarks could be misinterpreted [9]. Either his detractors suffered from the same fault as our sovereign, abusing their enthusiasm and their willingness to defend their ideas at all costs, or they were simply poor creators of controversy.
As the discussions became heated, I did everything I could, on my relatively small scale, to convince my colleagues, gentlemen of the Cortes and even his majesty, not to be too divided while France was still threatening from beyond the Pyrenees. My actions, as well as those of my moderate friends, helped to bring the country and parliament out of the turmoil into which it had sunk. We also received the support of our British allies, whose diplomats did their utmost to pacify the discussions and reassure the fiercest centralists. In December 1816, the assembly of the Cortes managed to find an agreement and a law was drafted: it was to guarantee the establishment of a more federal system in Europe and America, even if it meant slightly amending the constitution. Finally, this text was voted by a relatively small majority, and our good king contented himself with giving a few pieces of advice and a few criticisms before finally accepting this law. Now we had reassured our fellow American brothers with our new, more tolerant trade policy and with our decentralization that guaranteed them greater autonomy. All that remained was to reach an honorable agreement with the overseas territories.
First, we had to ensure that the most radical and belligerent elements among the rebels in America were eliminated. In 1817, the help of our British allies was essential to crush these enemies. The Royal Navy threatened the insurgents of Buenos Aires. These latter refused to fall into line and were thus bombarded by a squadron. Unlike during the sieges of 1806 and 1807, the capital of the Rio de la Plata was forced to negotiate. The bourgeois of the city were quick to accept our generous proposals as well as a very important promise of autonomy. This event marked the beginning of the pacification of this region. Peace with France at the end of the year allowed us to commit ourselves fully. Once a series of guarantees had been made to the inhabitants of New Spain, we were able to reoccupy this viceroyalty with the support of the peninsulares, the Spaniards from the homeland who had recently settled in the region, and the natives. After several defeats, the insurgent criollos finally surrendered and only a few movements continued to fight in the arid countryside with no chance of winning the war they themselves had started. Our troops then landed in New Granada where the independentists were defeated, not without difficulty because of their fanaticism, with the essential help of the ships and several British legions. Their main leader, Simon Bolivar, was killed in combat while his movement degraded into a light guerrilla war that would continue for a few years before being definitively crushed [10]. Finally, after a final campaign to liberate the Viceroyalty of Peru, the entirety of Spanish America was attached back to its homeland. In 1820, a new reorganization of these territories was ratified in Buenos Aires. The former colonies became kingdoms, each with a large degree of autonomy, in accordance with the wishes of most of the inhabitants. Thus, the Kingdom of Mexico, Colombia, Peru and La Plata were officially created, each with a capital: Mexico City, Santa Fe de Bogotá, Lima and Buenos Aires.
Our King Ferdinand thus became the ruler of each of these new kingdoms. Each of them was divided into small provinces that provided a very large degree of autonomy to the locals and small municipalities [11]. At the same time, each of these territories elected their own local parliament, according to the same measures as those provided for in our constitution. governments, reporting to the king, were also formed to administer the population locally. Finally, we were quite clear on the role of each of the powers. The Kingdoms in America as well as the European part of Spain were to present the same international policy and to preserve strong economic ties, but as far as the rest of the policies were concerned, each region governed itself. The old Empire, which, we recognize, could have had oppressive characteristics, had become the Confederation of Hispanidad. Every kingdom, province and city forming it was both free and united under the same banner, that of our glorious nation and culture, and that of our great ancestors, from Christopher Columbus to Philip II and the powerful Bourbon dynasty, saviors of the homeland and best friends of the people. The Treaty of Seville of October 12, 1822, for the 330th anniversary of the discovery of the New World by our explorers, confirmed all our efforts and rejoiced our hearts. The Hispanidad community was more united and stronger than ever.
