Pre-TLKNES: Bella Epoque

Welcome aboard, just post confirmation in the actual thread. Glad to have you! Feel free to start working on your history a bit.

Hey,

Korean Historical Timeline. 1866-1880
This history excludes Japanese influence because of the whole Ezo Affair. Thinking Japan's eyes were & continue to be the Ezo & the French.
EDIT: Both Treaties have been agreed to.
They are the basic unequal treaty that Great Powers offered us little fish. It is a copy of the US-Korean Treay of 1882 just a few years early.

1866 French Campaign against Korea. French defeat & its interest in the Republic of Ezo ended French involvement in Korea.
1871 United States Expedition to Korea. (OTL Change) US Naval Fire forcing Korea to open talks with the USA.
1873 King Gojong & Queen Min take the Throne.
1874 Korean Strategy Book written by Chinese councilor Huang Tsu-hsien given to Korean ambassador to USA. This book sparked the massive effort toward westernization.
Copies are printed & sent to all ministers, scholars and merchants.
Korean Strategy

1875 Treaty of Baltimore. (Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce and Navigation OTL) USA-Korea Treaty

1876 - 1878 Increasing industrial & economic power lead to small rebellions secretly supported by the King's father Heungseon Heonui Daewonwang are putdown. This provided the King with much needed support for westernization among the new military.
1879 Death of Heungseon Heonui Daewonwang.(OTL change) His assassination gave King Gojong the last piece to fully engage in modernizing Korea. Traditionalist ideas melted away.
1879 Open Talks with Imperial Russia.

1879 Treaty of Khabarovsk.

1880 Birth of the Korean Empire. King Gojong declares independence, with Imperial Russian & United States blessings and names himself Emperor.

TheLizardKing said:

I'm loving the histories guys. Especially yours, SK. I'll admit my knowledge of Khalistani affairs was a bit limited, so your thoughts are very nice. I like the idea of a more Russian influence Afghanistan for sure.

Keep it up everyone!

Click to expand...

Glad to help. Actually, switching to Prussia; I mistakenly thought Prussia was the German Confederation.

SouthernKing said:

Glad to help. Actually, switching to Prussia; I mistakenly thought Prussia was the German Confederation.

Click to expand...

No problem, I switched you in the main thread.

Also, as per a certain PM I recieved, I was wondering how everyone would feel if I implemented an army system similar to EQ's in CI. I was debating it while making the NES, and all in all I'm not opposed to it. It would be ran essentially the same style, with a few player-friendly tweaks (if I can implement them).

Any strong thoughts or feelings?

After discussions with LoE, GK and ZD, these are my suggestions for Austrian, Italian and eastern European history:

Austrian Policy

The Napoleonic Wars peter out, as the will to stop Napoleon falters. Austria, willing to switch temporarily to the French side, is the first to permanently withdraw from the various coalitions against France, having lost Tyrol to Napoleon's Confederation of the Rhine, as well as both Dalmatia and Venice to Napoleonic puppet regimes during the wars. However after the death of Napoleon I, and the ensuing period of French consolidation, Austrian-French tensions return throughout the century, with occasional proxy spats, supported by varying outside states. The Austrians would go on to fight wars in the Confederation of the Rhine (retaking Tyrol and helping break off Bavaria), as well as in Italy (dismantling the Kingdom of Italy, reforming Venice, and securing Papal independence), as well as participate in the division of Ottoman holdings in Europe.

Austrian Offensive in Italy

In the 1830s Austria would attempt to reacquire those territories stripped from it during the Napoleonic Wars, firstly joining with Prussia in a conflict to separate Bavaria, but most significantly in Italy. The Kingdom of Italy, setup by Napoleon and led by a Bonaparte, relied on French support for its continued existence, but as a policy of consolidation, did not intervene when Austria sent armies into Venice, and then further into Padania. The resulting peace would include French-Austrian support for an independent Papal States, and recognize Venice and Padania as separate Italian states - though France would maintain direct control of Tuscany. An uneasy division of Italy along these lines would remain until 1880, with Italian nationalists blaming both Austria and France for their complicity in dividing the peninsula.

