Alternate History Thread III

[das]

PoD-for-the-day (#4 - March 15th, 2007): Quite straightforward and unoriginal: Julius Caesar survives. In the wake of the thwarted conspiracy, his rule becomes more strict and heavy-handed, and the republican system, demoralised and effectively leaderless, is increasingly supplanted by a new authoritarian one; the diehards complain and are killed, but the masses are firmly behind Caesar, both because of his heroic status and because of his vast public works and social reforms. The army is behind him all the way as well. The late 40s/early 30s BC also see a war with Parthia, which Caesar handles expertly, augmenting the Roman army with superior auxillary cavalry from the East and making alliances with local (particularily Armenian) leaders. Armenia and Mesopotamia are conquered (but placed under vassal rulers as opposed to direct Roman power), and Parthia (with its capital moved to Ecbatana and a new ruler elevated with Roman assistance) is forced to acknowledge Rome's supremacy, return the banners lost at Carrhae and generally submit. Another campaign gives Rome most of the Danube Basin. Eventually Caesar makes the controversial move of claiming the title of Rex; by then he already has much support, and his friends and advisors (including Cleopatra, ofcourse) have been organising propaganda in this direction for some time, so Julius I succesfully formalises his absolute power and begins administrative and military reforms, thwarting a few uprisings and eventually dying of old age while on campaign in Germany.

With so much power concentrated in Julius' hands and so much pent up social tension since the last civil war, the Caesarian Empire implodes quickly and bloodily. Caesarion claims power at the behest of his mother Cleopatra, with whom he soon has to flee back to Egypt, from where the Egyptians and the Romans loyal to Caesarion strike out on a thinly-veiled land-grab; Parthia, which has more-or-less recovered by now, invades Mesopotamia breaking its ties with Rome; Octavian, who too claimed to be the legal heir of Caesar via adoption and was understandably more popular than Caesarion, secured Rome but now struggled to keep the Empire together and to defend his central position against opposing generals closing in from other locations; and as already mentioned other generals are also on the move to take what they can.

A likely outcome is that the extensive empire never is fully reunited, or at least not for long; Octavian holds on to Italy and nearby provinces, and manages to reconquer some others, but elsewhere Caesarian successor states predominate (not unlike the Diadochi situation), characterised by a mix of Latin (and sometimes Greek) cultures with native ones, in different proportions; the most Latin of those states is probably Hispania or Africa, although the strongest is the Romano-Graeco-Egyptian state ruled by Caesarion and his successors. Gaul and the whereabouts are tricky; it will either maintain a degree of cohesion, maybe even becoming a centralised Romano-Gaelic state (and a significant player in its own right), or break apart into lots of squabbling states and tribes. Lots of periphereal territories will be lost to foreign powers, though; the Germannics will gain ground in the east, and the other Latins will gain ground in the south (Narbonensis and points east are untenable). The Balkans will be a patchwork of Greek, Dalmatian and Thracian states, the Dalmatians probably falling to the Roman Kingdom. Asia Minor will be the messiest part of them all. Armenia is likely to be overran by the Parthians, though these are likely to crumble earlier than in OTL due to being weakened considerably by their previous defeats.

There should be a pretty interesting geopolitical dynamic in the Mediterranean, especially in the west.

Britannia will remain uninvaded, at least for now. Not at all sure what will that lead to in the long run... Britannic raids are likely to cause some problems for Gaul, however.

The Cult of Isis is likely to predominate in the Caesarid Egypt.

Anyway, this is clearly not my area of expertise, so I would appreciate some input from Dachspmg and the Strategos.

 

[Communisto]

i was thinking about this the other day. I don't quite know about it's potential but it seemed interesting to me.

What if the first dreadnought had been built by the germans? As we all know the dreadnought effectively made all old navies obsolete and was Germany's chance at creating a navy that would be able to stand up to Britain's. What if the Germans had been able to produce a strong navy? This could of achieved them a "place in the sun" with out the need for a World War. The germans control the north atlantic and Britain is un-able to match them in ship production (for whatever reason). The Germans by 1914 are masters of the seas. Would Britain declare nuetrality from the entente for fear of the german navy strangling Britain, or would they still stand up to Germany in an attempt to reclaim their naval supremacy? If they had entered the war, the German's with their superior navy could have controlled the atlantic and not allowed any supply ships from Canada or any of Britains other colonies which would have effectively knocked Britain out of the war. Without britain there would be no Somme offensive, leaving the French to take the full force of the German army at Verdun. So either there is no WWI (if there it is, it might have been simply an Austrian war in the Balkans as France might not have stood so firmly against Germany without British support) and Germany becomes a serious power in the world, or a German victory in the war. Does this interest anyone?

 

[Dachs]

Interesting althist, Dachs. Its very refreshing to read other people's stuff here. Good work with that unique epic feel of the Great War. The butterfly effect is well done as well, though some of the details are tough to keep track of, at least without a map.

Okay, I get the message. It will be soon.

Sounds familiar.

Actually, I always wondered why the Allies didn't attack the Dalmatian coastline in the actual war. I mean, my application of the thing does make sense in the context...

