The Three Thrones

Imajin said:
Newfoundland/Labrador was only ruined in OTL by economic problems following WW1 and the Great Depression... Even so, if I recall the vote for annexation by Canada was rather close- It could remain it's own Dominion.

I think that having it retain independence from Canada would possibly rise hopes of the Northernmost Abolitionist states of the US for peaceful secession in the late 1890s/early 1900s.

As for Alaska, I don't know if Russia would be as happy about selling it to Britain (Dominion status aside, Canada is basically part of Britain in the world's eyes at this point) However, getting it in the Russian Civil War you've mentioned could be a possiblity. (Or having a failed claimant for the throne set up his own Empire of Alyeska...)

Alyeska sounds good, actually. I think initially, independence is a good idea, with it perhaps voting to join Canada later.

In South Africa, judging by the POD, the Cape is still British, and the Boers still have their Republics... But will the Boer Wars still happen?

I think it'll be later and slightly more confused, with the use of irregular and quasi-terroristic strategies on the part of the Boers - drawing inspiration from the tactics of the American abolitionists. I think there will probably only be one longer Boer conflict in the early 1890s.
 
British Prime Ministers:

The Earl of Aberdeen: 1852-60 (Peelite/Coalition)
The Viscount Palmerstone: 1860-? (Peelite/Coalition)

-----

What happens next? Any ideas?

Ideally, I'd like Whiggery and Peelitism to endure in some form (possibly at the expense of the formation of the Liberal Party), have an strongly abolitionist PM in power at the time of the American-Mexican conflict, and a generally more fractured party system of competing factions and coalition governments.
 
I think that having it retain independence from Canada would possibly rise hopes of the Northernmost Abolitionist states of the US for peaceful secession in the late 1890s/early 1900s.
Why, exactly? Newfoundland was independent from Canada at this point in OTL... And it's not really a secession, as Newfoundland was simply left out of the Dominion of Canada when it was formed....
 
I've got a few ideas for africa but I don't know how relevant they are to your post as I haven't had the opportunity to read the whole thing yet(sorry!)but I'm hoping they might help.
I've lifted a quote from an article I read ages ago in a NewScientist magazine titled "the sea of mirages" in short ...."in the 1870's ,french colonial engineers fresh from digging the suez canal dreamed of greening the sahara.An obscure military surveyor,Francois Elle Roudaire,put up the idea for"la mer interieure",a huge inland sea filled by canal from the Mediterranean.It would transform theSahara and form the basis for a "greater France" extending from calais to Timbuktu.The celebrated Suez Canal engineer Ferdinand de Lesseps backed it.So did Victor Hugo and the rest of Parisian high society."
Needless to say,it all wen't wrong.The main reason being that they ended up backing the plan for a french panama canal that failed horribly and at great financial cost.The plan involed(if your interested)submerging three large landlocked area's in algeria,''the chott's_Melhrir,el Jerid and el Gharsa" which were mostly below sea level.Each of the chotts is seperated only by narrow strips of land,and el Jerid only just stops short of the gulf of Gabes in the mediterranean.The planned end result was for a new Sea of Triton that would cover 8000 square kilometres(15 times the size of lake Geneva) and hopefully moderate the local climate significantly.There was also a mention in the same article of a planned french trans saharan railway from Algeria to Sudan that fell apart in1881 when the expedition was slaughtered by Tuareg warrors.
So if you don't mind ,a very loose idea of event's in africa....
in the 1870's the plan to fill the algerian chotts commences after any lingering plans for a french panama canal are dashed by ongoing strife in central america(?)....
the massive success and popularity of the new sea of triton encourages the french to push ahead with the building of a trans saharan railway from algeria to the sudan despite constant battles between Tuareg warriors and the french forign legion,the popular french catchphrase of the day is "viva la gatling gun"......
meanwhile in south africa of the 1870's(?)a needless war with the zulu's is averted when the zulu king ceteswayo manages a negotiated peace with the british crown when a plea for direct intervention reaches Queen Victoria,the zulu"s keep their homeland's as a british protectorate and like other british colonial forces ala the seihk's and the ghurka's,the zulu army becomes one of the best infrantry divisions in the british colonial army.In this south africa their will be no apartheid and the threat of a well armed and loyal zulu army will keep the boers in check for a lot longer......
the success of the trans saharan railway encourages the french to continue the rail link through ethiopia and onto the red sea opening up a wealth of trade and industry for ethiopia in the 1890's.The greater trade and military assistance to ethiopia's military makes their war with Italy in 1899 even more one sided(I'm sorry but I'm a bit ignorant as to italy's postion in this timelines ethiopian region).Encouraged by an even greater thrashing of the italian army in this timeline the ethiopian's cintinue on to seize what would have been italian eritrea and italian somaliland in our timelines colonial africa.....
I don't know if any of this actually helps or even fits with your timeline but hopefully its at least mildly entertaining
 
