SouthernKing
crickety cricket
Ooh, this looks delicious. I'll take the German Confederation?
Pre-TLKNES: Bella Epoque
- Thread starter TheLizardKing
- Start date
mrrandomplayer
Hopeless Situation Warrior
Where are you when Royal Tenenbaum's IAAR needs you most? Screw time.
badunoff
Prince
After years of not even going on this site I come back and see that TLK has posted this just yesterday. I'll take it as a sign that I should start doing this again.
Brazil, Colombia, or Persia please, in order of preference.
Brazil, Colombia, or Persia please, in order of preference.
Blaze Injun
Night Radio KYSE
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2005
- Messages
- 4,918
Hey,
Korea, Japan or Transvaal?
Thanks,
Blaze Injun
Korea, Japan or Transvaal?
Thanks,
Blaze Injun
TheLizardKing
Let's talk Michelle.
Welcome everyone! The front page has been updated.
EDIT: Still looking for a Prussia, New England, Mexico and Ottoman Empire.
EDIT: Still looking for a Prussia, New England, Mexico and Ottoman Empire.
TheLizardKing
Let's talk Michelle.
Posted temporary stats on the front page. Let me know if you see any major discrepancies.
Several select nations will be dubbed "Pre-modern" nations, (Pre-Industrial, maybe?). Nations that are on their way to being considered modern, in the concert of nations. These select few will have different pricing for units, and availability. Examples include Morocco, Siam, Khalistan, Korea, etc. They can either embark on industrialization by themselves, or enlist the help of a major power.
Also, keep in mind, when you all work out trade agreements and deals, your economies will change drastically.
Several select nations will be dubbed "Pre-modern" nations, (Pre-Industrial, maybe?). Nations that are on their way to being considered modern, in the concert of nations. These select few will have different pricing for units, and availability. Examples include Morocco, Siam, Khalistan, Korea, etc. They can either embark on industrialization by themselves, or enlist the help of a major power.
Also, keep in mind, when you all work out trade agreements and deals, your economies will change drastically.
J.K. Stockholme
Right Opposition
So how do you expect players to develop the backstory? Should we write just about our own nation's background and you'll compile them or what?
TheLizardKing
Let's talk Michelle.
Essentially yes. To roughly quote what I said to LoE privately; I'm giving you a history book that ends sometime in 1815, and showing you a map of the world in 1880. Fill in the rest. Try to fill in your national histories, and those of NPCs as much as you want, and I'll compile it. If I need to 'nudge' a few things here and there, I will, but hopefully I shouldn't have to, too much.
DC123456789
Deity
I'd like to claim Denmark, the Netherlands, or New England.
Immaculate
unerring
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 7,623
So some rough-sketch ideas for the USA of this timeline.
The Hartford Convention and the loss of much of New England was a heavy blow for the young United States of America. It resulted in a much clearer alignment of US and French interests as the US became more dependent upon France to finance and wage its war against Great Britain. It also ultimately resulted in an embolded Britain who acted more directly in Michigan to support the natives of Tecumseh's Confederacy, which, ultimately was not able to prevent Governor William Henry Harrison sacking and burning Prophetstown but which led to an draining and ongoing British-fueled guerrilla war on the frontier. In the subsequent peace between Britain and the USA, Britain championed the Michigan cause and forced the USA to recognize it as a British dominion (EDITED with help from Chief Designer), a point of contention that remains to this day.
The loss of both New England and Michigan, in quick succession, in addition to striking a blow to the industrial heart of the nascent nation, also changed its very psyche. One of the things it did was cause a centralizing of power federally to a larger extent then has occurred in our timeline, while also empowering a militarist reactionism that remains to this day. Relations with the victorious Brits, and their dominions, have never fully recovered while relations with France, and to a lesser extent Spain and Denmark have remained excellent.
Culture, national personality, American conscience were affected by the losses of the Hartford convention and the territorial losses of the war of 1812. Perhaps to make up for these losses, manifest destiny, in particular, has resounded much more loudly amongst the citizens and politicians of the USA. The democratic party has been, in this timeline, more dominant to the Whigs then it was in ours, perhaps due to the reduced influence of New England. Regardless, it is perhaps due to the influence of manifest destiny in politics and culture, that filibustering has had a greater influence on USA events then it did in our own history. Indeed it is through military filibusters that the USA acquired first Cuba then Costa Rica.
This timeline also does not see an American civil war. Ultimately the south has carried more influence in federal policy (there was never an Abraham Lincoln in this timeline) and instead of seeking to govern themselves as they see fit without influence from the ‘northern states’, they have been largely successful in exporting their influence throughout a more centralized nation. Today, slavery is alive and well, not only in the south but throughout all of the USA, and in particular in the Caribbean states.
