Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel

[das]

The "No Maria Theresa" althist challenge map, year 1900.

Notes:
1. This world is less familiar than it may appear at first sight. We are looking at over 160 years worth of serious historical divergence, here.

2. The Rhenish Confederacy is, well, a confederacy; the largest member states are clearly shown, the smaller ones are united into districts. The Habsburg Empire is more of a federation, with strong central elements remaining; federal units are as depicted. In the Kingdom of Italy, the Papal States are autonomous. The American Union is a federation; internal divisions not shown. Same for the Federation de la Plata. The Viceroyalty of New Grenada is a confederation of four fairly obvious members.

3. On Communities - the decolonisation of the Americas and now some other areas as well has proceeded along the lines of devolution rather than revolution, significantly more so than in OTL. Looser commonwealths - here usually called Communities - were established between the metropoly and the semi-free colonies (similar to OTL dominions in status, as well as in eventual evolution).
The British Community includes the United Kingdom (metropoly), American Union (practically independent in all regards), Australia (dominion, foreign policy under British control), New Zealand (same as Australia), South Africa (semi-autonomous colony moving towards dominion status).
The French Community includes France (metropoly), New France (dominion, foreign policy under French control, the French government can remove the New French government and veto non-unanimous decisions).
The Spanish Community includes Spain (metropoly), New Spain (virtually independent in all regards), Florida (dominion, foreign policy and defense under Spanish control), New Grenada (dominion, foreign policy partly directed by Spain), Peru (officially similar in status to New Grenada, practically under military occupation and Spanish/New Spanish control). The Titicaca Republic, the Chilean Republic and the Federation de la Plata have seceded with varying degrees of violence over the course of the Peruvian Insurrection debacle (1849-1860).
The Portuguese Community never got off the ground.

4. On Free Cities (Constantinople and Shanghai): these were created in 1851 and 1887, in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman and Qing Empires respectively. They are managed partly by local municipal councils and partly by international committees. Note that Shanghai's status might or might not be provisional, as the British, who were largely responsible for it becoming a Free City in the first place, have shown the willingness to negotiate with the latest Chinese government on this matter, provided it can keep up the stability of its first four years; Constantinople and the Free Straits Zone are more set in stone.

Feel free to ask questions.

 

[North King]

Oh, wow. I forgot about that. Well, I'll do my best to come up with something soon, but until then, I can't look at das's timeline. Influences things.

 

[Symphony D.]

The borders in the American southwest are seriously bizarre. Not sure why the capital of Florida is in Jacksonville instead of St. Augustine, nor why the Spanish held on to what is basically a mosquito-infested swamp (nor why they weren't pressured into letting it go). Aleutian distribution is weird. What happened to Brazil?

 

[Thlayli]

The German situation seems like it could easily spark a completely unnecessary and massive war.

With that in mind, what are the current alliance blocs?

 

[Dachs]

Why does Prussia have Silesia anyway, and in what manner did they acquire it?

What about the relations between Prussia and that Austrian federal state thingy, and between said Austrian federal state thingy and Greece?

 

[das]

Not sure why the capital of Florida is in Jacksonville instead of St. Augustine

St. Augustine was sacked back in the 18th century; Fort San Mateo, however, thrived and ultimately was designated as capital.

nor why the Spanish held on to what is basically a mosquito-infested swamp (nor why they weren't pressured into letting it go).

They kept it for strategic reasons, though admittedly that was a pretty flimsy reason. Perhaps more importantly, the assorted diplomatic maneuverings kept the Americans from ever attacking it during their separate war with New Spain (while the Spanish had to stay out of it in exchange for the safety of their other colonies from British or American attacks), and the subsequent drawn out Anglo-French cold war that went on with increasing intensity for the rest of the 19th century limited any diplomatic options. And nobody really wanted to start a likely world war over Florida, of all places.

Aleutian distribution is weird.

Mea culpa. Though partly, also that of Insane_Panda, as he divided them that way in the original 1914 map. It should technically correspond to OTL.

What happened to Brazil?