It's certainly an idea. Very interesting, thank you. I might try and work it in. Although I really need an excuse for huge Franco-British investment in Egypt and Ethiopia whilst both are moving towards de facto independence. A tricky agenda to reconcile. I do like the idea of a massive engineering project to irrigate Egypt. It sounds like something that would boost French prestige.
 
In fact, having checked the possibilities of a Qatarra project out, I think this could be exactly what I was looking for. It almost has the potential to be bigger, in terms of industrial and economic effects, than the Suez.
 
You mentioned you needed help with Africa. Specifics?

I would need to know what happened to Egypt in this TL, as that is very central to the question.

Also, why is Libya not Ottoman? If Egypt is occupied and Libya is not Ottoman, there is little or no chance for any native powers in Africa.
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
You mentioned you needed help with Africa. Specifics?

I would need to know what happened to Egypt in this TL, as that is very central to the question.

Also, why is Libya not Ottoman? If Egypt is occupied and Libya is not Ottoman, there is little or no chance for any native powers in Africa.

I don't know much about the state of the Ottoman Empire around this time. I'm probably going to have it gradually edged out of Europe by the Greeks and a pan-Slavic movement. Mind you, in the longer term, Russia is going to be as much of a threat. Could we have Abd-ul-Mejid (1823-61) marry, and father an modernising/reformatory heir? And you are right, Libya should be Ottoman.

I really want an independent Egypt, in the longer term - could the Ottoman Empire survive without it? I think Egyptian history will remain more or less as per OTL until the reign of Isma'il Pasha (1863-95) who invests more prudently and sustainably in Egyptian industrialisation, avoiding courting the debt of OTL. I think that a less extravagent personality will also allow him to keep a safe distance from the affairs of the European powers. Ergo, no European intervention, and no dual control.

I'm not so sure about Ethiopia, as I don't know enough about its history...
 
Ethopia has been fairly independant (except for the coast) its entire history. It repelled invaders until Mussolina in OTL, and I don't see much happening there...
 
Succession in the Ottoman Empire went to the eldest male of the dynasty. Your POD is just after the overthrow of Selim III, so Mahmud II would be Sultan, and he was actually the LAST surviving male of the dynasty until he had sons, two of whom survived. Abdul Mecid, who was succeeded by Abdul Aziz, his younger brother. Both were reformist, although Abdul Aziz developed autocratic tendencies. He was overthrown for overspending the empire into bankruptcy, and replaced by Abdul Mecid's eldest son, Murad V, who was in turn removed due to insanity and replaced by his brother Abdul Hamid II, a very strong and reformist Sultan.

The Ottoman Empire was relentlessly reformist from the 1830s on, contrary to Western contemporary attitudes.

Interestingly, Abdul Aziz'z and te Khedive Ismail's mothers were sisters, so they were cousins, although that has no dynastic implications because the commonality was through females.

Egypt can't really become independent without a chaotic and destructive result, but it can remain autonomous within the empire. Egypt by the mid 1870s controlled the Sudan, parts of Northern Uganda, Eritrea, and the Somali coast to Berbera.

In the Balkans, the Ottomans in your "present" controlled Thrace, Macedonia, and Albania, with Bulgaria autonomous. The portions under Ottoman rule are about 60/40 Muslim, with parts of Epirus Greek majority. There is nowhere other than the province of Janina (Greeks) where Muslims are not the largest group. Macedonia had more Christians than Muslims, but is divided between several different and competing ethnicities. If the Ottoman domains were partitioned among dominant groups or faiths, the Ottomans would have retained all of Thrace and Macedonia up to Salonika (which actually, strangely, had a Jewish majority).

The reason it is important that Libya remain Ottoman if you want independent Muslim states, is that the Ottomans, allied with the Senusi order, were the only forces resisting European colonization, and only the Ottomans would be willing and able to provide military equipment and training to these states, which were all Muslim.

