Alternate History Thread III

Going to Utah is more dangerous; going to Africa is more expensive, but if the Mormons convert some businessmen and/or contact some sympathetic philanthropists, it isn't something that can't be done, especially given their persistance and unity.
 
Africa is far more dangerous than Utah. I mean come on jungles, disease, malaria, hostile natives....Utah is safer.
 
Utah may be, but the road to Utah is definitely far more dangerous than the road to Africa, at least as perceived from New York. As for Cameroon itself, it is perfectly survivable. Plus at least two of the above factors are mostly absent there. Malaria will be a problem, but the Mormons might just invent quinine in such conditions. ;)
 
Rather harsh, although I don't remember any others that did this much harm to their own cause, and (apparently) unitendedly at that.
That's one of the major reasons. ;) He spent way too much time going for political power instead of fighting for France - playing the "mayor of the palace" rule and all that. I also don't remember him having any redeeming qualities.
das said:
Well, amphibious invasions in the 19th century had a tendency of going terribly wrong. Just remember the analogous British operations in the Napoleonic Wars.
Yeah, but just because Walcheren and similar failed in real life doesn't mean that Lord John "I don't know anything about geography" Russell won't try it again. :lol:
das said:
Dachs, that map is way too puny.
Blame photobucket, not me! ;) I'll see what I can do...
das said:
Interesting update, Dachs. The attempts on the Turks in Germany remind me of the fate of Simeon Petlyura in Paris.
...or the actual murder of Mehmed Talaat Pasha? ;) Instead of fleeing to Central Asia, I had Enver go to Germany instead - far safer.
das said:
How did that happen?
I've no idea of the exact cause of death - most probably drowning, although poison, gunshot wounds, stabs, and pneumonia probably helped. :lol:
das said:
I somewhat doubt that the socialists would want anything to do with them. Well, I doubt about the strongly pro-Armenian SRs, at least. Bronstein I could buy. I wonder how is the RSDRP doing in this world.
Desperation, I suppose. Bronstein I included because he'd want to start World Revolution wherever he could, and Anatolia might as well have been the place; Kerensky I stuck in there because I didn't know any Trotskyites other than the man himself. The Social Democratic Labor Party is still putzing around in the duma; they'll be overviewed in more depth as soon as I stop this Anatolian War nonsense. ;)
das said:
The Turkish advances in Syria and Mesopotamia sound a bit opportunistic and reckless, especially when Anatolia itself is far from secure.
Unfortunately for the Republic, the uprising around Ankyra occurred at the exact wrong time, when lots of Greeks were there to help put it down. I only mentioned the central Anatolian uprising in passing, but it was put down quite brutally by the Crown Prince in a yearlong campaign involving quite the atrocity record - think a little bit like the Greek scorched earth in 1922. The Syrian and Mesopotamian advances were indeed opportunistic, but they were pretty much all that was left for the Republic. It'll be interesting to see if they can snatch something out of the jaws of defeat with no ports to get weapons, virtually no industrial base, and Allied armies crushing in on all sides...

Any comments on the Indian occurrences? I'm afraid I'm not too knowledgeable about this part of Indian history, so if anything gets wildly unlikely just let me know...

Are we sure that the Mormons would arise at all in this most recent TL, much less have to leave the eastern US?
 
Any comments on the Indian occurrences? I'm afraid I'm not too knowledgeable about this part of Indian history, so if anything gets wildly unlikely just let me know...

There would certinaley never be a revolt because of that foolsih reason.
 
What, large-scale massacres, discontentment, etc.? It's not a general revolt (yet, if at all), just a localized problem, but I would think that a lot of martyrs would help speed things along...
 
I also don't remember him having any redeeming qualities.

Well, the French army by then was also in a pretty poor state. The Velikiy Knyaz can hardly be blamed for the "crisis of 1915". Although I do agree that Bazaine's only real military success was the retreat from Mexico, and retreats are generally hard to classify as actual successes.

...or the actual murder of Mehmed Talaat Pasha?

...yes. My bad. The immediate post-WWI era was apparently full of avengers from all the typical oppressed ethnicities and political groups.

Any comments on the Indian occurrences? I'm afraid I'm not too knowledgeable about this part of Indian history, so if anything gets wildly unlikely just let me know...

Well, this time period still had considerable Muslim-Hindu cooperation in the separatist movement, so there might be some more Hindu rebellions. I rather doubt that the INC would approve a general uprising until it is confident of victory, though.

Are we sure that the Mormons would arise at all in this most recent TL, much less have to leave the eastern US?

*I* am not, but if they do come to be they would likely want to flee from strong central authority and suchlike, as in OTL.

As for their appearence, it was to be expected, what's with the general rise of mysticism and all. I suppose some different tightly-knit unorthodox Christian group could arise instead. It fit in with the general trend.


Found it! I was defending his Medieval age record against some upstart Pope! :p

EDIT:

There would certinaley never be a revolt because of that foolsih reason.

You are mistaking the cause and the reason, here. They might be rising under the banner of Turkish solidarity, but the true cause of a revolt here would be the growing social tensions and separatist desires in conflict with assertion of British authority in India. A similar OTL incident was the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, though this is, ofcourse, much bigger.
 
