Worst 19th Century Alternate History Cliches

[galveston bay]

And yet, for Russia to keep it, Russia only has to do absolutely nothing. Russia has no more reason to leave Alaska than to leave any other part of the Arctic.

I'm rather more annoyed by the idea that any random up and comer can (and will have the intention to) buy Alaska, and always around the same time if not the same year. Granted, it wasn't seriously discussed but I remember at least a Mexican Alaska, a Confederate Alaska and a couple of WIs about a Japanese Alaska.

Japanese Alaska doesn't seem unreasonable, although it would require some definite changes pre 17th Century or late 19th Century. Mexican and Confederate Alaska seem more of a stretch to me actually.

For the Russians to keep they do have to do something. They have to keep spending money to support their presence in Alaska, one that has to import its food and every other necessity from the Americans or Canadians, or a massive logistical effort in terms of distance across Siberia or via an extraordinary (in terms of time) voyage from St Petersburg.

With the risk that the British might decide to take it at some point too....

So selling it was worthwhile from that standpoint.

 

[TRH]

With the risk that the British might decide to take it at some point too....

So selling it was worthwhile from that standpoint.

I dunno, from the 1870's or so, they were seriously getting worried about Russia's ability to hit them in India. Risking a confrontation there solely for the sake of a long stretch of Tundra that wouldn't look any more valuable to them than it did to the Russians themselves doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Augenis]

I don' think they have enought population neither the mobilization capacity to do that, the Russians would defeat them by sheer numb

Russia was disunited in the 1400s, and until the second half of the 15th century, no Russian principality was a serious challenge to Lithuanian might.

 

[Hydraphantom]

I just realized a few:

1. Poland will always become independent again, and they will always kick other's ass as soon as they get independent.
2. German are the bad guys, it wouldn't be German enough if there isn't a genocide here or there.
3. Spain won't do a thing when other European countries beating each other's brain out.
4. Mexico cannot into reconquista.
5. USA, just USA.

 

[Boss]

Royalists are the best, and will always beat the evil republicans. I've also never understood the view that monarchs make things more stable.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

I just realized a few:

1. Poland will always become independent again, and they will always kick other's ass as soon as they get independent.
2. German are the bad guys, it wouldn't be German enough if there isn't a genocide here or there.
3. Spain won't do a thing when other European countries beating each other's brain out.
4. Mexico cannot into reconquista.
5. USA, just USA.

Oh my dear, you lack imagination.

Granted, it's much easier for Mexico to keep the northern territories than having to go through the trouble of reclaiming them from someone else.

 

[Hydraphantom]

Oh my dear, you lack imagination.

Granted, it's much easier for Mexico to keep the northern territories than having to go through the trouble of reclaiming them from someone else.

In my TL I'm planning for Habsburg Mexico to retake northern territories after WW1, and I kinda stuck at how to hold off the Americans before European reinforcement arrive.
Poor Mexico.

 

[Boss]

In my TL I'm planning for Habsburg Mexico to retake northern territories after WW1, and I kinda stuck at how to hold off the Americans before European reinforcement arrive.
Poor Mexico.

Maximilian-era Mexico strikes me as the absolute worst time for a strong Mexico. Maximilian was hated by absolutely everyone, by the liberals for being a monarch, by the conservatives for being too liberal, and by everyone else for being a French puppet.

 

[Hydraphantom]

Maximilian-era Mexico strikes me as the absolute worst time for a strong Mexico. Maximilian was hated by absolutely everyone, by the liberals for being a monarch, by the conservatives for being too liberal, and by everyone else for being a French puppet.

Well, at least he seriously tried to be a good emperor.....

 

[Arkenfolm]

Royalists are the best, and will always beat the evil republicans. I've also never understood the view that monarchs make things more stable.

Not just a cliche of 19th century history.

I blame the French Revolution for helping start that view.

 

[Boss]

Well, at least he seriously tried to be a good emperor.....

Then again, so did so many others. Napoleon III, for instance, tried to be a good emperor and achieve the greatness of his father. But, of course, under Bourbon and Orleanist rule, French military prowess seriously declined, and such a massivd goal led to his undoing.

Good intentions don't really help.

 

[JackLumber]

Royalists are the best, and will always beat the evil republicans. I've also never understood the view that monarchs make things more stable.

Hey now, royalists are not always fighting republicans

 

[Boss]

I blame the French Revolution for helping start that view.

Then again, with no French Revolution, you wouldn't see modern republicanism begin at all, with Italian- and Dutch-style elitist republicanism being standard and with boring dynastic politics remaining the domineering force in the 19th century, or you'd see popular republicanism rise later and scare the shits out of everyone at that time.

