What next in Harrisons S & S Timeline?

[Norman]

First, let me explain, it was a struggle whether to put this on the ASB discussion or not. So please understand, I know the basic premise Harrison brought to the story is [how shall I say this] flawed.

But the one thing that bothered me about the story was that England was the center of an Empire, and then the Center was gone.

Making this worse is the denial that better or worse GB in the 19th Century was a stabilizing force in the world, without it a lot of wars would occur between the second ranked powers. Yet here we have a story line that essentially turns this over in the space of months. What would happen next?

Would India descend into Chaos? Would the Russian Empire, now that England had been slapped down reassert itself in the Crimea? What would happen to Australia and New Zealand? What would France do?

Any ideas??

 

[Landshark]

I think this has the potential to be the S**L*** of the 21st Century.

Anyway whatever happens I just hope it's incredibly bad for the Americans

 

[Norman]

I think this has the potential to be the S**L*** of the 21st Century.

Is this good or bad?

Anyway whatever happens I just hope it's incredibly bad for the Americans

How could it not? What if the English do what Germany did after WWI?

 

[Kadyet]

Panzerkangaroos invade California.

 

[Ivan Druzhkov]

Out of curiousity, what happened to the Royal Navy in these books? Is it just not there, or did all the captains suddenly get hit with a massive pandemic of stupid?

If Britain is under American occupation, I'd expect a rather nasty worldwide depression to occur, as the British economic engine is kaput.

You'd probably see some nasty uprisings in India as well, as the reach of British power shrinks back to deal with the Americans. Expect the French and Russians to cackle evilly to themselves as they try to help themselves to British territory.

In any event, if the comments I heard about these books are anything to go by, the American conquest would be in vain, as the Tsar would be sending his fleet of bomber zeppelins and napalm steamtanks to liberate Britain and torch Washington DC, while the Chinese submarine-transport fleet seizes San Francisco.

EDIT: I wonder...would this series have been popular if it had been written in the United States of the 1880's?

 

[Raymann]

Well basically, America snuck into Ireland so that at least was explained. Harrison also has America having better ships which, considering his story, isn't that implausable. The Royal Navy is of course bigger but they also have a world to patrol and with a sneak attack, hey the Japanese did the same, this is just on a larger scale.

Britian didn't have a large army so if you can get yours to Ireland and have popular support, you're pretty much set. The key is a quick defeat so that the Royal Navy isn't much of a factor.

 

[Tucker Dwynn]

If I remember correctly, they didnt disband the Empre. They just got rid of the Monarchy. So theoretically, England still has possesion of all of it's Colonies and Territories.

 

[Norman]

If I remember correctly, they didnt disband the Empre. They just got rid of the Monarchy. So theoretically, England still has possesion of all of it's Colonies and Territories.

At the end the British forces were landed in England and the Indian forces sent back to India. I got the impression that the Empire was broken up.

 

[Landshark]

I never even got to the end of the first book so I'm not exactly qualified to answer any of this.

That said wasn't America the biggest receipient of British investment in the 1860's?

 

[Cockroach]

Well basically, America snuck into Ireland so that at least was explained. Harrison also has America having better ships which, considering his story, isn't that implausable. The Royal Navy is of course bigger but they also have a world to patrol and with a sneak attack, hey the Japanese did the same, this is just on a larger scale.

1. True the royal navy has an awful lot of water to patrol but also remember that Britains major rivals (at this stage France and Russia) are all European, hence the vast majority of the british ships of the line are back in European waters while the Pacific etc. receive only frigates and other lighter vessels.
2. Compareing this to Pearl Harbor? Note the major differences: Pearl Harbor was a once off strike, this is a concerted invasion i.e. much larger naval force required to escort and transport troops plus to keep the troops supplied.
3. What exactly is 'better' in this case? I will remind you that the USA's sea going fleet will be out numbered by 3 or 4 to 1... If 'better' equals a couple of extra ironclads or a few extra guns per ship I don't think it will make much of a difference.

Britian didn't have a large army so if you can get yours to Ireland and have popular support, you're pretty much set. The key is a quick defeat so that the Royal Navy isn't much of a factor.

Just the small matter of several Squadrons of Royal Navy ships of the line between you and England...