You are mistaking the cause and the reason, here. They might be rising under the banner of Turkish solidarity, but the true cause of a revolt here would be the growing social tensions and separatist desires in conflict with assertion of British authority in India. A similar OTL incident was the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, though this is, ofcourse, much bigger.

Its not much bigger. The massacre happened on Indian soil itself but didn't provoke a revolt. Why would they revolt because of being forced to fight a war in Turkey? It just wouldn't happen. Besides the Sikhs made up the mainstay of the Army and were the loyalest soldiers of the Empire until the massacre.
 
Und? The rebellion is a Muslim one. In Bengal. In the most discontent part of British India since Curzon's little folly. The Sikhs were explicitly mentioned as NOT swayed to the revolt's cause.
 
Bengal is also the center of British power. Calcutta was the capital you know..yes Bengal was the strongest center of reveloutionry sentiment and produced the reveloutionaries but I don't think the reveloution would actually break out in Bengal.
 
Well, this time period still had considerable Muslim-Hindu cooperation in the separatist movement, so there might be some more Hindu rebellions. I rather doubt that the INC would approve a general uprising until it is confident of victory, though.
Yeah, I'm not quite sure what to do about the whole India thing at all - there is that split in the INC, which is still generally led by Gandhi and Nehru. Those Hindus that broke off would probably be the ones to make trouble - remember, it wasn't so long ago that most of India was scarily pro-Britishat the beginning of the war.

Don't worry about a general India uprising; it's too early, and if anything happens it'll be fairly minor.
das said:
Found it! I was defending his Medieval age record against some upstart Pope! :p
Riiiiight...;) You know, if you want to find the quoted thing, you click on the link in the quote itself.

Got any PoD-of-the-Day or mad Ming additions? :lol:
 
it wasn't so long ago that most of India was scarily pro-Britishat the beginning of the war

Well, who isn't loyal in the beginning of a war? Die-hard antimonarchists and separatists hurried into the Russian army (or the French one if they had already fled from Russian pursuit to France), after all. Then as it grinds on the differences grow...

You know, if you want to find the quoted thing, you click on the link in the quote itself.

You know, somehow I never noticed that feature before. That's simply weird.

PoD-of-the-Day

Coming pretty soon.

mad Ming additions?

Would mad Swedish Wittelsbachs do? I'm currently writing about an epic European war in the Ming althist - rather haphazardly, alas, so I can't tell how long it would take. Even as we speak Poland is about to explode into confusing fighting between virtually all the local factions and nearby powers at the same time...
 
PoD-for-the-day (#9 - March 20th, 2007): Valdemar II wins the 1227 Battle of Bornhoved, defending his epithet "the Victorious" and subduing his rebellious German vassals with the help from his ally, Emperor Friedrich II. The Danish hegemony in southern Baltic is preserved, and Valdemar II doesn't quit his conquering career, instead campaigning in the Baltic. When the Livonian Brothers of the Sword are crippled by Lithuanian pagans in the Battle of Schaulen, they ask their sometimes-enemy, sometimes-ally Valdemar for help, which he provides in exchange for their feudal allegience. The Lithuanians are repulsed and Valdemar spends much of the rest of his life (he died in 1239 ITTL) campaigning in the east. Campaigns against Novgorod aren't very succesful, but Mindaugas and his Lithuanians are decimated, allowing the Dano-Livonians to methodically slaughter entire tribes over the next few years (ironically, the hardline measures taken by Mindaugas to pull the tribes together backfired, as after his death there were few other leaders left in good positions, and those were unable to coordinate their efforts to any effective extent).

The later Dane-kings were unable to conquer much more, although some gains were still made; they also lost a large degree of their power to the Danehof (a parliament; merchants are more important than in the OTL Danehof). By the 14th century Denmark was a somewhat stagnant empire, although its control over strategic trade routes made it one of the richest realms of Europe (however, the Baltic trade's development has been ******** as compared to OTL, as no Hanseatic League was allowed to rise; consequently, western and eastern Europe - more precisely, England, Flandres and Novgorod - are more important and prosperous than in OTL).

Sweden hadn't done much over the 13th century, apart from consolidating control over Finland and launching some bungled attacks against Novgorod; of somewhat more importance were the machinations that allowed the early 14th century personal union with Norway, which had split away from Denmark in mid-13th century. Predominant in the northern Baltic and partaking in North Sea trade, Sweden is doing quite well.

In Central Europe, things had gone quite differently, with the Holy Roman Empire and the House of Hohenstaufen faring very well indeed, thanks to its Danish and Teutonic allies who had provided it with invaluable military assistance in time of need. Conradin had succesfully defended his crown and his Empire, even campaigning in the Middle East, without serious losses or gains for his "Kingdom of Jerusalem". The Empire had begun eroding under his successors and the Kingdom of Jerusalem was lost to the Muslims, buton the other hand the allegience of the Teutonic Order, how ever nominal, was acquired and Poland - devastated by the Mongols and kicked while its down by the more southwards-oriented Teutonic Order - under partial colonisation and integration, much like Bohemia. The Holy Roman Empire in the early 14th century was a colossus with clay feet, but a hegemonic realm nonetheless. As for the Papcy, it was in crisis as a German puppet Pope sat in Rome and a French puppet Pope sat in Avignon. A "cold war" of sorts was ongoing, and yet another factor in favour of the Holy Roman Empire was the flight of the Templars from France to Swabia, where they found refuge and support, which they were able to reward heftily.

