The Great Divergence: A History of the World Since 1750

Introduction
Hi everyone,

So it's third TL time. As before, I'm taking a loose approach to my PODs, with two prologues being posted today and the first 'main' update coming next week. I hope to be able to update at least once a week, possibly more. Also as with my previous TLs, I have loose plans to take it up to the present day but with an 18th century POD that's obviously going to be more up in the air. With this one I'm really trying to think about with this TL is a world where non-nation states exist and the foundational political ideologies of OTL are all scrambled up.

So, yeah, I hope you jump on board: will Ireland receive some kind of Home Rule that ends up being bittersweet for Parnell? Will Germany turn into an aristocratic, military dictatorship in the 30s? All these questions, and more, will be answered as we go along. As ever, please feel to leave any comments, concerns or abuse you might have.
 
Last edited:
Prologue: The Strange Story of the Malcontents
Among those to voice their displeasure at James Oglethorpe’s early governorship of Georgia during the early years of its settlement was a group known as the Malcontents. Composed primarily of Scottish settlers near Savannah, the Malcontents made their objections known from the mid-1730s onwards. Among their many complaints to the Trustee government were the limits imposed on landownership and the prohibition on the slavery and rum trades.

Savannah.jpeg

Savannah in the 1730s, laid out according to Oglethorpe’s plan

One of the major factors which distinguished the Malcontents from the other early settlers in the colony was their economic background. As envisioned by Oglethorpe, the first British settlers in the colony were impoverished and came with the financial support of the Trustees. By contrast, most of the Malcontents arrived without assistance and therefore had a different relationship to their new homeland. Many came from neighbouring South Carolina and, recalling the substantial rice plantation economy there, saw similar potential for Georgia.

The Malcontents were most active in the late 1730s, organising a number of petitions that called for drastic changes in the colony’s administration. The refusal of the Trustees to amend the laws, despite 121 residents signing the petition, led many notable Malcontents, such as Patrick Tailfer and Thomas Stephens, leaving the colony by 1740. With the departure of their leaders, the Malcontent movement went into a precipitous decline. During the War of Jenkins' Ear, Georgia fought off a Spanish invasion but did not gain a decisive victory and the colony’s position as a barrier between the Carolinas and Spanish Florida remained important.

The Malcontents’ arguments did not result in immediate change but were not without influence. Officials in London ordered a survey of popular sentiment following the conclusion of peace in 1748 but the laws regarding slavery and landholding were retained, although the prohibition on rum and other alcoholic drinks was relaxed. The Malcontent complaints that had the longest influence in London were complaints about the supposedly-despotic government of the Trustees. In 1763, during the premiership of the Earl of Egmont, the Trusteeship was reformed so that Trustees could be paid and resident in Georgia itself.

– from ‘The Roots of American Populism’ (1983)
 
Prologue: Disaster at Mollwitz
In late March 1741, Frederick set out on campaign to capture the few remaining Silesian fortresses that were still holding out. He was surprised by the arrival of an Austrian army under Wilhelm Reinhard von Neipperg and in the resulting fighting his cavalry was routed and he was captured. Although he demonstrated personal bravery in being captured with his men instead of fleeing, the debacle ensured that the Habsburgs swiftly regained control of Silesia, only a year after they had lost it.

Mollwitz.jpeg

Prussian infantry at Mollwitz

Following his release in 1742, Frederick invaded again in 1744 but was beaten once more. Fighting continued, mostly in India and North America, until 1745 with the signing of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. Amongst other things, Maria Theresa was acknowledged as her father’s heir, which she did not consider a concession, but more importantly the Habsburgs further cemented their alliance with Britain. For the Prussians, however, the events were a disaster. The war demonstrated the inefficiency of their cavalry, as well as their strategic vulnerability between Britain’s German satellite of Brunswick to the west and the Habsburgs to the south.

– from ‘Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Fall of Prussia’ (2006)
 
Last edited:
Would be quite cool to see the Brits loose in Bengal and Plassey!! Having independent Bengal, Awadh, Mysore, Hyderabad, Carnatic and Marathas would be a sight to see!!
 
Would be quite cool to see the Brits loose in Bengal and Plassey!! Having independent Bengal, Awadh, Mysore, Hyderabad, Carnatic and Marathas would be a sight to see!!
Well the Brits won't lose Plassey but I think I've got some interesting things lined up for the subcontinent
 
Frederick: King, Elector and Emperor i
The dual deaths of George II and Lord Wilmington, on 27 June (although news did not reach London until 9 July) and 2 July, respectively, proved to be an unexpected boon for Frederick. As we have seen, many aspects of Walpole’s fall had proved a disappointment to Frederick and the rest of the Leicester House set: Pulteney had disgraced himself (in the eyes of many) by accepting a peerage; the Pelham brothers were ensconced as Leader of the House of Commons and Southern Secretary, respectively; and precious few positions had opened up in the royal household for a serious reshuffle. With so few alterations and little opportunity to make further inroads, Pulteney had all but given up by the end of 1742 and was preparing for a period of relatively unimportant retirement in the Lords.