A bit reckless of him, isn't it?

Well, he wanted to keep the tradition of Field Marshals never surrendering and all that alive. Given the relative lack of sources on von Kluck's personality outside of The Guns of August, I really wasn't sure if he'd commit suicide or run, and decided to go with the latter. Remaining in control of the Army as it was - which was basically nonexistent - to me seemed silly.

Not sure if I understand what exactly happened in Turkey in the Summer of 1916. Did the Germans decide to ally with the rebels, or simply tried to make some sort of a landgrab? Or what?

It was more of an ally-with-the-rebels thing; the Empire itself didn't have many loyalists (to the Sultan anyway), and Germany just sort of ditched Mehmed V and Enver for a hopefully more successful government.

Wasn't it a Republic just now?

Suddenly, Dachs realized the necessity of writing the rest of the bloody thing.

All of it?

...and of making a map.

Yes to the first, no to the second.

So, what happens there? Does Austria annex Slovakia? Return it to Hungary? Grant it independence?

Annexation. It's the simplest of the bunch, and that part of the map I did finish.

I think if anything he was MORE militaristic; Wilhelm II wasn't as militaristic as megalomaniacal (in the positive meaning of the word ).

Poor vocabulary choice on my part.

Who gets the southwestern Bulgarian lands? Greece? Those would be some funny borders...

Yeah, I do need to write the rest. A little bit goes to Greece, a little to Serbia, and the rest is under Allied occupation as of 1920.

How much?

About half. A lot goes to this Turco-Armenian puppet state of doom. That little bit will become pretty important in the Anatolian mess in the late teens.

Any border details?

Mainly stuff south towards Mesopotamia - I think Lake Van's in there too. Most of these need to be resolved by a map.

Nicholas II was incompetent, not mad. Why would he crush his own troops, even if they're commanded by a Swede (who also happens to be an aristocrat and a Russian war hero)?

Apparently I forgot that he only gets out of favor with Kerensky. I don't know, put Reno in charge of the Finns.

The Japanese will really like that one, won't they? Although, that would have been very cunning of the Germans. A wedge is placed between Britain and Japan, while the wedge between the Germans and Japan is presumably removed.

The Germans conceding their colonies just like that sounds a bit too easy. Even had they decided to scrap decades of colonial development, wouldn't they have tried to get some money for it at least (i.e. agreeing to sell the colonies instead of simply handing them over)?

One of the reasons why the indemnities Germany would have had to pay suddenly went pfft. I think it was very cunning indeed...

Quite unlikely considering that a civil war in Ireland was only averted by the beginning of a world war. I suspect that in the wake of the usual post-war recession and social tensions, the Irish will rise again, though the British probably won't give up on Ireland so easily. The worst-case scenario here (a fully-fledged uprising, with the British having to fight an Irish version of the Second Boer War, and the Ulstermen commiting loud atrocities) would be quite... interesting, if only because it is likely to put a significant dent in the Anglo-American relations.

It's only been a couple of years. Give it time.

Liebknecht was way too cautious to actually act, though, at least before there are any chances of success. Plus he was already under arrest by then, I think.

Not at the beginning of the year, IIRC. He founded the Spartacists in January, that much I do know.

I'll respond to the rest as soon as I have more time.

 

[Disenfrancised]

i was thinking about this the other day. I don't quite know about it's potential but it seemed interesting to me.

What if the first dreadnought had been built by the germans? As we all know the dreadnought effectively made all old navies obsolete and was Germany's chance at creating a navy that would be able to stand up to Britain's. What if the Germans had been able to produce a strong navy? This could of achieved them a "place in the sun" with out the need for a World War. The germans control the north atlantic and Britain is un-able to match them in ship production (for whatever reason). The Germans by 1914 are masters of the seas. Would Britain declare nuetrality from the entente for fear of the german navy strangling Britain, or would they still stand up to Germany in an attempt to reclaim their naval supremacy? If they had entered the war, the German's with their superior navy could have controlled the atlantic and not allowed any supply ships from Canada or any of Britains other colonies which would have effectively knocked Britain out of the war. Without britain there would be no Somme offensive, leaving the French to take the full force of the German army at Verdun. So either there is no WWI (if there it is, it might have been simply an Austrian war in the Balkans as France might not have stood so firmly against Germany without British support) and Germany becomes a serious power in the world, or a German victory in the war. Does this interest anyone?

The bolded parts are the problems, why would Britain be unable to at least to attempt to match Germany given the traditional focus on the navy and naval technology? Also it would take longer than till 1914 for Germany to acheive naval parity (even at ludicrious production levels) considering the big British lead. Also the big ships of the Germans would still have to find the British convoys which can come in from many more angles than the approach to germany.

Its unlikly IMO that the Germans woudl be able to defeat the british unless you delay the outbreak of war till the 1920s. Which gives either a collapsing Russia (which would probably stop the outbreak of a Anglo-German war) or a more powerful one (considering the rate of Russia's industrial growth pre-1914).