 

[robertp6165]

3. What exactly is 'better' in this case? I will remind you that the USA's sea going fleet will be out numbered by 3 or 4 to 1... If 'better' equals a couple of extra ironclads or a few extra guns per ship I don't think it will make much of a difference.

Just the small matter of several Squadrons of Royal Navy ships of the line between you and England...

Actually, in terms of ships that really matter, the Americans would not have been outnumbered. The advent of ironclads pretty much leveled the playing field between America and Britain at that point. All those wooden ships of the line would just be targets for the ships Harrison describes: powerful, well-armored, sea-going ironclads armed with 100 pounder or larger RIFLED and breech-loading guns...guns that would have greater rate of fire, as well as outrange and out-penetrate the guns mounted on British warships at the time.

Now, whether America could actually have built something like that in the mid-1860s is another matter, of course. I always thought the STARS AND STRIPES series was very implausible, and that was one of the reasons (not to mention the "tankettes" he describes in the third book).

 

[Norman]

I like the possibility that many of the British forces return to India, forming what might be called the British Amalgamation, as the center to a new empire on which the sun never sets. This empire (unlike the last) would be centered on Southern Asia, South Africa and Australia / New Zealand.

With this, France German and Russia jockey for position in Europe. Russia determines to move to the South, against the Ottomans, France supports the Ottomans, While Germany consolidates in Central Europe after grabbing some of the British North African possessions.

The United States, at first thinking its life simpler, begins to realize that it maybe has overlooked a few things when Canada doesn't integrate as well into the North American Republics as it should. (USA, Mexico, Canada, Quebec)

After a few years the US thinks thinks in England have calmed down and brings its troops home. Almost immediately Parliament votes for a return of the Royals, and Victoria son takes over.

In the British Amalgamation, another of Victoria's children take the throne eventually consolidating his / her reign over those lands.

 

[Rahul]

What timeline is this exactly? If someone could tell me so I could follow, I'd really appreciate it as this sounds interesting. Thanks.

 

[Norman]

What timeline is this exactly? If someone could tell me so I could follow, I'd really appreciate it as this sounds interesting. Thanks.

What comes after Harry Harrisons Stras and Stripes Trilogy. We are accepting the improbability of the story and discussing what the world would be like.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

The final book leaves the impression (to me, at least) that the US plans to turn the UK into a constitutional republic and run it as a client state. Here we should keep in mind how America actually acted in the 19thc colonial era.

With many exceptions, American colonialism was probably the loosest and least onerous. This was inherent in the very laissez faire economics we practiced then, which worked best on the idea that the most money came from prosperous trading partners, not conquered provinces. We certainly weren't above using the occasional gunboat to keep deals honest and, in fact, pretty much in our favor but we also kept the worst monopoly abuses to a minimum just to keep our own competing merchants happy. The British IIRC would have most trade sewed up to one or two friends of the Queen before the diplomats were even sent.

I think an American controlled Britain would act the same. Whether this would help or hurt the colonies is problematic. I see greater economic development in India, more RR and factories and many more policies that would encourage greater productivity even at the expense of the religious establishment. The result might be an India rivaling the US economically today or it might be a subcontinent racked with a history of terrible wars and upheavals or both, I dunno. I don't think we would have done as well as the Brits with the Universities.

I think it would be generally beneficial to China, with more Open Door policies and hopefully, less looting of the country. OTOH, when you regard how we treated our own natives.....

I think that we would largely leave Africa alone. We did in OTL altho we could have colonized there as much as any European nation and here the ATL and OTL seem to be the same.

In any case, the entire thing would be over by 1880 at the latest. The US would try the royals, acquit them, hold new elections and go home. America in the 19thc was mainly occupied with exploiting our own huge interior, which equaled or exceeded most of any one nation's colonies and was far more under our control. We would, as we did in the 19thc, regard foreign expansionism as an unnecessary distraction, only useful when necessary or extraordinarily profitable.

Incidentally, I don't regard the SS trilogy as implausible so much as badly plotted. The book is based on a remark I've heard from several sources, which is that, at the end of the Civil War, the US could probably have defeated the combined forces of the entire rest of the world. However, whether this is so or not isn't the problem. In all the books the US pretty much just defeats the UK handily, with hardly any real resistance by the other side, let alone drama being evident.