For our Portuguese neighbors, the situation happened in much the same way. While Brazil had been officially elevated to the rank of kingdom in 1815 and Rio de Janeiro had been unofficially the capital of the Portuguese Empire until 1821, the return of King John VI to Lisbon that same year upset the status quo. In 1822, on the wise recommendation of London, the Portuguese government agreed to create the Confederation of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves. By this agreement, Brazil became a monarchy whose new king, Pedro I, was the son of the Portuguese king John VI. At the same time, a peaceful revolution led to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, and a constitution inspired by ours was adopted the same year. These very interesting and encouraging developments allowed the alliance between Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom to prosper and consolidate itself while in Western Europe Napoleon still reigned supreme. Now that my task as diplomat and Minister of Foreign Affairs had been successfully accomplished, our king granted me his confidence in 1823 and appointed me as Prime Minister. As I prepared to give a lot of myself to the Spanish people, I could see that the time when the country was ravaged by war and the struggle for independence had passed. The countryside and the cities seemed to radiate a new energy once more. As I contemplated such a sight, I could only be confident. Now that this brief summary covering the years 1815-1823 has been made, I shall at last be able to do what any work of this type prescribes: share my thoughts, my actions and my life.”
Evaristo Pérez de Castro (1769-1849)
As you can see, I have decided to present this chapter as an extract of the memoirs of a Spanish politician of this period, that is to say Evaristo Perez de Castro. As the text you’ve just read is obviously biased (and it was made on purpose of course), I will have to precise or correct certain things to give a better picture of what really happened ITTL in Spain and in its colonies between 1815 and 1823.
[1] IOTL, the word Hispanidad (which means Spanishness or hispanicity) wasn’t invented until the beginning of the 20th Century by Spanish-speaking artists. ITTL, the political context and the different events occurring in Spain and in Spanish America make that such a word is invented way sooner.
[2] In reality, to vote you had to be a male, to be at least 25 and be rich enough to pay a specific tax which allowed you to be considered a “reasonable” man as he said, that is to say someone with enough education and money to be considered an active citizen.
[3] Even if it is obviously ironic knowing what the Spanish did to the Natives for centuries, it is a reality that at the beginning of the 19th Century peninsular and mainlander liberals were for granting more rights to this part of the colonial population.
[4] “Criollos” means creole, that is to say European people, in that case Spanish, who were born in the colonies. Most of the time, these people never went to Europe and their last link with the Old World might just be very old relatives or even long dead ancestors. Most of them are thus opposed to both the recently arrived Spanish, but also to the Natives, as they are economically and socially superior to them in most cases and as such are considered “inferiors”. That’s why they are ready to revolt when they learn that in Europe the Cortes granted new rights to them without even asking their opinion.
[5] In terms of religion, this is mostly true. The majority of the Natives had converted to Catholicism, or at least a syncretic version of it. But in terms of languages and culture, the Natives were much more traditional and for example the Inca and Nahuatl languages were very much alive respectively in the Viceroyalties of Peru and New Spain.
[6] Liberty of commerce is the other main reason why the Spanish colonies were ready to revolt and seek independence. The Bourbon Kings from Europe had begun since the beginning of the 18th Century to impose harsh restrictions for both creole and foreign merchants. Spain was the only real country the colonies could export their goods and resources to. The main problem is that Spain wasn’t rich and big enough to be a sufficient market.
[7] This means that British merchants are now fully integrated into the Spanish colonies market. This also means that now both Madrid and London have good reasons to prevent any big changes in Central and South America as it would hamper economic exchanges and profits while the British economy is industrializing at a high pace and producing more goods than they can sell if the whole of Western Europe isn’t open to their traders.
[8] Most of the Spanish liberals were indeed in favor of more centralization, as part of the French Revolutionary ideals. IOTL, Ferdinand VII rejecting the 1812 Constitution actually reassured the Mexican rebels for example, and the revolts calmed down in this part of the Empire until 1820, when a revolution broke out in Europe and forced the King to accept the constitution and its liberal measures.