 

[Communisto]

The bolded parts are the problems, why would Britain be unable to at least to attempt to match Germany given the traditional focus on the navy and naval technology? Also it would take longer than till 1914 for Germany to acheive naval parity (even at ludicrious production levels) considering the big British lead. Also the big ships of the Germans would still have to find the British convoys which can come in from many more angles than the approach to germany.

Its unlikly IMO that the Germans woudl be able to defeat the british unless you delay the outbreak of war till the 1920s. Which gives either a collapsing Russia (which would probably stop the outbreak of a Anglo-German war) or a more powerful one (considering the rate of Russia's industrial growth pre-1914).

well all the european powers were able to successfully build huge fleets of these ships by 1914. The first one was built in 1904 (im pretty sure) and within 10 years the British had built somewhere near 20, the germans had 11, austria had 3. ( I cant quite remember the figures but im pretty sure it was around that).

 

[das]

What if the first dreadnought had been built by the germans? As we all know the dreadnought effectively made all old navies obsolete and was Germany's chance at creating a navy that would be able to stand up to Britain's. What if the Germans had been able to produce a strong navy?

Couldn't matter less unless the Germans attack almost as soon as the dreadnaught is finished, which is a stupid and reckless thing to do on many levels. If they don't do that the British, having panicked for a while, quickly catch up, Fisher easily using the panic to secure better funding.

Really, the dreadnaughts weren't even all that powerful, as it turned out. Far less expensive mines or torpedos (whether on cruisers or on submarines) have easily disabled super-dreadnaughts in WWI. So a first dreadnaught is merely a symbolical advantage.

For the Germans to win the naval arms race, some different change is needed. Even then, I really can't see the British just giving up like that; if anything the threat of the Germans overtaking their lead might result in a "Copenhagen" (or "Pearl Harbour", if you will), as was in fact suggested by many British naval theorists even in OTL, any German advantage hopefully neutralised by sheer numbers of the British and possibly French ships and by the surprise effect.

Alternatively, ofcourse, the Germans might want to launch the first strike themselves. However, torpedo ships and subs would generally be far more effective for this target, as opposed to a lumbering, vulnerable wunderwaffe (a Death Star, if you will).

An interesting possibility would be the Germans doing something even crazier - namely, decreasing the priority of the naval race to lull the British into a sense of false security, while building up a fleet of airships for a sneak attack on Scapa Flow, to be followed up with a conventional naval assault on the weakened British fleet. Then a blockade is established, all British naval reinforcements are defeated in detail or forced to turn back, and the airships terrorise the countryside. Then the Germans transport in as many troops as they can, and occupy key positions; if the British refuse to surrender, they dismantle all industries and generally lay waste to the economy. This leaves Germany vulnerable to an attack by France and Russia, but the Landswehr should be able to slow them down, or, if they attack immediately, drive the poorly-prepared attacks back. Maybe the Germans will even land some troops in Normandy and march to Paris; that's far better than anything Schlieffen could come up with.

The above plan is deliberately crazy, but still might work (for obvious reasons of it having the element of surprise), and if it does then Germany will find itself in a ridicilously powerful position. The only problem is getting Wilhelm to accept it, but it isn't really that much worse than Schlieffen; all we need is to make Wilhelm and his advisors really panic for some reason.

Yes to the first, no to the second.

Partition, then? East to Russia, west to Poland?

Annexation. It's the simplest of the bunch, and that part of the map I did finish.

Those will be some funny borders...

Slovenia still Austrian?

About half. A lot goes to this Turco-Armenian puppet state of doom. That little bit will become pretty important in the Anatolian mess in the late teens.

Err, do the Turks themselves actually keep any of it?

I think it was very cunning indeed...

Did the Japanese get Qingdao at least?

 

[shortguy]

PoD-for-the-day (#4 - March 15th, 2007): Quite straightforward and unoriginal: Julius Caesar survives.

Interesting POD, though I'd say that if Caesar survived then Octavian's role would have been much reduced. If Caesarion is legitimate enough to put in a claim to the throne, Caesar might have dared to make him his heir anyway.

I was actually thinking of a POD much the opposite yesterday, in which Caesar was killed during Sulla's proscriptions. I don't think much would change until about 60, when Pompey and Crassus will have to find another consular candidate to prop up for their own purposes, which would be a potential flashpoint. I don't really know what would happen from, there, though.

 

[Dachs]

Partition, then? East to Russia, west to Poland?

What else?

Those will be some funny borders...

Slovenia still Austrian?

Serbia looks positively screwy. And Croatia takes a chunk of Slovene land. For the most part, this is going to ignore national self-determination just like the Versailles and associated Travesties.

Err, do the Turks themselves actually keep any of it?

Bloody hell! Wait for the next bit! You're delaying me!

I told you that there's a big mess in Anatolia, with French, Russian, Greek, and British units, Turkish partisans, and Armenian militia running around in a general melee.

Did the Japanese get Qingdao at least?

Yes, yes.

 

[Symphony D.]

PoD-for-the-day (#4 - March 15th, 2007): Quite straightforward and unoriginal: Julius Caesar survives.