Congress of Vienna and the Balkans

Despite defeats in Europe - specifically against Prussia, Austria, Poland and Sweden - Russia would nonetheless assert its position as pan-slavic leader in a Russo-Turkish war, which due to Turkish gains in Persia and Egypt, would become much of a stalemate, until the great powers of Europe weighed in favour of Russia. The Congress of Vienna, in the mid-1870s would partially answer the Balkan Question, as Austria would pragmatically join the other great powers (OOC: or do it alone, unsure of other player's ideas here) in forcing a peace on the Turks which would at least nominally be to their disadvantage. Serbia and Montenegro would gain territory, while Bulgaria and Romania would be granted independence. The latter two states would largely remain neutral between the great powers, with both Austria and Russia pressing claims of a sphere over both, while de facto protection of Serbia and Montenegro from a Turkish return would rest with Austria while Russia remained east-facing. Overall Russia's poor display in the war would render their title of Slavic leader more questionable, and without strong Prussian leadership, Austria would become a more pivotal power in the region.

Balance of Power

In place of any formal alliance, a pragmatic and informal consensus among Prussia, Austria and Russia would emerge to maintain the status quo after the Congress of Vienna. Generally that front would be peaceful, possibly opening up a more heightened return of French-German/Austrian contention, as of 1880.

Nationalism, the Hungarian, Italian, German and Slavic Questions

Domestically Austria would not face the same nationalism that required it rename itself Austria-Hungary; pan-slavism would be less felt due to Russian weakness against Turkey, and without a strong Italy or Germany as an example to other nationalities, national independence wouldn't have as much traction among Austria's many small nationalities. The opposite effect would be the case in Italy and Germany, where the great powers would be resented for perpetually keeping the Germans and Italians from forming their own nation - long past what both peoples' would see as their rightful time in history to unite. Both Austria and France, due to their multi-ethnic empires, would avoid fomenting nationalist sentiment in one another's lands, similarly reducing nationalist tension.

--

Questions that remain for me, what happens to the liberal revolutions and 1848? With a Napoleonic France representing revolutionary ideals, would liberal agitation be transformed more into pro-French agitation? This will heavily influence how the revolutionary activity in Habsburg lands played out in 1848 and Hungary.

Commentary on the above, or suggestions from players I haven't talked to would be appreciated

I'm definitely liking all of that. I'm glad you're all working together on that front, it saves me some grief.

But you do raise a good point in respect to the Revolutions of 48'. More so than that, I'm interested to see how socialism in any form is constructed in this TL. Any thoughts?

Also, for those of you with political parties, if you want to do a write up on them, that'd be appreciated. Otherwise I'll probably tag generic names on them, unless I can think of more interesting names myself.

Finally, any opinion on the Army Doctrine system would be nice.

I am fine with army doctrines, but I would not be heartbroken if they weren't included.

If liberals in TTL feel like their chosen ideology is inherently pro-French, then I would imagine that those in OTL that would have supported liberalism that also happen to believe in internationalism or anti-nationalism would opt to go more radical, and join with socialists to avoid looking nationally-partisan (pro-French). The last thing a radical wants to be called is a spy for the most powerful country in Europe, so socialists outside France might be roughed up less than liberals, making that ideology a lot more appealing to middle class intellectuals who would otherwise support liberalism.

In terms of what socialism would actually mean, given the success of a revolutionary France, I guess the idea that you can definitely revolt and create an empire around your belief-system is more popular - meaning the radical left would be more militant knowing it could really succeed - searching for their own Napoleon and their own French Revolution to mimic.

Also I'm in favour of an army system as you suggest, if it adds detail and nuanced military strategy without substantially increasing updating time then that sounds great to me.

I think you just treat infantry and ground units like any other kind of UU? But also provide a system to update infantry to new (Infantry UU) models (which should not be available for artillery and ships, and later, armor and airplanes)

Unique units thing are pretty good as a model for ships, vehicles, etc.

Its not as good a model for infantry, because infantry aren't really specialised in the same way as navies or aircraft (you build different vehicles for different roles, you don't do that with your infantry, especially not in 1880) until we start getting mechanised infantry, etc. and as a result your general "army doctrine" works better to represent differentiating your military in comparison to other countries.