Your best candidates for statehood are Wadai (just to the West of Darfur), and Bornu (on the West of Lake Chad). Zanzibar could work as well, although likely as a British protectorate, unless strongly supported by Egypt and the Ottomans. Zanzibar controlled not only the island itself but the coasts of today's Tanzania, Kenya, and parts of Somalia, and Zanzibari traders and slavers dominated the interior beyond the coastal strip.

Justin Pickard said:
I don't know much about the state of the Ottoman Empire around this time. I'm probably going to have it gradually edged out of Europe by the Greeks and a pan-Slavic movement. Mind you, in the longer term, Russia is going to be as much of a threat. Could we have Abd-ul-Mejid (1823-61) marry, and father an modernising/reformatory heir? And you are right, Libya should be Ottoman.

I really want an independent Egypt, in the longer term - could the Ottoman Empire survive without it? I think Egyptian history will remain more or less as per OTL until the reign of Isma'il Pasha (1863-95) who invests more prudently and sustainably in Egyptian industrialisation, avoiding courting the debt of OTL. I think that a less extravagent personality will also allow him to keep a safe distance from the affairs of the European powers. Ergo, no European intervention, and no dual control.

I'm not so sure about Ethiopia, as I don't know enough about its history...
 
Thanks for that.

Here's a map of the proposed Qattara Canal Project (albeit superimposed on a current OTL map):

Eg-map.gif
 
Last edited:
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Succession in the Ottoman Empire went to the eldest male of the dynasty. Your POD is just after the overthrow of Selim III, so Mahmud II would be Sultan, and he was actually the LAST surviving male of the dynasty until he had sons, two of whom survived. Abdul Mecid, who was succeeded by Abdul Aziz, his younger brother. Both were reformist, although Abdul Aziz developed autocratic tendencies. He was overthrown for overspending the empire into bankruptcy, and replaced by Abdul Mecid's eldest son, Murad V, who was in turn removed due to insanity and replaced by his brother Abdul Hamid II, a very strong and reformist Sultan.

Is there any way we could have got to Abdul Hamid II sooner. Possibly by having the other two die in some freak accident involving erm...something Ottoman? Also, keeping him broadly pro-Tanzimat would probably help.

The Ottoman Empire was relentlessly reformist from the 1830s on, contrary to Western contemporary attitudes.

Right ho. Can you recommend any specific resources about this period (internet-based would be preferable)?

Egypt can't really become independent without a chaotic and destructive result, but it can remain autonomous within the empire. Egypt by the mid 1870s controlled the Sudan, parts of Northern Uganda, Eritrea, and the Somali coast to Berbera.

So, how about the Ottoman Empire ultimately breaking into Turkey and 'the rest', with 'the rest' federating/confederating fairly peacefully in a quasi-Ottoman-pan-Arabian way?

-----

Oh, btw - here are my future plans for this 'project'. By the end of next week or the week after, I hope to have a reasonable, if somewhat vague, idea of the political situation of the world around 1900. Then I'll probably go back to the start, edit the thing, and get it into some kind of decent and coherant order. Then I'll go back through, examining butterflies, stirring in some fictional influential individuals, looking at cultural, intellectual, technological, scientific, social and economic effects, and generally polishing it a bit.

Then I'll continue with it definitely up to the 1930s and, if I can be bothered, far enough to be able to play a nation or two from it in ME8. Some short fiction using this as a setting will hopefully follow in the autumn (perhaps a nanowrimo attempt).

------

NB. If anyone has any ideas, comments, or crit - please reply or PM me. I'll be very happy if you do, as my historical knowledge has a number of farily large blind spots.
 
Last edited:
Abdul Hamid was only 34 when he became Sultan, but if you have him ascend the throne a few years earlier the Ottoman Empire would likely remain a great power and rule most of the Balkans, which would really complicate your TL.

Most writers accuse him of destroying the Tanzimat, but he really only ended the political liberalism of the later Tanzimat while vigorously pushing the program's reforms.

Your much weaker Russia is a huge boost to the Ottomans - without their support of the minorities in the Balkans there is really little hope of them establishing independent nations.

Justin Pickard said:
Is there any way we could have got to Abdul Hamid II sooner. Possibly by having the other two die in some freak accident involving erm...something Ottoman? Also, keeping him broadly pro-Tanzimat would probably help.



Right ho. Can you recommend any specific resources about this period (internet-based would be preferable)?



So, how about the Ottoman Empire ultimately breaking into Turkey and 'the rest', with 'the rest' federating/confederating fairly peacefully in a quasi-Ottoman-pan-Arabian way?