There was a recent investigation (by the Italian Carabinieri) which put forward the theory Caeser was suffering from epilepsy and intentionally ignored all warnings so he would go out on top (it was increasing in severity)--and, by being murdered, become effectively immortal in the eyes of history. If one accepts that idea, then it doesn't make much sense for him to have survived unless the assassination itself somehow failed, which seems unlikely (even if he did only have one fatal wound, supposedly).

 

[das]

If Caesarion is legitimate enough to put in a claim to the throne, Caesar might have dared to make him his heir anyway.

I had him put off the decision for too long, as happened in some analogical situations. So after his death both the adapted heir Octavian and the biological heir Caesarion extend their claims to the throne.

unless the assassination itself somehow failed

Well, technically that was the intended PoD, though I should've made things more clear. As for "quitting life while you're ahead", that would make sense from a certain perspective (especially if the epilepsy thing is true), but he still did have some plans and ambitions left. I suppose the PoD would be for him becoming more eager to see them through and not letting anyone stop him, for some reason or another (might the Oracle of Delphi or some other religious figure be of some assistance here?), and accordingly crushing the conspiracy and using it to increase his power further.

 

[das]

OOC: This is much longer and more detailed than initially intended. More of a full-form althist than a mere PoD. Still I enjoyed writing it; thats why I got carried away, as usual.

IC:

PoD-for-the-day (#5 - March 16th, 2007): Francois Guizot does not resign at the beginning of the French Revolution of 1848, the king is more confident and Marshal Bugeaud is ordered to try and capture the barricades. In spite of initial success, the attempt to stiffle the Revolution ultimately backfires, as the government only loses what little support it had amongst the petite bourgoise during the brutal urban fighting, is itself bitterly divided and not even able to rule by the bayonet as most other commanders are reluctant to defend a doomed cause. So after a short, though fierce, civil war in Paris and its surroundings, the royal palace is taken by storm, King Louis-Philippe and his family are put on trial (and are exiled to Britain; France isn't nearly as radical as in OTL), and the Second Republic is proclaimed. However, the civil war had greatly undermined the positions of the monarchists and of the far right; and the far left was also weakened by the loss of some of its best leaders, combined with loud excesses commited by the sans-culottes immediately after the victory. Indeed, the more moderate of the Radical Republicans (i.e. still radical, but not communist) seem to have come out the strongest from this all, having averted disaster early in the battle. They and some other moderates end up creating "the form of government that divides us least".

However, the countryside is deeply conservative, and some of the republican leaders decide to capitalise on that for the elections, rallying around the candidature of the "moral republican" General Louis-Eugene Cavaignac, who also happens to have the support of the military, which is vital for the plans of the republican clique in question; perhaps even more importantly, the general isn't very apt politically, and so is easy enough to manipulate.

As expected, he wins the elections, and a conservative republic is established and consolidated, at least after the first few left-wing rebellions are defeated through judicious use of force.

The Second Republic of France is a very strange creature, combining radical and conservative ideas at home, and internationalist and nationalist foreign policy concepts. The latter gains sudden importance, as Cavaignac's advisors see a good opportunity to solidify the nation's unity, distract it from domestic woes and exploit the opportunities all around France. The idea of finally securing France's natural frontiers ("la Rhin et la Alpes" of the First French Revolution's least expansionist phase) appeals to pretty much everyone, as does that of exporting the revolution (for the left-wingers)/increasing French influence (for the right-wingers).

So the French government starts recognising various new governments arising in Europe, most notably those of Hungary and Poland, and also notably NOT that of the Roman Republic. Instead, Cavaignac and the National Assembly pledge full support for Carlo Alberto of Savoy, while also negotiating a treaty with him that will grant him the Italian throne with French diplomatic and military support, in exchange for him ceding Savoy and Nice to France and promising to let the Pope stay in Rome (the French wanted him to keep the city; Carlo Alberto understandably disagreed, and compromise was reached to let the Pope keep Vatican alone). Soon, a large French army joins the Savoyard and other Italian rebel forces, and in spite of Radetzky's skill the sheer numerical superiority of his enemies proves too much for his army in the Battle of Custoza. Although Radetzky managed to preserve the core of his army long enough to fall back towards Innsbruck, it disintegrated soon afterwards, having gone through way too much for a multiethnic force with no supplies and no pay, in national revolution time. Carlo Alberto and his allies ran rampant all over Italy, as the revolution spread. The Pope grumbled a lot, but ultimately accepted the Vatican compromise. Far more troublesome were the radical republicans, and Italy south of the Po remained in a state of de facto civil war for over two years; even after the Roman Republic was defeated, Garibaldi continued to lead a vigorous guerrila campaign in the countryside ("against the French marionette").

Between the utter defeats in Hungary and Italy and the riots in Vienna and Prague, the Austrian Empire collapsed, although Franz Josef managed to assemble an impromptu court at Innsbruck, attempting to coordinate the activities of Habsburg loyalists from there. His only real hope was Tsar Nicholas I, however.