[9] In fact, it means that the King Ferdinand VII who, ITTL, accepted the 1812 constitution reluctantly as he was scared of the French and pressed by the British, is now angered by the Cortes being on the verge of even more reducing his power as the current debate was whether or not a federal system should be accepted or not regarding the American colonies. However, no matter how annoyed he is, he’s now trapped between the Spanish liberals, who firmly hold power since 1815, and the British, who would support the Liberals no matter what as they think that absolutism would only lead to revolts and the weakening of the country when the war with France was still going on. So Ferdinand VII is forced, once again reluctantly, to back up and stay the now limited monarch he is.
[10] The death of such an important leader greatly weakened the rebels, and helped the Spanish to win. However, his “heroic” death, during combat, would surely also have unexpected consequences for the separatist movements later in the 19th Century.
[11] IOTL, giving more autonomy to the municipalities and local provinces was actually a strategy that was proposed by some Spanish politicians when the Peninsular war was still going on. The idea was to weaken the different more or less independent Juntas in the American colonies by dividing them in small districts. It would be like creating a confederation made up of confederations. ITTL, this policy was put in place with the same intentions.
As the map of the former Spanish Empire, now the Confederation of Hispanidad, was redrawn, I will surely publish a map of this new entity soon.
Extract from the Memoirs of the Spanish statesman Evaristo Perez de Castro, published in 1850:
“My role as a diplomat had required me, after the liberation of our country with the help of our British allies, to deal with one of the most important issues, which was already of great concern to the Cortes of Cadiz when the fighting was still taking place on our soil. Across the Atlantic laid the greatest wealth of Spain for centuries: its Empire, and more importantly, our brothers of the Hispanidad community [1]. While the homeland alone had only about ten million inhabitants, with our brothers overseas this number rose to more than 60 million. Without America, our nation would have lost the vast majority of its people. We could not let this happen. That is why, as early as the autumn of 1815, both our recently liberated King Ferdinand VII and the assembly of the Cortes ordered our diplomats to do everything possible to calm the situation in the Western Hemisphere. Indeed, since the treachery of the French in 1808, when Napoleon and his army had attacked our nation, then taken by surprise, our brothers in the Americas had rightly decided to rise up against the agents of the usurper Joseph Bonaparte. Overseas, thanks to these good deeds, the Afrancesados were driven out and Juntas were set up to fill the power vacuum and administer the territories in the name of our legitimate king and with the agreement of the viceroys of the different lands of the continent.
This situation lasted until 1812. That year, the assembly of the Cortes, meeting in Cadiz, adopted a constitution for our nation. It declared new rights, such as freedom of speech, of the press and of property, as well as a separation of powers between the Cortes, representing the legislative body, and the sovereign and his government, representing the executive. Voting also became a right and a duty for all adult and reasonable men over the age of 25 [2]. Finally, the Catholic Church, so dear to our hearts and those of all Spaniards, was recognized as the only official religion, although members of other faiths could still practice their religion with tolerance of course. I apologize for describing a text that for the majority of you, my readers, is well known, but honesty and love of truth push me to do so, because this text was, surprisingly, going to be a source of tension among our brothers overseas. Indeed, article 18 of our constitution openly declared: “Citizens are those Spaniards who, on both sides, have their origin in the Spanish dominions of both hemispheres, and are resident in any town in the same dominions”. Thus, whether we lived in Madrid, Mexico or Buenos Aires, we were Spanish as we were all part of Hispanidad. But, unfortunately, some inhabitants of the territories of America had another point of view. According to them, articles 21 and 28 of our constitution gave too many rights to the natives. In fact, the representatives of the nation in Cadiz had decided to accept with open arms the values well taught by Jesus Christ: tolerance of the other [3]. But some criollos [4], descendants of European Spanish who had settled across the Atlantic decades or even centuries ago, had ended up taking pride in their status and their misplaced feeling of superiority over the natives of these territories, although these latter had converted to the true faith and had learned our customs and language [5]. Others, even more radical, went so far as to deny their ties with their homeland to call for independence. These creators of nations without any sense and without any legitimacy justified their dangerous ideas by the desire to trade with nations other than their own. Thus, they privileged the love of money over the love of their fellow citizens and of Hispanidad [6].