However, all that was blown open by Frederick’s accession to the throne unexpectedly coinciding with a vacancy at the top of government. Lord Carlisle was installed as the First Lord of the Treasury and the general election in the autumn of 1743 saw Frederick’s influence mean that the Patriots took control of yet more rotten and pocket boroughs, while a wave of patriotic support saw their vote rise in the quasi-democratic constituencies. The small group of Parliamentarians who considered themselves Tories actually saw their votes hold up reasonably well, although they were largely irrelevant to day-to-day politics by this point.

The election gave Frederick and Carlisle room to manoeuvre and into the cabinet came favourites from the Leicester House days including Sir Thomas Bootle, Sir George Lee, George Dodington, Lord Baltimore and Lord Perceval. Significantly, however, there was no space for Pulteney and Bolingbroke, the latter of whom at least seems to have been under the impression that he would be returning to office for the first time in two decades. On the other hand, despite the ministerial turnover, we should not exaggerate the scale of the changes. Despite the claims of a “Massacre of the Pelhamite innocents” in some of the Whig press, Pelham and Newcastle remained in government in significant positions. The new ministry was to a great extent, as Alexander Pope commented, “The same old Court garnished with a halo of Patriot imagery.”

Lee.jpeg

Sir George Lee, one of the individuals of the Leicester House Set to enter cabinet in 1743

Of particular importance, in the context of the ongoing War of the Austrian Succession, was the rapprochement between Newcastle and Frederick. Newcastle strongly supported Maria Theresa’s position during the War of the Austrian Succession and Frederick reversed his previous pro-peace beliefs and continued prosecution of the war effort. British efforts in the remaining two years of the conflict, including a raid on Louisbourg and repelling an invasion of Georgia, were mostly successful and resulted in a strengthened British position in North America, even if the coastal colonies remained menaced by Spanish and French presence inland.

Combat in Europe was more decisive. Prussia had invaded Silesia in August with a force of 80,000 troops, taking advantage of Austria’s commitments in Alsace and disunity between the Pragmatic Allies more generally. By October, however, the Prussian King had left himself dangerously exposed after Saxony entered the coalition as an active belligerent. Frederick, anxious to promote himself as a warrior king, travelled to Silesia at the head of a combined Hanoverian-Saxon-Austrian force. Although he failed to bring the Prussian king to battle, the Prussians were forced to retreat back to their own lands, half their army gone.

With the coalition seeming well-positioned at the end of 1744, France and Spain seem to have planned another Jacobite uprising, although French naval defeat at the Battle of Toulon meant that the promised "‘45" petered out with little fanfare. The coalition came under severe pressure from the Dutch, who feared an imminent invasion of their country, to make peace with the French. Frederick and Newcastle both considered that any peace would be disadvantageous to Britain and the king faced pressure from London to bring the conflict to an end. The newly-empowered Patriots, notably Carlisle and Perceval, were firmly of the opinion that the conflict needed to end.

Frederick.jpeg

Frederick depicted on campaign c. 1744. The combat shown in the background is the painter's invention, as a pitched battle did not occur.

The resulting Treaty of Dresden (1745) brought the War of the Austrian Succession to a close. Maria Theresa was confirmed as Archduchess of Austria and Queen of Hungary, while her husband became Holy Roman Emperor Francis I. Territorially, Austrian control of Silesia was confirmed while the Duchies of Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla were ceded to Spain. All other territories were returned to their pre-war owners.

The treaty represented a decisive victory for the Pragmatic Coalition, with Maria Theresa’s position now secured and British control of Minorca and Gibraltar similarly solid. Domestically however, most regarded the peace as an unhappy end to a misbegotten episode. For Carlisle and many other Patriots, the war demonstrated the continued vulnerability of the Hanoverians’ continental holdings. The Patriots had been in favour of war with Spain over America but they were opposed to spending enormous sums subsidising the defence of Brunswick or the Austrians’ control of Silesia. This would remain a dividing line with the Whigs, who perceived the need for British involvement on the European continent.

Frederick too felt a sense of personal failure. Not only had he failed to win the glorious victory he had so desired but the strategic importance of his expedition in causing the Prussians to abandon Silesia did not attract the praise he seemed to have expected. “The calumnies and criticism that is poured upon me,” he complained in a letter to Augusta, “all for the sin of presuming to avenge my father’s sacrifice.” Considering the nature of their relationship, it’s hard not to look on such statements with a little bit of cynicism. But it does seem that his father’s death allowed Frederick to think about George II more positively than he had done in life. He took an active part in the public mourning and unveiled a memorial to his father at Westminster Abbey in August 1745.