Nicholas I had initially intended to march on Paris, but with the Polish and Hungarian rebellions on his doorstep he was forced to reconsider. The Poles he defeated soon enough, but the Hungarians were in a much stronger position, in spite of Russia's and Austria's tactical alliance with the Croatian rebels. With the help of French volunteers and Polish legionnaires, the Hungarians inflicted grievous casualties on the Russians in the Carpathians, and by the time a breakthrough was achieved the Hungarians had received more help in the form of Franco-Italian reinforcements (at the price of giving Illyria to the Italians; but the Hungarians figured that "sharing" those darn Croats with the Italians would weaken the Croatian movement as a whole and give Hungary a reliable ally in Rome, so it was worth it). In the end, the Habsburgs were forced to surrender, Franz Josef fleeing to Frankfurt-am-Main in hopes of securing German help, while the Russians decided to fall back - occupying Galicia and the Danubean Principalities to prevent any eastwards Hungarian or general revolutionary expansion. Hungarians and their allies were presently busy fighting off the occasional counter-revolutionary and Croatian uprisings.

The Austrian War was as over as the Empire of the same name, but the Second French Revolutionary Wars were only beginning. Rural uprisings were beginning, both due to the government's neglect of the countryside and because of the aforementioned conservatism. A British-backed Bonapartist coup attempt had come dangerously close to success. The British even dared act more openly, condemning the French actions in Italy and Austria, while quietly recognising the Russian protectorate over Galicia, if not over the Danubean Principalities. After the defeat of a major right-wing uprising, Cavaignac, lauded as hero and saviour of the Republic, was granted dictatorial powers.

In 1849, the French invaded Belgium, taking advantage of the crises and dissent shaking that country, and naturally courting the Walloon separatists and even the local industrial elite which desired an union with France and protection from the all too powerful British competition. The resistance was mostly token, at least in the south; the Belgian army failed to regroup in the north and the king joined Louis-Philippe in London, but the Flemish rebellions and the pro-Dutch agitation would remain a pain in the Republic's neck. Unwilling to lose momentum, the French advanced into Rhineland, claiming that the Frankfurt National Assembly was conspiring with the Habsburgs and the British government against the "freedoms of the French, Hungarian and Italian peoples". That was partially true, but the invasion still outraged many. The French crushed the Prussian army in a series of battles, and crossed the Rhine. However, further advance proved problematic due to rebellions and general resistance; while the French were busy getting delayed by this, their enemies rushed to get their act together. The British diplomats decided that the Habsburgs were too obsolete and preoccupied with regaining their empire; instead, they ventured to unite Germany (Greater Germany, naturally) around Friedrich Wilhelm IV. They came to regret their decision soon enough, but in the end they not only got the National Assembly to offer the crown but also, o miracle of miracles, Friedrich Wilhelm IV to accept it. Although still a pretty loose confederation, the new German Empire definitely had better chances at fighting off the French assault; not by much, admittedly, especially as Nicholas I proved suddenly reluctant to send his troops (to his mind the new German monarchy wasn't all that much better than the French Republic; the former was actually more liberal than the latter, and was also closer to St. Petersburg and Warsaw; so the best possible outcome was for the French and the Germans to kill as much of each other as possible until they all come to their senses or all die). So the British had to deploy a large expeditionary force to Germany instead, while also urging Friedrich Wilhelm IV to order a German equivalent of a levee en masse.

Long story cut short, the Anglo-German forces defeated the French east of the Rhine, but the French fell back in good order, destroyed all bridges and built fortifications on the western side of the Rhine. The Italo-German war was a quiet one; ultimately the Italians hung on to South Tyrol and Illyria, the Germans uneager to fight thier way through the mountainous areas there. A separate peace agreement with Hungary was signed, with mutual recognition.

Elsewhere in the world, the British occupied a few of the French colonies, though the Algiers Expedition was quite a disaster. The French had quite wisely avoided seriously challenging the British in the sea thus far; however, they did prepare for that, having built up a technologically-innovative fleet, with Paixhans naval guns and even a few steam-powered battleships.

Emigration from the war-torn, revolution-shaken parts of Europe was quite noteworthy. The three main directions were America, Britain and, more surprisingly, Russia; the former received the lower and middle class, while the latter two shared the aristocrats and other statesmen, with the disillusioned liberals and frightened moderates choosing Britain and the disgusted conservatives moving to Russia, where there was always work for foreigners, epecially if they could actually do something useful. Particularily useful was a handful of Prussian statesmen, junkers and officers, fleeing after an unsuccesful reactionary coup attempt. One of them was Otto von Bismarck.