I guess it comes down to how your military model works. If your model is able to take into account that kind of specification of your army (and, if you've got a model for unique units, i guess it can, but I don't know what you've got), then I think it'd be very cool to have.

Ed: How would you like parties? PMed, in this thread, or in the main one?

Also, a few notes on other things.

A Brief Sort of History of British Foreign Policy

Out of character, because I'm kind of entering the realms of speculation, but still. Here's my sort of vision for what Britain has been doing and how its been developing, in the context of the rest of the world.

In 1815, you've got a Britain which, if not exactly beaten, isn't the global hegemon that it was after the defeat of Napoleon in 1815 OTL. They've had some good successes in New England and North America, with a powerful, friendly New England independent, control of the Ohio, and the conquest of La Plata, but on the other hand the most powerful state in Europe is more or less a British enemy and they don't have any good friends left on the continent either.

As discussed between JK, LoE and I, we came to the conclusion that due to the nature of the Napoleonic Wars, they didn't so much end as peter out. In the end, everybody dropped out of the nth coalition or whatever and the UK was left alone. A bilateral treaty was signed, and this time it held, because the will to stop Bonaparte had faded and he has been more or less accepted into the political system at this point.

The existence of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw suggests that the Russian campaign didn't happen, but we kind of collectively came to the conclusion that the Spanish one did. Spain could be ruled by the Bonapartes. A Bonapartist king in Spain leads to a backlash in the Americas, with most of Spain's empire collapsing with the exception of Cuba. This rebellion would have been propped up by the United Kingdom, eager to see Bonaparte's empire weakened. Similarly, Portugal would have survived the Napoleonic Invasion with the aid of the Duke of Wellington, only losing Angola to the French in the process. Portugal is likely a staunch British ally.

Britain and Mexico

Mexico is missing a few of its parts. As agreed between Immaculate and myself, the conclusion was that California and Texas have been split off by fillibustering freebooters, etc. Texas and California likely see their independence maintained by threats of British intervention should either the US or Mexico attempt to retake them. The Yucatan, by contrast, is likely the result of a local Mayan independence movement.

The question is, why would all these regions secede from Mexico? Most of these secessions failed historically, with the exception of Texas, which had a lot of help. Personally, (and let me know what you think, Immac) I like the idea of Mexico falling into a major civil war between the interests of the Liberals and the interests of the clergy and the Hacienda owners, probably sometime in the late 1830s early 1840s. It's a big war, and it drains both forces fighting over the Mexican core regions badly, to the point that the sparsely populated north just doesn't see remaining part of Mexico as worth it anymore. Texas and California secede, with British and American aid, and the Mayans in the Yucatan begin a long-running independence war against anybody who strays into the region.

Eventually, in the early 1850s, the war peters out with somebody being the winner. Mexico is an Empire, we're given this. The typical "foreign interventionist Hapsburg Emperor of Mexico" is a bit dull to me, but its not exactly my call, but I had the idea of having a home-grown general (from whatever side) taking power in Mexico and crowning himself Emperor. He's a home-grown Napoleon, and he knows it, which puts him more and more in the French camp. Emperor Don Diego de la Vega (name just for the sake of example and honestly, just coz its funny) reigns over a reduced Empire, but he brings back a measure of stability. At some point, Diego I dies and somebody (presumeably his son) takes over, and possibly reintroduces democracy, etc. Mexico and France are probably, if not bosom buddies, at least cordial, in a way that Britain and Mexico are probably not.

Britain and Latin America

I don't want to get too in depth here, because Brazil has a player and I don't know what he wants to do with it, but Brazil has clearly lost Rio Grande do Sul. Historically, the Piratini revolt was a rebellion against slavery and the monarchy, which failed in creating an independent republic of the Rio Grande do Sul. Here, its succeeded. I guess if the Piratini revolt happens as OTL, the British would be supporting it in a pretty heavy capicty, using their interests in ending the slave trade as an excuse to meddle. How Brazil goes independent is another question, but given Britain's close relationship with Portugal in this timeline, the UK and Brazil can't be too friendly.