The loss of the industrial north has also led to the industrialization of the south and the growth of an urban slave class, who, due to working conditions, look to their rural brethren with envy.
Thoughts on California and Texas: These nations freed themselves from Mexico partially through the supportive action of American military filibustering. Generally the USA did not engage in outright war with the Mexicans. As a consequence, while these nations won their independence and are strong allies of the USA, and even have very significant American-anglo populations,they were not annexed outright. At least not yet. (this is all very much up in the air- does this make sense or totally suck?)
Sequoya I have no idea how to fit into this history and am more than willing to consider others’ thoughts on this nation.
The Hartford Convention and the loss of much of New England was a heavy blow for the young United States of America. It resulted in a much clearer alignment of US and French interests as the US became more dependent upon France to finance and wage its war against Great Britain. It also ultimately resulted in an embolded Britain who acted more directly in Michigan to support the natives of Tecumseh's Confederacy, which, ultimately was not able to prevent Governor William Henry Harrison sacking and burning Prophetstown but which led to an draining and ongoing British-fueled guerrilla war on the frontier. In the subsequent peace between Britain and the USA, Britain championed the Michigan cause and forced the USA to recognize it as a British dominion (EDITED with help from Chief Designer), a point of contention that remains to this day.
The loss of both New England and Michigan, in quick succession, in addition to striking a blow to the industrial heart of the nascent nation, also changed its very psyche. One of the things it did was cause a centralizing of power federally to a larger extent then has occurred in our timeline, while also empowering a militarist reactionism that remains to this day. Relations with the victorious Brits, and their dominions, have never fully recovered while relations with France, and to a lesser extent Spain and Denmark have remained excellent.
Culture, national personality, American conscience were affected by the losses of the Hartford convention and the territorial losses of the war of 1812. Perhaps to make up for these losses, manifest destiny, in particular, has resounded much more loudly amongst the citizens and politicians of the USA. The democratic party has been, in this timeline, more dominant to the Whigs then it was in ours, perhaps due to the reduced influence of New England. Regardless, it is perhaps due to the influence of manifest destiny in politics and culture, that filibustering has had a greater influence on USA events then it did in our own history. Indeed it is through military filibusters that the USA acquired first Cuba then Costa Rica.
This timeline also does not see an American civil war. Ultimately the south has carried more influence in federal policy (there was never an Abraham Lincoln in this timeline) and instead of seeking to govern themselves as they see fit without influence from the ‘northern states’, they have been largely successful in exporting their influence throughout a more centralized nation. Today, slavery is alive and well, not only in the south but throughout all of the USA, and in particular in the Caribbean states.
The loss of the industrial north has also led to the industrialization of the south and the growth of an urban slave class, who, due to working conditions, look to their rural brethren with envy.
Thoughts on California and Texas: These nations freed themselves from Mexico partially through the supportive action of American military filibustering. Generally the USA did not engage in outright war with the Mexicans. As a consequence, while these nations won their independence and are strong allies of the USA, and even have very significant American-anglo populations,they were not annexed outright. At least not yet. (this is all very much up in the air- does this make sense or totally suck?)
Sequoya I have no idea how to fit into this history and am more than willing to consider others’ thoughts on this nation.
ChiefDesigner
Sunset Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 761
lurker's comment: Michigan should probably be better named "Shawnee" or "Tecumseh;" it's clearly a Native American state carved out by Tecumseh after an alternate Tippecanoe.
Sequoyah was probably also a filibuster state, some kind of American dependency formed when the US was either unwilling or unable to engage in war against Mexico.
Sequoyah was probably also a filibuster state, some kind of American dependency formed when the US was either unwilling or unable to engage in war against Mexico.
TheLizardKing
Let's talk Michelle.
No, it's Britain claiming parts of the Northwest Territory after winning the War of 1812. It's very much European dominion, that has been suffering from an influx of American immigration the past few decades. British rule has been loosened in the wake of this, though the Empire still wishes to retain dominance on the Great Lakes.
My thoughts were Sequoya are this; The US and Mexican government agreed to setting aside tracts of land for Native Tribes. The land has been carved up by re-located tribes, and operates in a loose Confederate system, dominated by the Cherokee, similar to the original idea OTL. Only, a stronger Mexico and British influence in Texas has the United States abiding by it's promises in this respect a bit more.
California: Was a filibuster state, carved out by Americans and a few British soldiers of fortune. A weakened United States had no real impetuous to annex the area outright, which allowed for some form of a Californio national identity to form. In my readings, the concept of a 'serene Californian' Republic wasn't entirely out of the question. The population is stare largely Mexican, and culture hispanic, with tinges of American and British influence. Population and industry have grown a bit, and the cultural differences have made the chance for peaceful acquisition by the United States a thing of the past. At least with the large Hispanic population.