The return of our King in the summer of 1815, and his immediate acceptance to sign and recognize the Constitution of 1812, further angered these troublemakers in America. It became clear that some of the so-called defenders of our sovereign Ferdinand VII were nothing but profiteers and traitors to the nation. But not wanting to start a civil war after a victorious war of liberation, the Cortes and the King decided to negotiate. It was at this moment that I entered the scene, at first to play a minor part, in this immense history that is that of our country. The sovereign appointed me as Minister of Foreign Relations, with the main aim of reaching a compromise with our fellow citizens overseas. While the war was still raging in the Pyrenees against the French who were this time on the defensive, I had to act with caution. First of all, our King and I had to secure the support of our British allies. Unsurprisingly, London reassured us and asked us in compensation for some benign guarantees compared to the help they had provided us in our struggle for freedom. We had no problem guaranteeing them certain commercial privileges both in America and Europe, as one thanks a friend who has always been faithful to him [7]. Once this was done, we could move on to the main task that awaited us: negotiating. First of all, we quickly understood that some territories in America were more prone to revolt than others.
The central part of New Spain as well as the viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata were thus particularly belligerent and insolent. On the contrary, the viceroyalty of Peru was the most peaceful, while that of New Granada was divided between federalist and centralist independentists and those respectful of the link that united them to Hispanidad. While the talks were beginning in earnest and our diplomats were doing their utmost to calm the situation, my British counterpart, Lord Castlereagh, contacted me with an interesting proposal: to guarantee the Criollo inhabitants of America greater freedom of trade. The idea would be to divide the commercial rights of these lands into three parts: first that with the homeland, the most essential, then that with our British ally, the main maritime power and the country that for years had defended our interests, and finally the other States, neutral or friendly, which for the moment excluded France and its allies of course. With this welcomed proposal, a new question was raised in Madrid. Should we favor a centralizing or federalist administrative and political system? On this point, many of my moderate friends attached to the constitution of 1812 were perhaps too narrow-minded [8]. Indeed, among the Cortes a large part wanted to preserve the unity of the nation by centralizing the territories, whether they were in Europe or in America. The debate was officially opened in the Assembly during the summer of 1816, and the least we can say is that it was complicated and long.
The centralist party was mainly composed of colleagues more than anything attached to our founding text of 1812 and its values of freedom and national sovereignty, while the federalist party was more heterogeneous, with in particular pragmatic liberals, like me, who shared the political views of our adversaries, but who wanted above all to preserve Hispanidad by finding a compromise with our brothers overseas. There were also more conservative elements, attached to the universality of Spain and who could not accept that America be left to its bandits and traitors. Finally, the merchants and all those who privileged the wealth of our people and our country, of course chose our vision of things, because it was the most likely to ensure the prosperity of everyone. Our King Ferdinand VII seemed more nuanced on this issue than anyone else. His Majesty was very attached to both our overseas territories and the unity of Spain, so he tried to reconcile these two objectives. Despite his good will, his unique position created some tensions with the Cortes. Moreover, his Majesty was sometimes perhaps a little too enthusiastic and some of his remarks could be misinterpreted [9]. Either his detractors suffered from the same fault as our sovereign, abusing their enthusiasm and their willingness to defend their ideas at all costs, or they were simply poor creators of controversy.
As the discussions became heated, I did everything I could, on my relatively small scale, to convince my colleagues, gentlemen of the Cortes and even his majesty, not to be too divided while France was still threatening from beyond the Pyrenees. My actions, as well as those of my moderate friends, helped to bring the country and parliament out of the turmoil into which it had sunk. We also received the support of our British allies, whose diplomats did their utmost to pacify the discussions and reassure the fiercest centralists. In December 1816, the assembly of the Cortes managed to find an agreement and a law was drafted: it was to guarantee the establishment of a more federal system in Europe and America, even if it meant slightly amending the constitution. Finally, this text was voted by a relatively small majority, and our good king contented himself with giving a few pieces of advice and a few criticisms before finally accepting this law. Now we had reassured our fellow American brothers with our new, more tolerant trade policy and with our decentralization that guaranteed them greater autonomy. All that remained was to reach an honorable agreement with the overseas territories.