-----

Oh, btw - here are my future plans for this 'project'. By the end of next week or the week after, I hope to have a reasonable, if somewhat vague, idea of the political situation of the world around 1900. Then I'll probably go back to the start, edit the thing, and get it into some kind of decent and coherant order. Then I'll go back through, examining butterflies, stirring in some fictional influential individuals, looking at cultural, intellectual, technological, scientific, social and economic effects, and generally polishing it a bit.

Then I'll continue with it definitely up to the 1930s and, if I can be bothered, far enough to be able to play a nation or two from it in ME8. Some short fiction using this as a setting will hopefully follow in the autumn (perhaps a nanowrimo attempt).

------

NB. If anyone has any ideas, comments, or crit - please reply or PM me. I'll be very happy if you do, as my historical knowledge has a number of farily large blind spots.
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Abdul Hamid was only 34 when he became Sultan, but if you have him ascend the throne a few years earlier the Ottoman Empire would likely remain a great power and rule most of the Balkans, which would really complicate your TL.

I'm not trying to avoid Ottoman Collapse entirely, I just think that perhaps delaying it a bit could lead to a more peaceful fragmentation. How about the Young Turks - could we have an earlier and more successful Young Turk uprising?

Your much weaker Russia is a huge boost to the Ottomans - without their support of the minorities in the Balkans there is really little hope of them establishing independent nations.

So an Ottoman/Turkish presence will remain on mainland Europe for the forseeable future? Fair enough.
 
Justin Pickard said:
I'm not trying to avoid Ottoman Collapse entirely, I just think that perhaps delaying it a bit could lead to a more peaceful fragmentation. How about the Young Turks - could we have an earlier and more successful Young Turk uprising?



So an Ottoman/Turkish presence will remain on mainland Europe for the forseeable future? Fair enough.

I just don't see how Russia can pursue pan-slav ambitions in the Balkans with so many intervening states - and having lost so much of their Slavic territory, how can they be champions of pan-Slavism?
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
I just don't see how Russia can pursue pan-slav ambitions in the Balkans with so many intervening states - and having lost so much of their Slavic territory, how can they be champions of pan-Slavism?

They aren't. The Slavs are pursuing pan-Slavism, albeit initially in a somewhat vague way. The eventual outcome of this will be a 'rump' Jugoslavian state. The Russians have many other things on their plate.

The main POD for this timeline deals with the resurrection of a the political/philosophiccal model of a self-determining 'confederation'. Scandinavia and Italia have already gone this way. The Ottomans, North Germans (those states that aren't Prussian or Austrian) the Slavs with hopefully follow in the longer term.
 
Here's a thought, with the Ottomans/Egypt together with Zanzibar controling so much of the Eastafrican coast, how 'bout the UK and France both helping the Ethiopians a bit to counteract the first two? Not in any active military way, but a little investments in industry...
 
Justin Pickard said:
Right; here's what I need from you guys...

No French attempts to install Ferdinand Maximilian (1832-90) as Emperor of Mexico in the 1860s are dramatically more successful, with no Italian problems to contend with. Aided by French troops, Maximillian has sucessfully crushed the majority of resistance to his rule by 1866.
Even so, the Mexicans were pretty good at guerilla warfare. IMHO the French would take rather longer to crush resistance. There were lots of people who owed position and property to Juarez'victory in the preceding civil war.
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
In the Balkans, the Ottomans in your "present" controlled Thrace, Macedonia, and Albania, with Bulgaria autonomous.
The last map gives Bulgaria as Ottoman. There wasn't a 1877 Russian-Turkish war, was there? (which in OTL produced Bulgarian autonomy)
 
Othniel said:
Ethopia has been fairly independant (except for the coast) its entire history. It repelled invaders until Mussolina in OTL, and I don't see much happening there...
Well it didn't repel the British expedition of 1868 that toppled emperor Tewodros...

Otherwise without the Mahdists in the sudan Ethiopia is still divided between Emperor Yohannes in the north (who got to his position thanks to a stash of modern weaponry left him by the British following 1868) and Menelik in the south around the future site of Addis Abeba. In OTL Yohannes fell in battle against the Mahdists in 1889.
In OTL Menelik was armed by the Italians as a counterweight against Yohannes. With Egypt and the sultanate of Zanzibar still intact there will be no Italian Eritrea or Somaliland.
However a French railway line from Djibouti (French since ca.1840) to the Ethiopian highlnds may replace that. (But that depends on whom the French decide to back.)
 
Top