Texas: Similar events as OTL, though the British were a bit more pro-active is securing it's borders, and making sure it stayed independent of both the US and Mexico. 40 years later, Texan nationalism is rather stronger, and the first generation of 'Texans' have come into their own.
Of course, players for either nation are free to tweak with that a bit.
Immac, your history looks good. I sort of had that in mind for the United States. A lot of potential, but a more pro-active Britain curtailing it's expansion attempts every step of the way.
SouthernKing
crickety cricket
Some thoughts.
In India, the unpopular Kharak Singh, heir apparent to Khalistan (aka the Sikh Empire), dies in 1838 or so. Therefore, instead of Ranjit Singh making Kharak his successor shortly before Ranjit's death in 1839, the throne passes to his third son Tara Singh. Similar to OTL, there is a series of political crises and infighting over the next several years, but Tara Singh by 1845 is able to solidify the empire firmly under his control, by courting the military his father had built. Thus, when the British attempt to invade (as in OTL) in 1845, Khalistan is able to repulse their invasion. Tensions between the two states remain high for the next decade, until the Mutiny begins (again, as OTL). The British, fearing that the Sikhs might attempt to use the opportunity to land grab and eat away at British influence in the northwest, agree to cede the princely state of Kalat to Khalistan, in exchange for neutrality (however much to the consternation of the actual prince of Kalat, who unsuccessfully tries to resist the move, and thus manages to get himself remvoed) With Kalat under its control, Khalistan by the 1860s has solidified control over the remainder of Baluchistan, and gain sea access, which accelerates the pace of modernization.
Also, no matter how much it does not desire this position, Khalistan is also a handy buffer between the Raj and the Russians. On that point, Afghanistan is probably significantly more Russian-influenced than OTL, and is probably little more a Russian buffer state; I wouldn't be surprised if the present Shah is merely whoever the Russians decide is more cooperative with their interests.
That Ottoman Empire probably came about from Muhammad Ali somehow being removed from power sometime in the 1830s and the region coming under direct Ottoman rule again. I have no clue how this would happen or what happened after that.
These are not final at all. I'm also not an expert at all in any way so take these with grains of salt
In India, the unpopular Kharak Singh, heir apparent to Khalistan (aka the Sikh Empire), dies in 1838 or so. Therefore, instead of Ranjit Singh making Kharak his successor shortly before Ranjit's death in 1839, the throne passes to his third son Tara Singh. Similar to OTL, there is a series of political crises and infighting over the next several years, but Tara Singh by 1845 is able to solidify the empire firmly under his control, by courting the military his father had built. Thus, when the British attempt to invade (as in OTL) in 1845, Khalistan is able to repulse their invasion. Tensions between the two states remain high for the next decade, until the Mutiny begins (again, as OTL). The British, fearing that the Sikhs might attempt to use the opportunity to land grab and eat away at British influence in the northwest, agree to cede the princely state of Kalat to Khalistan, in exchange for neutrality (however much to the consternation of the actual prince of Kalat, who unsuccessfully tries to resist the move, and thus manages to get himself remvoed) With Kalat under its control, Khalistan by the 1860s has solidified control over the remainder of Baluchistan, and gain sea access, which accelerates the pace of modernization.
Also, no matter how much it does not desire this position, Khalistan is also a handy buffer between the Raj and the Russians. On that point, Afghanistan is probably significantly more Russian-influenced than OTL, and is probably little more a Russian buffer state; I wouldn't be surprised if the present Shah is merely whoever the Russians decide is more cooperative with their interests.
That Ottoman Empire probably came about from Muhammad Ali somehow being removed from power sometime in the 1830s and the region coming under direct Ottoman rule again. I have no clue how this would happen or what happened after that.
These are not final at all. I'm also not an expert at all in any way so take these with grains of salt
Grandkhan
Telvanni Master Wizard
I actually had some thoughts on the state of North America.
California is, by dint of geography and what TLK has said about its population, a multicultural hodgepodge of ethnic and racial groups as a result of the Gold Rushes, ruled over by a small Yankee planter class. Technically a democracy, but corrupt as hell. Texas and California are definitely carved out by filibusters, but with aggressive UK and New English action keeping them independent rather than allowing them to petition for statehood within the United States.
Cuba might be a bit different. Cuba is too populated for filibusters to really topple the colonial government. My theory with regards to Cuba is a little different. A more liberal monarchy in Spain attempts to ban slavery earlier (historically it was banned in the 1880s), the Cuban planter aristocracy flat out refuse and declare secession, and, needing a large powerful slaving power to protect them, apply for statehood in the United States (which TLK has already established). The US accepts, and the Spanish aren't really capable of tangling with the US navy so they pull out.
The result: Cuba is a US slave state, albeit a very hispanic one.
I dunno Immaculate, what do you think?