The Portuguese colonial empire in South America survived for longer than in OTL (into the 1860s), but the separatist movement still caused lots of trouble, and the Portuguese applied divide et impera by dividing Brazil into three semi-autonomous colonies. Due to geographic and economic differences between the regions, the division set in successfully. In 1867, after a major economic crisis and a republican revolution brought down the Portuguese monarchy (which had previously also sold its African colonies to Britain), the Brazilian colonies declared independence, but attempts at unification all failed. A decade or so later, the southern two colonies united into the Sul Federation, with some help from the French but mainly due to greater levels of economic integration. The Amazonas Republic remained independent, though.

The German situation seems like it could easily spark a completely unnecessary and massive war.

No, not at all. It is actually very stable now, after the Prussian Wars of the late 18th/early 19th centuries. Prussia has pledged complete neutrality and focused on different matters (especially in the last few decades; it's sort of like a large Switzerland, only also with an industrial powerhouse economy, a small, but very competent army, ubiquitous military advisers and a very profitable, though somewhat controversial model colony), while Austria and France (the latter having informal hegemony over the officially independent and unaligned Rhenish Confederation) mostly clash over Italy and the Balkans rather than Germany.

Besides, it may be noticed that despite the intense ongoing cold war, nobody really wants to launch a world war just yet: the French are wary of the remaining British naval advantage, the British fear that any war with France will be more trouble than it is worth, and neither side could trust the Russians to join in on the French side or remain neutral, respectively. It is a pretty intricate balance, though, and if it were to be disrupted somehow the world could indeed be divided into warring power blocks.

With that in mind, what are the current alliance blocs?

Okay, there is very little in the way of actual alliances other than the Communities; there are some secret agreements and even some less secret agreements, but previous events have shown that very few alliances are certain. The Triple Entente of France, Prussia and Russia that existed in the 1870s century and might have challenged Britain has for all the purposes fallen apart, thanks partly to skillful British diplomacy but mainly to increasingly divergent interests.

Still, there are some basic alliances beyond the Communities, and both France and Britain have some traditional allies.

The Royal Republic of France is closely, officially and traditionally allied with the Kingdom of Spain, its colonies and the Kingdom of Greece. The Republic of the Netherlands and the Rhenish Confederation are informal allies of France, though the former has been drifting away into neutrality as of late. France also has considerable influence over Sul and Siam.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has traditionally been allied with Austria/The Habsburg Empire, and continues to work with it to counteract French influences in Europe, though there is no official agreement. Through Austria, it is also tied with the pro-Austrian, Habsburg-ruled Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of Savoy-Piedmont. The Empire of Japan is an official ally. Abyssinia, Afghanistan and Tibet are ruled by British "allies", and similar allies are also powerful at the officially-neutral Persian court. Saudi Arabia has been traditionally, though often informally supported by the British as well. It enjoys a strong degree of economical and political influence over de la Plata, and has been infiltrating Burma as well.

The Russian Empire used to be allied with France, but has drifted away since the Anglo-Russian War (1884-1886). Sweden has been an ally since the early 19th century, but has drifted away from Russia towards neutrality in more recent times as well, though relations remain warm enough. The Pontic Republic is a Russian satellite state. The Korean Empire, officially neutral though it is, has a very pro-Russian government as well. Russia used to have great influence over the Chinese Republic, but the new military government has recently done a volte-face and sought rapprochement with the United Kingdom.

The Kingdom of Denmark has ties with both the United Kingdom and Russia; both have been trying to drag it in on their side during the Anglo-Russian War, and have not ceased their efforts now. The French are pretty influential in the strategic little monarchy as well.

The Kingdom of Prussia is officially completely neutral, but through economic infiltration and military advisers it has gained considerable influence over the Viceroyalty of New Spain, the Viceroyalty of Peru, the Kingdom of Siam and the Empire of Japan.

As mentioned earlier, the allegiance of the Chinese Republic is uncertain, with Russian, British, French and Prussian factions vying for dominance (not to mention the factions within the Bei Army, the National Republican Party and its left-wing and moderate oppositionary splinter factions, the Confucian revivalists (conservative officials and such), the Qing Dynasty which has for the last few years existed on the brink of either mass execution or restoration, and all kinds of religious sects and peasant movements).

The Titicaca Republic remains in diplomatic isolation.

EDIT:

Why does Prussia have Silesia anyway, and in what manner did they acquire it?