 

[AcaciaSgt]

Maximilian-era Mexico strikes me as the absolute worst time for a strong Mexico. Maximilian was hated by absolutely everyone, by the liberals for being a monarch, by the conservatives for being too liberal, and by everyone else for being a French puppet.

The liberals, at least, could gravitate towards him if Juarez was no longer part of the picture (and perhaps a few others as well?) . Or if the boderline-ASB (?) hypothetical of him accepting Maximilian's offer of being Prime Minister was accepted. By itself, the Second Empire could thrive, but yeah, it was an uphill battle to get there.

Does the Second Empire being doomed could count as a cliche?

 

[Boss]

The liberals, at least, could gravitate towards him if Juarez was no longer part of the picture (and perhaps a few others as well?)

Why would liberals support a Hapsburg ruler, supported by the French, as the ruler of Mexico? I have no idea how or why liberals would accept such a man as their sovereign, even if he proved okay-ish.

Does the Second Empire being doomed could count as a cliche?

It held virtually popular support and so could not thrive. But certainly, assuming a strong Second French Empire, you could get French troops occupy Mexico and crush any Republican opposition. It wouldn't be a good Mexico, no doubt, and it certainly wouldn't be able to run any wars, but it could exist.

 

[AcaciaSgt]

Why would liberals support a Hapsburg ruler, supported by the French, as the ruler of Mexico? I have no idea how or why liberals would accept such a man as their sovereign, even if he proved okay-ish.

It held virtually popular support and so could not thrive. But certainly, assuming a strong Second French Empire, you could get French troops occupy Mexico and crush any Republican opposition. It wouldn't be a good Mexico, no doubt, and it certainly wouldn't be able to run any wars, but it could exist.

Can't he win them over? Even if his support was mainly from the Conservatives, he never restored much power to the Church, neither removed Juarez's reforms. Without people like Juarez against him, can't they start to gravitate towards him? Besides, it doesn't necesarily have to be the liberals. Maximilian and his wife wanted to help the poor, help the Mesoamerican natives. What if they can and win their support?

I wouldn't say it needs the French around (if anything, it's best they leave, since they did no favors to the Second Empire's treasury). Wouldn't they still leave anyway due to the Franco-Prussian War, unless that does not happen anymore? If anything, the Second Empire's biggest threat to its existence is the US once the ACW ends, unless the US is left in no position to help the Republicans as like OTL.

 

[dandan_noodles]

Then again, with no French Revolution, you wouldn't see modern republicanism begin at all, with Italian- and Dutch-style elitist republicanism being standard and with boring dynastic politics remaining the domineering force in the 19th century, or you'd see popular republicanism rise later and scare the shits out of everyone at that time.

You could get British style parliamentarianism/constitutionalism/estatism/dietism/whatever, where the elites demand their role in the state be codified, and then see that gradually extended at the margins, until it becomes the concept of citizenship, essentially.

 

[Boss]

Can't he win them over? Even if his support was mainly from the Conservatives, he never restored much power to the Church, neither removed Juarez's reforms. Without people like Juarez against him, can't they start to gravitate towards him? Besides, it doesn't necesarily have to be the liberals. Maximilian and his wife wanted to help the poor, help the Mesoamerican natives. What if they can and win their support?

Even if he does all that, I don't think he can win them over. No one is ever going to forget that he came to power because the French wanted their loans and turned that into total conquest, and no one is ever going to forget his Austrian-ness. As long as a native republican opposition exists, it will attract liberals.

As for the natives, they were minor forces in Mexican politics.

I wouldn't say it needs the French around (if anything, it's best they leave, since they did no favors to the Second Empire's treasury).

Without the French, the likely result is Maximilian is deposed as ruler, because he no longer has support from anyone.

 

[Boss]

You could get British style parliamentarianism/constitutionalism/estatism/dietism/whatever, where the elites demand their role in the state be codified, and then see that gradually extended at the margins, until it becomes the concept of citizenship, essentially.

One of the reasons that the British established their constitutional monarchy and enlarged the electorate from a rich elite was because they wanted to stop republican revolution from happening. It's unsurprising that, with the 1790s revolts that were directly inspired by the French, we see support come to Catholic emancipation, and in the 1830s, with further tensions that bursted in the form of the Days of May, the Great Reform Act was passed.

No, the forces that defined the 19th century were waiting to be released, and when they were released, hoo boy.

 

[ajdb0614]

China pulls a Meiji between the 1840's to 60's and becomes a global superpower. Japan on the other hand, remains a backward feudal state plagued by warlordism. Fast forward to the 1940's and we have Chinese planes bombing Pearl Harbor and Little Boy turning Shanghai to ash. Come the 50's and say hello to Red Japan and Best (Read: South) Korea