First, we had to ensure that the most radical and belligerent elements among the rebels in America were eliminated. In 1817, the help of our British allies was essential to crush these enemies. The Royal Navy threatened the insurgents of Buenos Aires. These latter refused to fall into line and were thus bombarded by a squadron. Unlike during the sieges of 1806 and 1807, the capital of the Rio de la Plata was forced to negotiate. The bourgeois of the city were quick to accept our generous proposals as well as a very important promise of autonomy. This event marked the beginning of the pacification of this region. Peace with France at the end of the year allowed us to commit ourselves fully. Once a series of guarantees had been made to the inhabitants of New Spain, we were able to reoccupy this viceroyalty with the support of the peninsulares, the Spaniards from the homeland who had recently settled in the region, and the natives. After several defeats, the insurgent criollos finally surrendered and only a few movements continued to fight in the arid countryside with no chance of winning the war they themselves had started. Our troops then landed in New Granada where the independentists were defeated, not without difficulty because of their fanaticism, with the essential help of the ships and several British legions. Their main leader, Simon Bolivar, was killed in combat while his movement degraded into a light guerrilla war that would continue for a few years before being definitively crushed [10]. Finally, after a final campaign to liberate the Viceroyalty of Peru, the entirety of Spanish America was attached back to its homeland. In 1820, a new reorganization of these territories was ratified in Buenos Aires. The former colonies became kingdoms, each with a large degree of autonomy, in accordance with the wishes of most of the inhabitants. Thus, the Kingdom of Mexico, Colombia, Peru and La Plata were officially created, each with a capital: Mexico City, Santa Fe de Bogotá, Lima and Buenos Aires.
Our King Ferdinand thus became the ruler of each of these new kingdoms. Each of them was divided into small provinces that provided a very large degree of autonomy to the locals and small municipalities [11]. At the same time, each of these territories elected their own local parliament, according to the same measures as those provided for in our constitution. governments, reporting to the king, were also formed to administer the population locally. Finally, we were quite clear on the role of each of the powers. The Kingdoms in America as well as the European part of Spain were to present the same international policy and to preserve strong economic ties, but as far as the rest of the policies were concerned, each region governed itself. The old Empire, which, we recognize, could have had oppressive characteristics, had become the Confederation of Hispanidad. Every kingdom, province and city forming it was both free and united under the same banner, that of our glorious nation and culture, and that of our great ancestors, from Christopher Columbus to Philip II and the powerful Bourbon dynasty, saviors of the homeland and best friends of the people. The Treaty of Seville of October 12, 1822, for the 330th anniversary of the discovery of the New World by our explorers, confirmed all our efforts and rejoiced our hearts. The Hispanidad community was more united and stronger than ever.
For our Portuguese neighbors, the situation happened in much the same way. While Brazil had been officially elevated to the rank of kingdom in 1815 and Rio de Janeiro had been unofficially the capital of the Portuguese Empire until 1821, the return of King John VI to Lisbon that same year upset the status quo. In 1822, on the wise recommendation of London, the Portuguese government agreed to create the Confederation of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves. By this agreement, Brazil became a monarchy whose new king, Pedro I, was the son of the Portuguese king John VI. At the same time, a peaceful revolution led to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, and a constitution inspired by ours was adopted the same year. These very interesting and encouraging developments allowed the alliance between Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom to prosper and consolidate itself while in Western Europe Napoleon still reigned supreme. Now that my task as diplomat and Minister of Foreign Affairs had been successfully accomplished, our king granted me his confidence in 1823 and appointed me as Prime Minister. As I prepared to give a lot of myself to the Spanish people, I could see that the time when the country was ravaged by war and the struggle for independence had passed. The countryside and the cities seemed to radiate a new energy once more. As I contemplated such a sight, I could only be confident. Now that this brief summary covering the years 1815-1823 has been made, I shall at last be able to do what any work of this type prescribes: share my thoughts, my actions and my life.”