In domestic politics, the new reign promised much. The Leicester House circle had attracted attention as the Patriots and criticism as the Tories in a new guise. They promised a society composed of independent and free men joined together in the common pursuit of the public good. But at the same time it was a society whose liberty ultimately depended upon the virtue of their prince. How this would look in practice was, of course, less certain.

– from ‘Frederick: King, Elector and Emperor’ (2012)
 
Last edited:
I’ll admit I know very little of this period of history so I’ll be intrigued to learn a little, and King Frederick based on my cursory Wikipedia excursion seems like an intriguing hook for a POD!
 
Unless I'm blind, how did George II die? Did he just get an unfortunate illness that killed him earlier than OTL?
In OTL, George II was the last British king to lead an army into battle. If I'm reading it right, in TTL he dies in that battle instead.

I only know this because Look to the West by Thande (an excellent TL starting in this same era) uses this same event, although by that point things were different (the initial POD in that one is Fred getting exiled to North America after the coronation of George II).
 
The Accidental Empire i
The War of the Austrian Succession was a mental wound from which Maria Theresa would never quite recover. Although her armies had been victorious on the battlefield, with not a little bit of help from Prussian mistakes, the sense that her position was menaced from the west by France, the east by Russia and the north by Prussia never left her. Even her biggest ally, in the form of Britain, was a famously unreliable one. This sense of vulnerability lay behind her decision to unleash a barrage of administrative reforms to strengthen her military and to create a more effective and centralised (not to mention defensible) state.

In common with many of her contemporaries, Maria Theresa regarded the military capabilities of her territories as being in an important sense linked to its economic prosperity. Given the predominantly agricultural nature of the economy at the time, in practice this meant that the state would be taking an enormous interest in improving the productivity and conditions of the peasantry. But it is worth remembering that this arose out of fiscal need, rather than moral outrage. Her State Chancellor Count Friedrich Wilhelm von Haugwitz spent the 1740s and 1750s slowly going through the governments of the Habsburg crownlands, increasingly making them responsible to the government in Vienna rather than to their various diets. In 1751, a single supreme court, located in Vienna, was inaugurated, which had authority over all of the Habsburg’s non-Hungarian and non-Netherlands territories.

But Maria Theresa was, while focused and not to be deterred easily, was no fool: she was not going to be driven onto the rocks of aristocratic opposition as had happened to several Habsburg reform efforts in the past. She had four long-term goals - stabilising the state finances by taxing the nobility; raising peasant productivity; expanding domestic industry, trade and communication networks; and subordinating the Catholic Church to the state - but she was flexible as to her methods: vigorous local opposition could and did cause her to beat strategic retreats.

Her reform movement was greatly helped by the fact that, to a large extent, they could be said to build on top of each other. Her domain’s extensive frontiers meant that there needed to be a great expansion and professionalisation of the armed forces, which in turn meant that the tax privileges of the aristocracy had to be curtailed in order to pay for that. Similarly, the curtailment of the regional diets’ influence could be largely replaced by offering provincial nobles’ the ability to maintain their local influence through positions in the expanding bureaucracy. This expanded bureaucracy, in turn, provided a rationale for the expansion of centralised education: while the local aristocracy could (and did) dominate the commanding heights of the bureaucracy, an educated bourgeoisie was required to fill out the sheer number of roles becoming available.

Economically, Maria Theresa sought the economic integration and improvement of her territories. In 1775, after years of wrangling, her Bohemian lands were integrated with her Austrian ones in a single tariff zone. Hoping to draw Mediterranean trade away from Venice, Fiume and Triest were granted tax-free status to act as entrepots, while infrastructure work was begun in order to increase the economic links between Silesia and Bohemia and the Adriatic coast. When the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria was added to the Habsburg domains as part of the First Partition of Poland (in which Maria Theresa participated reluctantly, if eventually actively), the same status was granted to Brody.

Trieste.jpeg

The port of Triest, which benefitted greatly from Maria Theresa's attempts to impose coherence on her territories

The major exception to these rules was Hungary, which always held a special place in Maria Theresa’s heart since the Hungarian Diet had supported her at her moment of most profound weakness during the darkest days of the Succession War. This is not to say there were no centralising attempts in Hungary during this period, but it is to observe that Hungary received a de facto exemption from the reformist norm in the wider Habsburg Domains. This would set up a sense of Hungarian ‘difference’ which would be a more intense sore both as Maria Theresa’s reign wore on and for her successors.

– from ‘The Accidental Empire: The Habsburgs from Maria Theresa to Leopold II’ (2017)
 
Top