In 1796, having fought off almost all of Europe over four years worth of furious warfare, Friedrich III der Grosse imposed a Carthaginian peace upon Austria (which he defeated particularly badly), stripping away Silesia, Bohemia and Moravia, and disbanding the Holy Roman Empire to be replaced by the Prussian-led German Empire. That latter organisation proved to be way too unstable and disunited; Heinrich II, Friedrich's successor, had to deal with major rebellions in the early 19th century, and his reprisals led to the last great European coalition war - the German War of 1824-1829. While Austria was weakened significantly by the previous defeats and arguably had never quite regained its former strength (though it still did expand into the Balkans), the reformed Royal Republic of France, in alliance with both Britain and Russia (though the former was reluctant to commit too much and the latter proved pretty ineffectual), had successfully destroyed the German Empire, ultimately ushering in the present European order. The Austrians regained Bohemia and Moravia, but the Prussians, who were not as defeated as one might've liked them to be, still managed to retain Silesia, along with some other places.

What about the relations between Prussia and that Austrian federal state thingy, and between said Austrian federal state thingy and Greece?

Prussia and Austria are coldly neutral towards each other - there is little animosity left, as the interests of both had long ago moved elsewhere for the most part, but they don't seem likely to enter any kind of alliance. Until the present order is destroyed, ofcourse. I suppose that some overwhelming threat to both might bring them together, but so far it doesn't seem likely - Russia is mostly uninterested in European affairs, and France doesn't want to antagonise Prussia.

Austria and Greece are not wholly hostile towards each other, being mostly content with the present borders for now; however, inasmuch as Greece is the conductor of French power in southeastern Europe, tensions inevitably insue, and the Austrians had always opposed any further Greek expansion.

 

[Dachs]

Why have the French got the Rhineland - was it a consequence of the collapse of that German Empire, or did it happen prior to that?

How well has the area been colonized - have the Rhenish Germans been kicked into a diaspora (a la your Nan Ming + Louis XIV destroys everything TL) or are they living under relative tolerance under this...royal republic?

Speaking of that, how did the royal republic come about - French economic troubles like the OTL 1780s but a successful reform instead of Louis XVI switching his support at the last second?

And how did those middle 18th century years play out anyhow - whatever happened to OTL's Friedrich II, who the heck is Friedrich III der Große (this TL's version of Napoleon?), and did Poland get partitioned basically the same way as OTL (or did those borders occur accidentally, such as during the destruction of the German Empire or something)?

Why did the Ottomans collapse earlier - Austrian antagonism, lack of British support (with no interests in Egypt, apparently), Russia (I see they have Armenia...looks oddly familiar ), France doing something like its invasion of Egypt in your Tsar Pavel's War/British Revolution TL (except writ large), a combination of the above, or what?

What's the political situation in Turkey (is it a republic, still under the sultan, or something)?

Also, finally, what the devil happened to the Qing?

EDIT: Forgot to ask, but how did Italy unify? Looks like Sardinia-Piedmont (or Savoy; not quite sure what that state is) didn't act as the driving force. Is it sort of an Austrian puppet or creation, since it started in Lombardy?

 

[silver 2039]

Louis XIV destroys everything TL

I am intrigued.

 

[Dachs]

I am intrigued.

Last thread son. The Austrians are distracted by the Swedes, because Carl XII heads south for awhile, and the whole War of the Spanish Succession goes a little weird. France ends up capturing Vienna, the Habsburgs relocate to Budapest, and Louis gets the Rhineland and the Spanish Netherlands, while Bavaria's king Maximilian becomes the Holy Roman Emperor.

 

[das]

Why have the French got the Rhineland - was it a consequence of the collapse of that German Empire, or did it happen prior to that?

It was in the subsequent peace treaty. That war had confirmed the restoration of France as a great power; earlier, its prestige was quite hurt by the repeated defeats and turmoil of the late 18th century, and it scarcely could have even dreamed of annexing the Rhineland back then.

How well has the area been colonized - have the Rhenish Germans been kicked into a diaspora (a la your Nan Ming + Louis XIV destroys everything TL) or are they living under relative tolerance under this...royal republic?

They have mostly been tolerated in the early 19th century, but, as in OTL, the French still had their cultural standardisation drive later on, except this time rampant ultranationalism and recklessness made it even more thorough and ruthlessly-imposed. Francification didn't work quite as well in Rhineland as elsewhere, leading to ethnic tensions and separatism, but the locals really couldn't hope to do much of anything and eventually their resolve began to weaken. So, no diaspora, and no religious persecution, but plenty of cultural and sometimes political oppression.