Britain and Europe

Britain would be in an awkward position, at this point. No real allies in Europe, most of its actions would have been intervening in other crises and trying to throw its weight around whenever its convenient. With France engaging in a policy of strategic withdrawal in places, the UK would benefit greatly. The Italian Crisis, in the 1830s, probably had the UK putting its weight on the Austrian side, trying to push that into a weakening of Italian control.

Most likely, a resurgent Ottoman Empire would be of great interest to the UK, as a counterweight to its not-exactly friends in Austria and Russia (as happened historically). Britain has probably been a big supporter of the Ottoman Empire since 1815, and its probably feeling pretty good about its resurgence. However, it finds itself on the wrong side of the Vienna Congress, where the Austrians and Russians push through the weakening of Ottoman Power in the Balkans. Others start trying to get their dagger in - Venice, supported by the Austrians, succeeds in getting hold of Crete, whereas Britain must compensate itself with Cyprus as a naval base. The UK is smarting, but the end is not yet, and the Ottomans are still fairly strong enough to be, if not a British ally, at least close.

On the other hand, Britain has probably been a backer in keeping Germany divided. It's not beneficial for anybody at this stage to be greatly in favour of German unification, and Britain is no better. Since I've decided by fiat that Queen Victoria is born a boy, King Victor I, Hannover is still in personal union with Britain, though this means less as time goes on. British interests are hard at work in Germany, preventing the danger of unification.

Britain and Asia

We've previously established the the Panjab repelled the UK's forces at some point in the 1830s, which must have been humiliating. It's at that point that Russia's victory in this timeline's equivalent of the Great Game is secured. With a resurgent Khalistan thwarting British interests and Russia expanding southwards, Britain is forced to step back a bit and be a little more patient in regards to its interests in India. That said, the Indian Mutiny happens more or less on schedule, with similar results - the dissolution of the Mughal Empire and the BEIC, and the Victor I is crowned Emperor of India. The big difference, of course, is the loss of Kalat to the Panjab, but at least its a valuable buffer against the Russians, who know have Afghanistan in their pockets.

Britain was probably a backer of Japanese modernisation too, in contrast to the French who supported the Samurai currently in hiding in Ezo. The soldiers of Meiji's army are probably drilling with British guns led by British officers. Its possible that they are part of multinational interests, but the British are definitely involved somewhere.

That's all for now, I guess. Let me know if there's anything you're interested in or I've missed something, I'm a bit tired right now.

EDIT: I like what grandkhan wrote but i would change Cuba so it leaves spain too. USA is still more grateful to spain after the revolutionary war in this timeline so we would take an indie cuba but probably not a spanish one. other than that i liked what you wrote grandkhan.

American Political Landscape

In 1880 USA, voting rights are afforded only to land-owning free men of the age of 18 or greater.

The modern American political system has evolved into multi-party system effectively dominated by several conservative parties, who, due to vote-splitting, often have to govern through consensus. Since the devastating war of 1812, federalism has become increasingly popular and this led to the development of the Constitutional Party. Its pro-centralist, modernist economic philosophy, married to much of the conservative ideology of the democratic party it was founded from, has assured that it has largely been dominant since its inception (though with some notable, but transient, losses to both the Whig and Democratic parties in the 1840s and 1860s).

Another centralizing influence arising from the losses of the war of 1812 was the empowerment of the executive branch at the cost of disempowering congress. Congress, along with anti-federalist sentiments, after 1812, was largely seen as having been instrumental in the loss of New England (with many in congress very sympathetic to the secessionist cause). Ultimately, in addition to empowering federalism, this made congress a scapegoat, politically, and much of their power were transferred to the president.

Under the Constitutional Party, industrialization of the nation has proceeded at a breakneck pace and today the USA effectively competes with both Great Britain and France in manufacturing. Indeed married to the focus on developing industrial (steam)engines, the extensive use of slavery in resource development (agriculture, mining), infrastructure (rail and canal building), and in manufacturing itself often means that American textiles and machinery can very effectively compete in foreign markets. At the same time, they have been avid supporters of western expansion and the various homesteading and western plantation acts have pushed the American population westward, while also providing an outlet for white freemen who cannot compete with slaves for employment as manual labor. The resources of the west, as well as a government focus on creation of investment vehicles and opportunities through a number of well-developed stock exchanges have also attracted manufacturing and industrialization, and in this timeline, western industrialization, often again based on slave labor, is much more developed then it was in our timeline

Immigration has been constant and continuous, especially from white European states, though a brief period in the 1860s that saw the Levin party in power resulting in a temporary reduction in those coming from predominantly Catholic countries. This has since reversed and immigration continues unabated. Most immigrants have moved west to establish homesteads or manage the smaller western manufacturies.