As of 1851 the European situation was quite awkward. The British actions have succeeded in stopping French expansion - but one could also say that the French had stopped because they already grabbed all they wanted. At the same time, the British couldn't but fear that the French were preparing some very cunning move, and so had to be vigilant. The French themselves were vacillating. As the early momentum ran out and the nationalist zeal begun to lose its force, the economic difficulties and the social tensions had become clearly visible again, and the fringe political movements were gaining in popular support and strenght once more. Cavaignac had to choose between consolidating his position at home via various reforms and trying to play the foreign victories card again by attacking someone (but whom? Germany? Spain? Britain itself?); and at the same time, he was aware that his term was running out, leaving both his future and that of the country uncertain. In Spain, all was ominous, and Queen Isabella II had only Britain and the military to back her against the Democratic Party at home and the French army on the other side of the Pyrenees - while also increasingly aware that the military wasn't really loyal neither. Denmark had used the Franco-German War to integrate Schleswig and Holstein and crush all rebels, but now lived in fear of Germany. That fear was unfounded, as the Germans were more or less afraid of all their neighbours (apart from Denmark and Switzerland) themselves, and busy watching the Rhine either away; furthermore, Germany was still torn by internal divisions, both regional and social, as well as ideological. The latter went even moreso for Italy, though King Carlo Alberto had managed to maintain some semblance of order. Though his liberal reforms were still in place, the king was clearly increasingly conservative and naturally unwilling to follow through with the reforms called for by the radicals. Consequently he had to evade assassination attempts andimpose the martial law, especially in the south. Diplomatically Italy had increasingly distanced itself from France, but maintained ties with Hungary. Hungary remained a republic, and Lajos Kossuth its president; after the Croats were defeated, the victories were consolidated, a mixed presidential-parliamentary government form was set up, and a federal structure was adapted. The standoff with Russia continued, the Russians supporting Slavic uprisings on Hungary's peripheries and the Hungarians helping the Polish resistance. Mutual wariness prevented either Russia or Hungary from expanding into the Ottoman Empire, though the Russians still managed to use the British distraction to make the Turks confirm the Treaty of Hunkar Iskelesi - closing the Straits to non-Russian warships. A few obscure incidents were also discussed, and the Turks were forced to pay some more indemnities and grant Russian merchants some more privileges; that way Nicholas hoped to alleviate Russia's economic woes somewhat. Apparently Nicholas was not yet sure whether he should just conquer/dismember the Empire or make it into a puppet. Instead he finished off those annoying Caucasian rebels and launched expeditions to conquer Central Asia.

Europe as a whole anticipated the end of the phoney war with hope and trepidation.

 

[The Strategos]

Re: Caesar PoD

I tend to think it would play out closer to the Antony-Octavian War with Caesarion playing the part of Antony rather than the complete explosion you describe. Octavian would have access to the best legions (b/c Julius' last war was against the Germans, his best, and most loyal legions would be stationed there). As Julius' formal heir and with the treasury at his disposal, he could convince, through bribery if needed, those legions to join his cause. In addition, he would most likely be able to recruit several veteran legions from the retired vetran land settlements.

Assuming he has a general to lead these legions, Agrippa would be nice here, Octavian would easily be able to crush the inevitable Republican rebellion. This republican rebellion would be the main threat, once that is defeated, Octavian could easily sweep up any remaining threats in the west. Meanwhile, Caesarion would attempt to take advantage of the situation and invade the Balkans, only to be met by a smaller, but better trained pro-Octavian army. This buys Octavian enough time to destroy the Republican army, leaving behind some small defenses to protect against the rogue generals elsewhere, he turns his attention to Caesarion. A naval battle ends in a draw, but allows Octavian enough time to ferry his army over to the Balkans. Caesarion still has a numerical advantage, but Octavian easily wins in quality and generalship. In the battle, Octavian commits his reserve which blunts Caesarion's flanking attempt, while his own supperior Gallic cavalry breaks their opposite, allowing for Octavian to flank and defeat Caesarion. A quick campaign, which conceivably would mirror Julius' march through the east after his defeat of Pompey would ensure, then another quick campaign in the west to finish off any opposition.

 

[das]

That is definitely a possibility as well.

Octavian would have access to the best legions

Technically it wasn't presumed that he was in Germany, although it would make sense for him to be there.

Meanwhile, Caesarion would attempt to take advantage of the situation and invade the Balkans, only to be met by a smaller, but better trained pro-Octavian army.

Why invade the Balkans, though? Invading Italy isn't much more difficult and would definitely be far more rewarding if succesful.

 

[Kal'thzar]

Why invade the Balkans, though? Invading Italy isn't much more difficult and would definitely be far more rewarding if succesful.

Sicily first, then Italy.

Eliminates any naval threat from further to the west, also the place itself is rich, and a naval draw here will almost partition the Med in two. A naval Victroy definitly will.

 

[The Strategos]

That is definitely a possibility as well.



Technically it wasn't presumed that he was in Germany, although it would make sense for him to be there.