Speaking of that, how did the royal republic come about - French economic troubles like the OTL 1780s but a successful reform instead of Louis XVI switching his support at the last second?

Not exactly; in many regards it was made worse early on by some unsuccessful wars, then there was indeed a reform effort but it ultimately failed to fix things due to an increasingly inane and self-contradictory royal policy. In 1790, already after entering yet another poorly thought-out war, France underwent what was called the Orleanist Revolution; in truth, King Philip VII "the Egalitarian" had only barely managed to stop the previous republican revolution from wholly destroying the monarchy and generally going along the historical path. Still, in the end, he and his moderate and liberal supporters managed to hijack everything and instate the Royal Republic. It still was a (royal) mess with constant turmoil, constitutional changes and near-coup d'etats, though ultimately the accidental war hero President Lucien Bonaparte managed to sort things out (which is why the French venerate him so much to this day - that and his military exploits plus later military reforms that paved the way to the eventual le Accroissement).

whatever happened to OTL's Friedrich II

Oh, he thrived. He just ended up pursuing a somewhat less risky foreign policy, or at least it ultimately turned out that way, though he still was quite an opportunist. His reign and his wars were less spectacular than in OTL, but were really more successful in establishing a good economic base that allowed the Prussians to thrive even after their German plans fell through.

who the heck is Friedrich III der Große (this TL's version of Napoleon?)

Partly that and partly OTL Friedrich II on steroids. Some also liken him to Peter the Great, inasmuch as he has embraced the pan-Germanic ambitions and ideas of his advisers and took them further (as opposed to the OTL Prussian monarchs that ultimately ignored their fairly similar ministers). But probably more notably, he also ended up using the achievements of his two uncles (Friedrich II and Heinrich I) to make war on the world and defeat most everyone in Europe. Died before he could finish his later reforms, though; then again, the fact that Prussia-Germany was utterly surrounded by enemies was perhaps more important in this case than any immediate structural instability.

did Poland get partitioned basically the same way as OTL

Not exactly - it was in two partitions rather than three, there was no revision afterwards, and also it happened three-four decades earlier. The first partition was in the 1750s War of Saxon Succession, the second was in the 1770s War of Bavarian Succession.

Also, the Prussians have colonised the hell out of their part, making the Poles a (large) minority in their own heartlands by this point. Mind you, it took quite some time and effort.

Why did the Ottomans collapse earlier - Austrian antagonism, lack of British support (with no interests in Egypt, apparently), Russia (I see they have Armenia...looks oddly familiar ), France doing something like its invasion of Egypt in your Tsar Pavel's War/British Revolution TL (except writ large), a combination of the above, or what?

Uh, lots of things. Austria's better performance and southwards focus for expansion was certainly a factor. Russia caused some trouble in the late 18th century, but as you could see it has failed to achieve much, at least in the Balkans. France had initially tried to patch up Turkey, but ultimately changed its mind, grabbed Egypt after a rebellion and then moved into the Levant thanks to prior contacts with the Druzes and such (and, ofcourse, supported the Greek Rebellion). Britain's Mediterranean presence was indeed weaker than in OTL. Still, ultimately I'd say that the Ottomans also had some bad luck in this world; they didn't get any competent rulers in the late 18th/early 19th centuries (none that survived for long enough, anyway), and so were unable to go through any reforms until it was too late. Then feudal uprisings combined with French infiltration, nationalism and opportunistic Austrian expansionism reduced it to a miserable wreck. The British and partly the French still tried to save it after that, but their interests clashed and the Ottoman Empire turned out to be unsalvageable in any case. During the 1840s its remnants crumbled and European powers moved in to claim what they could. After some diplomatic crises, armed clashes and near-wars, something like the present arrangement was set up, though after the Anglo-Russian War the British had to remove their protectorate from Turkey Proper (don't start ).

What's the political situation in Turkey (is it a republic, still under the sultan, or something)?

It's an Ottoman sultanate, until recently under British protection and de facto government.

Also, finally, what the devil happened to the Qing?