Relations with native Americans have been poor, with those taking up arms against the western expansion of the USA being beaten decisively and their people sold into slavery far from their homes in the eastern mills and mines. Those who have surrendered their lands have been forcefully deported to Sequoya instead (though the Democratic party has repeatedly advocated a forceful push to annex Sequoya without concern for its peoples).


American Political Parties

• Whig Party: Liberalism (argue to extend voting to all free males over 18, argue to extend some rights to slaves), Economic nationalism (national banks, federal financial infrastructure), Traditionally protectionist (but much less so now as the USA assumes a dominant role in manufacturing), Pro-federalism
• Democratic Party: Conservatism (against extending any rights to slaves or voting rights to those without land), Free Market (private banks), Agrarianism (harkening to a biblical pastoral idealism), Western Expansion (Manifest Destiny, anti-native), Militarism and Revanchism (a relatively new phenomenon), Pro-immigration (white Europeans anyway), Anti-federalism
• Constitutional Party: Conservatism (against extending any rights to slaves or voting rights to those without land), Economic nationalism (national banks, federal financial infrastructure, investment tools through stock exchanges), Free Market (do not believe that the now well established American industrial machines needs protections and increasingly sees foreign protectionism as a threat), Industrialist and Modernists (strongly advocate both steam engine and other device-based labor while also heavily dependent upon manual slave labor in manufacturing, with unlanded free white men increasingly specialized in technical positions), Western Expansion (Manifest Destiny, anti-native), Pro-immigration (white Europeans anyway), Pro-Federalism, Militarism (at least they talk a big game; in reality they were unwilling to go head to head with Mexico and fell back to using filibusters)
  (broke away from the Democratic party over economic and federalism issues in the 1820s and have steadily gained ground since)
• Levin Party: Anti-Immigration, Anti-Naturalism, Anti-Catholic, Protestantism, Temperance, Traditionalism
• Freemen Party: Emancipation of slaves, Liberalism (verging on laissez-fair libertarianism regarding civil issues), Free Market, Pro-Immigration (all immigrants), Anti-Federalism, Reduced role for government
  (broke away from the Whig party when the Whig party didn’t go far enough in denouncing slavery and championing liberal ideals)

I'm really interested, I'd like to know which countries are actually available.

There is a list on the front page of this, and the stats are on the front page of the actual NES.

Yeah, but I noticed there that, for example, Prussia is (was if you have updated it) available, although SK claimed it already.

PS: I see it's updated. I'll make my decision soon enough.

Russian History -- More in Depth.


Russian Foreign Policy
I suppose the Russian campaign did not happen, according to what GK and others have said - hence the existence of the Duchy of Warsaw.

Following the end of the Napoleonic Wars Russia turned its gaze inward, and Eastward, looking more towards its industrialization and expansionism into both Central Asia, and East Asia (China and Korea). The acquisition of Manchuria, and parts of Northern Korea probably occurred in the 1850s-1860s somewhere, and I would consider Korea a fairly reliant ally of the Russian Empire.

In terms of Central Asia, I see Russian expansion occurring into the Khivan Khanate, and with increased influence over Afghanistan, the great game should have been relatively successful.

Industrialization

I would say that Russian industrialization is going faster than IRL, as it seems fairly industrialized (From an EP point of view) and seems mostly on par with France, and other major European nations. That being I do not see there being any 'bustling' middle class, but rather some sort of industrial class, who works in the factories and such. There is still a lot of social stratification over all, but serfdom should have been repealed, and made illegal.