I'll start thinking about the UK later. I don't know if we're doing it in this thread or the other, but i'm partial to background discussions in the pre-thread, I dunno why.
California is, by dint of geography and what TLK has said about its population, a multicultural hodgepodge of ethnic and racial groups as a result of the Gold Rushes, ruled over by a small Yankee planter class. Technically a democracy, but corrupt as hell. Texas and California are definitely carved out by filibusters, but with aggressive UK and New English action keeping them independent rather than allowing them to petition for statehood within the United States.
Cuba might be a bit different. Cuba is too populated for filibusters to really topple the colonial government. My theory with regards to Cuba is a little different. A more liberal monarchy in Spain attempts to ban slavery earlier (historically it was banned in the 1880s), the Cuban planter aristocracy flat out refuse and declare secession, and, needing a large powerful slaving power to protect them, apply for statehood in the United States (which TLK has already established). The US accepts, and the Spanish aren't really capable of tangling with the US navy so they pull out.
The result: Cuba is a US slave state, albeit a very hispanic one.
I dunno Immaculate, what do you think?
I'll start thinking about the UK later. I don't know if we're doing it in this thread or the other, but i'm partial to background discussions in the pre-thread, I dunno why.
Immaculate
unerring
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 7,623
agree on the pre-thread thing.
like your take on cali.
Not sure about your take on cuba. need to read more about historical manifest destiny movement and cuba.
like your take on cali.
Not sure about your take on cuba. need to read more about historical manifest destiny movement and cuba.
My thoughts on Russia;
Russia was able to come out of the Napoleonic Wars rather unscathed, albeit losing parts of Poland to a Polish government in its own right, and other parts to Austria and Prussia. Following the Napoleonic Wars Russia turned its focus inwards, I wouldn't call them "Isolationist" but they definitely decided to focus more on interior industrialization and other programs to modernize both the economy, and the country as a whole.
Somewhere along the way a war with Sweden was fought, and they were able to secure control of Northern Finland (not sure why they'd want it
). That slight defeat really turned Russian interests to the East. Russia began intervening more and more in Chinese, Japanese and Korean affairs. Finally Russia began to take parts of these countries as their own, first by securing favorable treaties with both Korea and China where they gave up parts of Northern Korea and Manchuria respectfully.
Russia has also turned its gaze into central Asia wishing to see colonial expansion in the areas just north of Persia. Lastly, in terms of colonial ambitions Russia was unable to come to a deal for the purchase of Alaska and instead various leaders came into power who opted to be favor of further expansion south into the Oregon Country (British Columbia). The further southern expansion into The Oregon Country is considered a very hot-button issue in Russian diplomatic affairs.
In regards to the government, little has changed and the Tsar/Emperor still rules with an Iron Fist.
Russia was able to come out of the Napoleonic Wars rather unscathed, albeit losing parts of Poland to a Polish government in its own right, and other parts to Austria and Prussia. Following the Napoleonic Wars Russia turned its focus inwards, I wouldn't call them "Isolationist" but they definitely decided to focus more on interior industrialization and other programs to modernize both the economy, and the country as a whole.
Somewhere along the way a war with Sweden was fought, and they were able to secure control of Northern Finland (not sure why they'd want it
). That slight defeat really turned Russian interests to the East. Russia began intervening more and more in Chinese, Japanese and Korean affairs. Finally Russia began to take parts of these countries as their own, first by securing favorable treaties with both Korea and China where they gave up parts of Northern Korea and Manchuria respectfully. Russia has also turned its gaze into central Asia wishing to see colonial expansion in the areas just north of Persia. Lastly, in terms of colonial ambitions Russia was unable to come to a deal for the purchase of Alaska and instead various leaders came into power who opted to be favor of further expansion south into the Oregon Country (British Columbia). The further southern expansion into The Oregon Country is considered a very hot-button issue in Russian diplomatic affairs.
In regards to the government, little has changed and the Tsar/Emperor still rules with an Iron Fist.
Blaze Injun
Night Radio KYSE
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2005
- Messages
- 4,918
My thoughts on Russia;
Russia was able to come out of the Napoleonic Wars rather unscathed, albeit losing parts of Poland to a Polish government in its own right, and other parts to Austria and Prussia. Following the Napoleonic Wars Russia turned its focus inwards, I wouldn't call them "Isolationist" but they definitely decided to focus more on interior industrialization and other programs to modernize both the economy, and the country as a whole.
Somewhere along the way a war with Sweden was fought, and they were able to secure control of Northern Finland (not sure why they'd want it
Northern Korea? Really. No diplo on these treaties? Korea is a player nation.
Blaze Injun
TheLizardKing
Let's talk Michelle.
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!
Keep it up everyone!
Well, the map has Russia owning parts of Northern Korea at the on-set of the game.
talonschild
Drive-By NESer
Might I join as Sweden?
Similar threads