Their relations with Britain evolved differently due to a more cautious British policy in the region (which, in turn, was largely preconditioned by a stronger French presence). The British managed to avoid some unfortunate incidents and so already in the late 18th century got themselves an island off the Chinese shore as a trade outpost, and worked to infiltrate China from then on. No Opium Wars happened - formally the British stopped it, actually it just went on more secretly and the British already had enough corrupt friends in high places to make it all work out. Gradually the British grew more and more powerful in China, to the point of disgusting the more principled officials, the imperial government and the populace alike. In the 1860s, a self-strengthening movement encouraged by the Emperor had attempted to rein in the British (which started out with sharply-worded letters and decrees and ended with outright confiscations and executions); it started out well enough, but eventually the British struck back in force and utterly humbled the Chinese, defeating them again and again, pushing them out of many coastal cities and finally taking Beijing. The subsequent treaty granted Britain truly obscene powers and privileges within China, and set much of the international community against it until it promised to share. Anyway, this time things got even more outrageous in all regards, the Empire entered a general crisis like none before, and eventually a combination of pseudo-half-Confucian half-Buddhist fanatics and nationalist officials, officers and intellectuals overthrew the corrupt and subservient Qing Dynasty in 1884, and began attacking "foreign" (but actually almost always British) holdings again. After occupying Manchuria and Mongolia and making sure their possessions weren't threatened, the Russians joined in, seeing as they were itching for a fight with the Perfidious Albion for a while now. Then Japan joined in on the British side and occupied Korea for good measure, or at least tried to. Over the course of the Anglo-Russian War, both Britain and Russia had their victories and defeats, and eventually worked out a compromise peace; China, though, was very much left in the cold, the Anglo-American forces occupying most coastal areas and the Russians refusing to let go of Manchuria and Mongolia but gladly pulling out of the Shandong Front. And then the civil war started...

Forgot to ask, but how did Italy unify? Looks like Sardinia-Piedmont (or Savoy; not quite sure what that state is) didn't act as the driving force. Is it sort of an Austrian puppet or creation, since it started in Lombardy?

Austrian creation. By the early 19th century the Austrians had established control over Tuscany, Lombardy and Venice. Italy was already then the main area of contention between France and Austria, and the French support for the nationalist movement made things quite messy for the Habsburgs. After putting down yet another uprising, the Kaiser granted independence to the Kingdom of Italy, then consisting of Lombardy, Tuscany and some adjacent areas, and put his cousin on throne. It was a pretty unpopular puppet regime at first, but eventually the "Absburgs" managed to endear themselves to the populace through their social and economic reforms, their assimilation into Italian culture and their generally successful policies. The Austrians, still troubled by different nationalist uprisings until the federal reform in 1872, had eventually granted Venice to the Kingdom as well. As the Italian north became an industrial powerhouse, it began to exert great economical influence over the Papal States and Bourbon Naples; in 1890, to the chagrin of the French, the Bourbons of Naples died out and the local parliament, as per prior arrangements and bribery, quickly declared the integration of the southern kingdom into Italy. The Pope was soon after persuaded to acknowledge the Italian king's supreme secular authority over his territories. Sardinia-Piedmont, an Austrian puppet, was not integrated into Italy yet to maintain a buffer state between Italy and France, and to avoid giving France an excuse to annex Nice, Savoy and Asti as it had previously expressed intention of doing. Still, Italian nationalism is strong in Sardinia-Piedmont, and it seems like this issue will create a major crisis at some point in the coming century.

 

[Symphony D.]

New question: what is up with the truly weird Persian and Afghan borders?

 

[Disenfrancised]

@das: What is the relationship between the colonial powers and the tributary states in India (if there are any left), I wouldn't have thought a roughly equal divison like that would be stable...especially along those geographical borders. I bet having to keep the Indian army at home rather ballsed up Britains schemes eh?

Also why does Britain have so much of Indonesia, in OTL they gave it back to the Dutch (except for the uber strategic Malaya) because the treaties and economic influence they had meant it was effectively another colony without having the trouble of actually running it on a day to day basis...

:heart: @ Upper Peru doing well for once

Also what sym said.

 

[Symphony D.]

Going back to this for a minute, while my attention is here:

They kept it for strategic reasons, though admittedly that was a pretty flimsy reason.

What strategic reasons? The only really good use for Florida is service industry, and that only really picks up when you've got customers rich enough to pay for service--ie: a well-developed industrial state who want theme parks and cute animals to look at, or need a place to deposit the old who are rich and dying.