The Ottoman Empire, and The Congress of Vienna

Everything JK said is canon. Russia and The Ottoman Empire fought a war, and it went far less successfully than it did IRL, with Russia only gaining bits in Georgia and elsewhere. When the war turned into a stalemate the Congress of Vienna was proclaimed (IRL Congress of Berlin) and it cut up the Balkans, and made Romania, and Bulgaria both neutrally independent nation states, along with the expansion of Serbia and others.

Political Parties of the United Kingdom

Socialists
Currently, no single large Socialist Party exists in Britain (we're about five years off from the formation of even small socialist parties running in elections historically, and I see no reason why this would be significantly different ITTL). Trade Unions are gaining traction as vehicles for electoral politics, but have not entered politics representing themselves yet. Several Liberal and Reform League electorates have put forward Trade Unionist affiliated candidates, however.

Chartist Party
With a revolutionary France and Europe across the channel, Britain is slightly more conservative in governance and action. As such, various enfranchisements that were passed 15 years prior OTL have only just been passed, including the 1867 reform act - urban labourers have only just got the vote. As such, there is still a significant Radical wing in British politics, as represented by the radical liberal Chartist Party and their leader John Bright. The Chartists stand for universal manhood sufferage, the introduction of the secret ballot, payment for MPs, free trade, and price and wage controls to ensure the wages of the workingman. Internationally, they are staunchly opposed to foreign interventions which drain the taxes of the workingman. In that sense, they are proto-socialists, though they are far, far more moderate economically than 19th century socialists were.

Liberal Party
The current ruling party of Great Britain, led by William Ewert Gladstone. Formed from the merger of the Whigs and the Radicals in the 1840s, the Liberals stand for laissez-faire economics, free trade, and the expansion of personal liberty and suffrage. They recently passed the 1878 Reform Act, which enfranchised the urban working class for the first time, against the opposition of the Tories. Internationally, the Liberal Party have an interventionist streak and strongly support British attempts to expand colonially.

Conservative Party (AKA the Tories)
The Tories are the conservative counterpart to the Liberals, led by Lord Salisbury. The Tories stand for economic protectionism, interventionist economic policy, and are reluctant to expand the franchise. They are also foreign policy interventionists who seek to end Britain's isolationism and become more involved in the political affairs of the European continent.

Home Rule Party
An Irish Party seeking Dominion Status for Ireland (where the population is currently largely unable to vote). The Home Rule Party have gained some traction in Ireland due to sympathetic landowners and the Irish working class, and currently enjoy the position of occasional kingmaker with the ability to swing legislation to their interests.

This is what I envisioned for Danish history:

With greater Napoleanic success overall, the Danes are better supported in the War of the Sixth Coalition, and Anglo-Swedish forces are not nearly as succesful against Denmark-Norway. As a result, there the Treaty of Kiel only results in minor concessions in Norway to Sweden and Denmark retains control over most of Norway. Without the loss of Norway and with the encouragement of the French, Frederick VI does not become reactionary and eventually introduces a constitution in 1830 (29 years before TTL). Tensions rise in Schleswig-Holstein as he also announces the annexation of those duchies directly into Denmark. Advancing the cause of the Germans, Prussia threatens to invade, but the combination of a more powerful Denmark, a more subdued German nationalism, and France threatening to intervene forces Prussia to back down, allowing Denmark to annex Schleswig-Holstein without much incident. In a generally stronger position that in OTL, Denmark does not sell its West African colonies to Britain, but instead begins to develop and expand them as the Scramble for Africa begins.

Thoughts?

I don't know when Sweden would take the peninsula from Russia, though. I see a couple options: first, a crazy post-Napoleonic Wars settlement where Sweden is compensated for Danish gains in the south with Russian territory in the north, but I'm not sure I like that.

The second option is what I'm tentatively calling the No Really, I'm Totally Swedish War, where the Bernadottes lead Sweden into a war with Russia for some reason - maybe to unite the nation against an external enemy to paper over instability? The land that they capture, rather than the old possessions in southern Finland, suggest an interest in the Arctic Ocean, perhaps with an eye to using Murmansk as a naval base unimpeded by a Danish Skagerrak (though, of course, its sheer latitude presents its own set of problems).

Denmark doesn't appear to have annexed any Swedish territory anyway; if anything, it's the other way around (well, Norwegian territory).

You're right, I misremembered the map.