Actually, now that I think about it, it makes sense in this scenario for Octavian to be the killer of Caesar (poison, make it seem like natural causes, though if it could be blamed on Caesarion even better). Since both Octavian and Caesarion in TTL are still in play as heirs, it makes sense that this is because Caesar is playing them off each other. The previous assassination attempts (there most likely would be a couple other plots after he declares himself king) combined with his old age would make him paranoid, leading to purges (which by the way would have a stabilizing effect after his death, after the pro-Republican party, which itself would be weakened without strong leaders, all the potential threats would be either weak, and thus not a threat, very pro-Caesar, or alive only because they were protected by Octavian or Caesarion). Octavian (or Caesarion) fearing that Caesar, feeling death of old age approaching, would finally name an heir to the other’s benefit, kills him preemptively. With the prior knowledge of his death and knowing it will lead to civil war, more decisive early action can be taken in order to eliminate potential rivals, ensuring that the showdown between Octavian and Caesarion will be the main event.

Why invade the Balkans, though? Invading Italy isn't much more difficult and would definitely be far more rewarding if succesful.

1) Attacking Italy would cause Caesarion to be in hostile territory (Octavian would be emphasizing Cleopatra, not Caesarion being in control, and thus it would be a "foreign" invasion) surrounded by Octavian's own army to the north (somewhere in N. Italy/Gaul most likely) and another pro-Octavian army to the east in the Balkans. His supply line would thus have to skirt pro-Octavian shores, making it more vunerable, and thus making him more vunerable to having his supply lines cut and his army being surrounded in Italy.

2) Balkans at this time period is rife with retired veterans. A quick campaign here not only would deny Octavian this potential important resource, but also could potentially allow Caesarion access to this resource, strengthening his army considerably.

3) Caesarion is in control of the richer east, so it would make more sense to do a persistant strategy rather than role the dice for a quick outcome. Defeating Octavian's army in the Balkans would therefore make more sense before it gets a chance to link up with Octavian's main army.


Edit:

Sicily first, then Italy.

Eliminates any naval threat from further to the west, also the place itself is rich, and a naval draw here will almost partition the Med in two. A naval Victroy definitly will.

Sicily (and N. Africa as well) would be critical to Italy’s survival as that is where they get the grain supplies. As such, Octavian’s entire navy will be guarding it. While it would be worth the gamble of an all or nothing naval battle if one wanted to end the war early, I am arguing that Caesarion actually wants to slow the war down in order to maximize his greater wealth and thus wouldn’t immediately go for the high risk/high reward targets, but rather would slowly start loping off Octavian’s more vulnerable possessions.

 

[das]

Actually, now that I think about it, it makes sense in this scenario for Octavian to be the killer of Caesar (poison, make it seem like natural causes, though if it could be blamed on Caesarion even better).

Even if that won't be the truth it still would be a popular conspiracy theory.

1) Attacking Italy would cause Caesarion to be in hostile territory (Octavian would be emphasizing Cleopatra, not Caesarion being in control, and thus it would be a "foreign" invasion) surrounded by Octavian's own army to the north (somewhere in N. Italy/Gaul most likely) and another pro-Octavian army to the east in the Balkans. His supply line would thus have to skirt pro-Octavian shores, making it more vunerable, and thus making him more vunerable to having his supply lines cut and his army being surrounded in Italy.

2) Balkans at this time period is rife with retired veterans. A quick campaign here not only would deny Octavian this potential important resource, but also could potentially allow Caesarion access to this resource, strengthening his army considerably.

3) Caesarion is in control of the richer east, so it would make more sense to do a persistant strategy rather than role the dice for a quick outcome. Defeating Octavian's army in the Balkans would therefore make more sense before it gets a chance to link up with Octavian's main army.

1) The "public relations" side of the campaign probably won't be much better in the Balkans, though ofcourse the Greeks are likely to be more apathic than actual Romans. As for the strategic situation, it will not be much better neither. In the Balkans he still will be trapped between the Octavianite army in the Balkans and the one in Italy; and the Balkans offer a greater freedom of maneuver, which is more likely to benefit Octavian as well. As for the supplies and the naval situation, again, Octavian - presumably weaker on the sea than Caesarion - will have the same advantage the Greeks had over the Persians. Not so in Italy, which is surrounded by wider seas. Also this presumes that all of the Empire is divided between Octavian and Caesarion; I suspect that there shall be others as well, and I'm not sure if Caesarion will have control over Asia Minor.

2) The same, however, would apply for Italy, no? And it is not guaranteed that the veterans would join Caesarion; as you said, he will be perceived as a foreigner.

3) Wouldn't it make more sense to secure Italy first and THEN, using that central position, attack the Balkans and western North Africa, making full use of the superior resources available? Plus, taking Rome will be a natural goal in a civil war for the control over Rome.

To sum up, my point stands: the Balkan campaign isn't much easier and is far less rewarding than the Italian one.

 

[Kal'thzar]

3) Wouldn't it make more sense to secure Italy first and THEN, using that central position, attack the Balkans and western North Africa, making full use of the superior resources available? Plus, taking Rome will be a natural goal in a civil war for the control over Rome

No not really, as you said there are other powers around and some might rise up out of the ashes when italy falls. It would be really bad if you were campaiging in the Balklans if Gaul/North Africa had managed to raise an army and invade Italy.

Best to secure your flanks first (or one there-of), as much against the resulting fall out and chaos as anything else.

Proponant of north African campiagn The bread basket is what I want to kill off, one of the few terriotries that has a large knock-on effect to all other potential campaigns. (well Apart from italy that is)..