The other two things that come out of Florida are phosphate (1/4 modern global supply) and citrus. I doubt the need for artificial fertilizer and fruit is that high at the current stage of global development, so how exactly is the state supporting itself economically, and how is it preventing what must be high immigration rates from the Union (which, being nearby, is one of the few places said fruit can be shipped without freezing, and the closest source for processing said phosphates into an end-product, Florida not being much for industry)?

Or, to put it more bluntly: did you just want an independent Florida?

 

[das]

New question: what is up with the truly weird Persian and Afghan borders?

The British annexed a large swathe of Persian lands - including Bander Abbas, naturally - after the conclusion of the Anglo-Russian War; Persia became neutral, but both sides annexed certain border areas they were interested in as part of the treaty. I think that having the British annex their OTL sphere of influence in Persia would've looked even more bizarre, and not any more justified than what they did end up doing.

What is the relationship between the colonial powers and the tributary states in India (if there are any left), I wouldn't have thought a roughly equal divison like that would be stable...especially along those geographical borders.

Well, the British have been establishing a stronger central control over multiple areas that were merely tributary in OTL, but many of them have retained more or less OTL status. The French mostly rule through tributaries. The borders have been pretty unstable, especially earlier in the 19th century, though they had settled down at roughly present lines after the final collapse of the (French puppet, slowly-dying) Maratha Confederacy in 1859.

And yes, it has been rather distracting for the British, though admittedly for the French as well, especially as they were mostly losing land at a slow but steady pace since their spectacular middle 18th century successes.

That said, the Indian Army still was able to participate in nearby campaigns.

Also why does Britain have so much of Indonesia, in OTL they gave it back to the Dutch (except for the uber strategic Malaya) because the treaties and economic influence they had meant it was effectively another colony without having the trouble of actually running it on a day to day basis...

The British seized these earlier than in OTL, during a 18th century war against France which had gained allies in Holland amongst other places. Arguably they also wanted to recompense themselves for earlier reverses in India.

Upper Peru doing well for once

The Titicacans didn't have it all that well, what with that reign of terror after the revolution; still, since their recovery they were indeed doing pretty well, certainly better than their equivalents in many, many other parallel universes.

What strategic reasons?

Naval bases, mostly.

how is it preventing what must be high immigration rates from the Union

Very badly, and widespread corruption didn't make it any better; certainly not later in the 19th century when the Americans finished colonising more easily accessible and valuable areas. I don't think it will last, I think it will explode spectacularly at some point soon.

Or, to put it more bluntly: did you just want an independent Florida?

Initially I just failed to find any particularly good opportunities to have the Americans conquer it; one thing or another always kept it from happening, mostly my desire to avoid an unrealistic and contrived conflagration between great powers. But yes, the idea did eventually grow on me.

 

[Disenfrancised]

What strategic reasons? The only really good use for Florida is service industry, and that only really picks up when you've got customers rich enough to pay for service--ie: a well-developed industrial state who want theme parks and cute animals to look at, or need a place to deposit the old who are rich and dying.

Or, to put it more bluntly: did you just want an independent Florida?

Well if you also control cuba and mexico florida basically gives you complete lock on naval commerce in the caribbean, and is a useful staging pad for threatening parts further north up until population rises early 19th cen.

What I could see giving an independent florida in 1900 is Spain conceding the Panhandle and everything north of the Suwanne and St Johns rivers to the green march, giving it a much more controlable border, and then boosting the settlement of the south with cuban freed slaves/ex-slaveowners getting land as compensation to build up a culturally different and populated region that anglo north america (however that pans out) isn't going want, and won't be worth the war with spain of conquering it (especially if the northern states don't want further slave territory) when they can just buy the phosphates and citrus.

Of course in that case it'd probably be amalgamated with Cuba.

 

[Dachs]

Not exactly; in many regards it was made worse early on by some unsuccessful wars,

If the wars were unsuccessful, how did the French retain southern India? Who'd they fight, how, and why - was this over that "War of Saxon Succession"? Did something happen to poor, papist Friedrich August?

In 1790, already after entering yet another poorly thought-out war,

Which?

his military exploits plus later military reforms that paved the way to the eventual le Accroissement).

Oh? Military reforms and exploits eh? Do tell.