—
Evaristo Pérez de Castro (1769-1849)
As you can see, I have decided to present this chapter as an extract of the memoirs of a Spanish politician of this period, that is to say Evaristo Perez de Castro. As the text you’ve just read is obviously biased (and it was made on purpose of course), I will have to precise or correct certain things to give a better picture of what really happened ITTL in Spain and in its colonies between 1815 and 1823.
[1] IOTL, the word Hispanidad (which means Spanishness or hispanicity) wasn’t invented until the beginning of the 20th Century by Spanish-speaking artists. ITTL, the political context and the different events occurring in Spain and in Spanish America make that such a word is invented way sooner.
[2] In reality, to vote you had to be a male, to be at least 25 and be rich enough to pay a specific tax which allowed you to be considered a “reasonable” man as he said, that is to say someone with enough education and money to be considered an active citizen.
[3] Even if it is obviously ironic knowing what the Spanish did to the Natives for centuries, it is a reality that at the beginning of the 19th Century peninsular and mainlander liberals were for granting more rights to this part of the colonial population.
[4] “Criollos” means creole, that is to say European people, in that case Spanish, who were born in the colonies. Most of the time, these people never went to Europe and their last link with the Old World might just be very old relatives or even long dead ancestors. Most of them are thus opposed to both the recently arrived Spanish, but also to the Natives, as they are economically and socially superior to them in most cases and as such are considered “inferiors”. That’s why they are ready to revolt when they learn that in Europe the Cortes granted new rights to them without even asking their opinion.
[5] In terms of religion, this is mostly true. The majority of the Natives had converted to Catholicism, or at least a syncretic version of it. But in terms of languages and culture, the Natives were much more traditional and for example the Inca and Nahuatl languages were very much alive respectively in the Viceroyalties of Peru and New Spain.
[6] Liberty of commerce is the other main reason why the Spanish colonies were ready to revolt and seek independence. The Bourbon Kings from Europe had begun since the beginning of the 18th Century to impose harsh restrictions for both creole and foreign merchants. Spain was the only real country the colonies could export their goods and resources to. The main problem is that Spain wasn’t rich and big enough to be a sufficient market.
[7] This means that British merchants are now fully integrated into the Spanish colonies market. This also means that now both Madrid and London have good reasons to prevent any big changes in Central and South America as it would hamper economic exchanges and profits while the British economy is industrializing at a high pace and producing more goods than they can sell if the whole of Western Europe isn’t open to their traders.
[8] Most of the Spanish liberals were indeed in favor of more centralization, as part of the French Revolutionary ideals. IOTL, Ferdinand VII rejecting the 1812 Constitution actually reassured the Mexican rebels for example, and the revolts calmed down in this part of the Empire until 1820, when a revolution broke out in Europe and forced the King to accept the constitution and its liberal measures.
[9] In fact, it means that the King Ferdinand VII who, ITTL, accepted the 1812 constitution reluctantly as he was scared of the French and pressed by the British, is now angered by the Cortes being on the verge of even more reducing his power as the current debate was whether or not a federal system should be accepted or not regarding the American colonies. However, no matter how annoyed he is, he’s now trapped between the Spanish liberals, who firmly hold power since 1815, and the British, who would support the Liberals no matter what as they think that absolutism would only lead to revolts and the weakening of the country when the war with France was still going on. So Ferdinand VII is forced, once again reluctantly, to back up and stay the now limited monarch he is.
[10] The death of such an important leader greatly weakened the rebels, and helped the Spanish to win. However, his “heroic” death, during combat, would surely also have unexpected consequences for the separatist movements later in the 19th Century.
[11] IOTL, giving more autonomy to the municipalities and local provinces was actually a strategy that was proposed by some Spanish politicians when the Peninsular war was still going on. The idea was to weaken the different more or less independent Juntas in the American colonies by dividing them in small districts. It would be like creating a confederation made up of confederations. ITTL, this policy was put in place with the same intentions.
As the map of the former Spanish Empire, now the Confederation of Hispanidad, was redrawn, I will surely publish a map of this new entity soon.