 

[The Strategos]

Even if that won't be the truth it still would be a popular conspiracy theory.



1) The "public relations" side of the campaign probably won't be much better in the Balkans, though ofcourse the Greeks are likely to be more apathic than actual Romans. As for the strategic situation, it will not be much better neither. In the Balkans he still will be trapped between the Octavianite army in the Balkans and the one in Italy; and the Balkans offer a greater freedom of maneuver, which is more likely to benefit Octavian as well. As for the supplies and the naval situation, again, Octavian - presumably weaker on the sea than Caesarion - will have the same advantage the Greeks had over the Persians. Not so in Italy, which is surrounded by wider seas. Also this presumes that all of the Empire is divided between Octavian and Caesarion; I suspect that there shall be others as well, and I'm not sure if Caesarion will have control over Asia Minor.

2) The same, however, would apply for Italy, no? And it is not guaranteed that the veterans would join Caesarion; as you said, he will be perceived as a foreigner.

3) Wouldn't it make more sense to secure Italy first and THEN, using that central position, attack the Balkans and western North Africa, making full use of the superior resources available? Plus, taking Rome will be a natural goal in a civil war for the control over Rome.

To sum up, my point stands: the Balkan campaign isn't much easier and is far less rewarding than the Italian one.

But the Balkans are tradition! Tradition man! Julius vs. Pompey, Liberators vs. Antony/Octavian, Antony vs. Octavian it's tradition that you decide the fate of Rome in the Balkans. You can't go against tradition!

1) The propaganda wouldn't be as effective in the Balkans because it is a no-man's land between Italy and the East in the propoganda war. In a similar situation between Antony and Octavian, the Balkans were divided and thus formed a natural battleground for the two. As for the supplies, it is the ports that are the important thing. Deny the enemy ports, and you prevent them from being a threat to your supply chain. Attempt to have your supply line sail past enemy ports and you are just asking for it to be cut. And lastly, in the Balkans Caesarion wouldn't be surrounded by Octavian armies, it would be closer to a straight line, with Caesarion on one end of the line, the smaller Octavian army in the middle and the larger Octavian army on the end. Defeat the small one before it has a chance to merge with the large one.

2)No, Italy doesn't have as many veterans because land grants were given to legions on the borders, particularly Macedonia. In addition, whatever manpower was there would have already been claimed by the Republicans or Octavian.

3) Yes, except for the fact that you'll have Octavian coming from the north with his Balkan army swinging up behind you (as Julius vs. Pompey showed, a determined opponent can always slip in an army, even if you prevent it from being resupplied). Once the ports in S. Italy are "liberated" Caesarion's supply problem multiplies.

P.S. I admit that these arguments are all after the fact. Originally I just picked Balkans b/c it seems as if all the civil wars from this time period were determined there.

 

[das]

Well, that is more or less what I mean. Superior resources do indeed allow and encourage a more patient, gradual campaign of conquest, but such a campaign requires a stable base of operations, prefferably in a good strategic location, and no strategic position in the Mediterranean is better than Rome and Italy. After it is secured one can attack in any direction - whether to Balkans or to North Africa, or even both (superior resources here!).

Simply pushing into the Balkans gives Octavian time and freedom; he might not even confront Caesarion there, but instead move on to attack Egypt from Italy (okay, that is a bit farfetched; but inferior resources inevitably dictate a more risky strategy). Attacking in Italy, however, pretty much leaves Octavian with no choice; it forces him to fight here and now, and the fact that its a comparatively narrow peninsula helps the attackers further. Caesarion would be able to make full use of his numerical superiority in an Italian battle. If he loses he loses (but how would a defeat in the Balkans be better?), but if he wins he wins completely, whereas a victory in the Balkans will be a localised and uncertain one, unless Octavian is slain there.

 

[Dachs]

With regards to the Caesar althist: to be honest, I pretty much agree with Strategos on most counts, although I'm really more interested in the later and earlier periods of classical history. Sorry I can't contribute more on that. Here's some more responses.

"The most political party"? Nonetheless, that does look promising. Ebert was himself a kind of a monarchist, and would no doubt have been far more pleased by this situation than by the OTL one. I think the SPD could do quite well if it picks up Hitler's message; it was, after all, pro-war, so it could combine a right-wing foreign agenda with a left-wing domestic one, and ally with the Kaiser and the army as it had done in OTL.

I blame rapid typing. I better bloody well know about the SPD, though...Thanks.

Btw, Poland is a German ally, right? I think that a Hohenzollern king is in order, though Pilsudski will ofcourse wield the real power (whether as dictator or as prime minister, or both).

I'm not entirely sure where Poland's going to go from here - remember, Pilsudski did attack the Austrians opportunistically at the end of the war, and that might sour relations. Depends if we think that Wilhelm III is enough of a realpolitiker to do so.

On the second idea: I really didn't think that one much through, although I do believe that in effect, northern-southern unification was pretty much complete before the War, which was only a way to make things look dramatic and to one-up the French.