France was weaker; though the English were limited to Guyenne and Normandy, and the Imperials failed to make any lasting gains during the on-again off-again wars along the border, the Flemish rebels in the late 13th/early 14th century had humiliated the French knights repeatedly and defended their independence, quickly becoming a small, yet prosperous merchant republic. On the other hand, due to different dynastic developments Provence was united with France earlier.

England may not be much stronger than in OTL at the first glance, although it does have control over Normandy and Scotland; however, it has great economic strenght and potential, the trade is booming and Templar banking is in development. A war with France is ongoing, however, and it tends to consume some resources.

Aragon may have been thwarted in its Mediterranean ambitions by the Hohenstaufens and the failure to organise a proper coalition, but it remained a great economic power, and a significant player in the Imperial anti-French coalition. It had managed to form a personal union with Castile, but not with Leon (which succesfully rebelled); it conquered Navarre, though, and more recently Granada and a few North African cities and castles.

Hungary lingered on under Late Arpads, losing much power and influence, as well as periphereal territories, in the aftermath of the Mongol invasion. However, something of a revival occured in the late 13th/early 14th century, as Andreas III of Hungary inherited the throne of the increasingly-Catholicised Russian principality of Galicia-Volhynia. The Arpad dynastic empire is very unstable, though, both due to legal and religious differences and because the dynasty is on the brink of extinction.

The Paleologid Byzantine Empire and its Genoese allies had managed to destroy most Latin states; a policy of cooperation with the Holy Roman Empire even allowed for a brief renaissance and reconquest of some of the Anatolian territories, but as of the 14th century the Second Rome was once more filled with strife and intrigue, slipping back into decay. As for the Balkans, they were mostly dominated by an ascendant Serbian kingdom, though Bulgaria, a grudging Byzantine ally, managed to block the Serbian ascendancy somewhat.

The Russian princes, still under the Mongol knout, retained a great degree of autonomy. The trading republic of Novgorod gained great economic influence, though it had failed to expand over the 13th century, apart from the occasional conquests of Pskov. The rest of Russia was dominated by the principalities of Moscow (in the northeast), Polotsk (in the west), Tver (in the southeast/centre) and Galicia-Volhynia (in the south); the latter is now in union with Hungary, however. Also there are many smaller principalities, such as the once-great principality of Kiev. Moscow may be the strongest militarily, but Tver and Polotsk are in a close alliance and are also more developed, leaving the good relations with the Mongols Moscow's only true advantage.
 
Good work, das - I'm not too well up on the thirteenth century in locations other than the Roman Empire, so I can really only give assistance there...and really none is necessary. I'm pretty happy that those bloody Latins were eradicated - they deserved no better - although a strong Serbia pre-Dechanski (Stephen Dushan's father) is a little weird. I assume the intrigue and other court troubles are mainly due to an Andronicus-like basileus.
 
although a strong Serbia pre-Dechanski (Stephen Dushan's father) is a little weird.

Its not quite as strong as in OTL, plus some different, earlier leader could be found. A significant factor here is a somewhat weaker Hungary.

I assume the intrigue and other court troubles are mainly due to an Andronicus-like basileus.

Yes, this kind of people always seemed to come up at inopportunate moments...

Here's a rough No New Orleans scenario map for the year 1900. Not very sure about the North American and African borders, but they should reflect the rough idea at least.
 

Attachments

  • NNO World Map 1900.GIF
    NNO World Map 1900.GIF
    108.3 KB · Views: 249
Here's a rough No New Orleans scenario map for the year 1900. Not very sure about the North American and African borders, but they should reflect the rough idea at least.

My very initial reaction:

1) How did New England grab Canada? They already failed in 1812 and Revolutionary War to conquer Canada, how in the world could they do it after becoming weaker?

2) Southern State capital should be in Virginia. Virginia, from the Revolutionary War until the Civil War was the main player in the south.

3) How does California survive? After the gold rush makes it a valuable colony, you would think Texas, Britain, maybe even Russia would be glad to take it. And if one of those tried, I can't see them failing.
 
How did Chile grab southern Argentina and how did Russia gain Manchuria?
 
And what of the Mormons...having a Deseret state in RL Utah would be VERY interesting indeed. Probably a prosperous state just because of the nature of the people, despite the poor living conditions.

The Frontier States sound a little more lawless than even the Cossack regions. It would be an entire nation run like how we think of the wild west.

Somebody call? :mischief:

I don't see Africa as happening at all, if anywhere overseas it would be Israel.

but then again, it's alt hist, so whatever!
 
Back
Top Bottom