His reign and his wars were less spectacular than in OTL,

But still "masterpiece of maneuver and decision", right? While I realize you probably haven't thought that out so much, were there any particularly interesting tactical results? (I can't imagine a Napoleon without the example of Leuthen, for one.)

Heinrich I

The same Heinrich who was a prospective King of the United States? Cool.

to make war on the world and defeat most everyone in Europe. Died before he could finish his later reforms, though; then again, the fact that Prussia-Germany was utterly surrounded by enemies was perhaps more important in this case than any immediate structural instability.

Ooh, it's fun to have another Alexander. A real one, too, instead of that pansy Napoleon.

Also, the Prussians have colonised the hell out of their part, making the Poles a (large) minority in their own heartlands by this point. Mind you, it took quite some time and effort.

Ah yes, the good old Drang nach Osten. Someday you're going to have to reverse that you know - you keep giving the Germans Poland and the Rhineland to France. Sometime the Poles are going to have to get Berlin and the Germans will need to get Ile-de-France.

Britain's Mediterranean presence was indeed weaker than in OTL.

Am interested - a different outcome of the naval wars with France could have this factor, but I am somewhat leery of the outcome; the limeys seem to have kept Gibraltar after all.

Turkey Proper (don't start ).

Who, me?

the Anglo-American forces

These Americans are used as ANZACs for the British then?

Also, what happened to Korea - is it a Japanese puppet or did it achieve independence due to sponsorship by some state or other during the fighting (no doubt it will be sadly-brief and under the Gwangmu Emperor )?

their spectacular middle 18th century successes.

As noted before, I be's interested in the reason the frogs can beat the limeys out of the brightest crown jewel in the Empire.

Initially I just failed to find any particularly good opportunities to have the Americans conquer it; one thing or another always kept it from happening, mostly my desire to avoid an unrealistic and contrived conflagration between great powers. But yes, the idea did eventually grow on me.

Maybe now Dave Barry really will get elected President.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Ah yes, the good old Drang nach Osten. Someday you're going to have to reverse that you know - you keep giving the Germans Poland and the Rhineland to France. Sometime the Poles are going to have to get Berlin and the Germans will need to get Ile-de-France.

In that map I posted a few weeks ago the Germans marched down the Danube and the Poles pushed nearly to the Oder . Oh and France was strangled at birth .

These Americans are used as ANZACs for the British then?

It'd be hard to see them not (especially if there are lots of central european immigrants). The Huge American Union is super great for britain, even more so if its 'partically independent' - you have a huge open market (that Britain will do well in due to the established economies of scale and organisation for heavy industry that took tariff walls to outcompete OTL) that you enemies can't entice away diplomatically, manpower for the volunteering (just play some 'old country' patriotic banjos, a few enemy actions on american shiping and bam, America will bail you out of your mess), and since it controls a continent with oceans on all sides you don't even have to worry about comeing to/paying for its defense, and since its independent you don't have to run it.

Basically everything Britain dreamed of for its empire (open markets, manpower, space to dump population, and not having to pay for it) .

 

[das]

If the wars were unsuccessful, how did the French retain southern India?

They fought pretty well in India early on. Still was expensive, though, and the wars in Europe went badly.

Who'd they fight, how, and why - was this over that "War of Saxon Succession"?

The War of Saxon Succession, wherein France, Sweden and the Ottoman Empire tried to save Saxony and Poland-Lithuania from being carved up by the Pact of the Three Black Eagles.

Did something happen to poor, papist Friedrich August?

He died earlier, then Friedrich II used the slightest dynastic and political difficulties to launch an opportunistic war. The Austrians went along with it because the French had been building up influence in Saxony and Poland after Prussia aligned itself with Austria, whereas Tsar Ivan VI was an ardent Austrophile who surrounded himself with like-minded courtiers.

Which?

The Seven Years War, a.k.a. the War of Hannoverian Succession (theme naming? Perish the thought! Anyway, George III still went mad, and the Prussians were on a roll by then so they jumped at the first opportunity to unite northern Germany). That was the war where Friedrich III beat up everyone, the French included.

Military reforms and exploits eh?

Exploits include a semi-successful guerrilla campaign against the Prussians in the Ardennes region in that above war, and well-handled defensive operations in Lorraine later in the war. Arguably, he got lucky on many occasions, and also benefited from the French levee en masse later on; and also, invading the French heartlands was never an important objective to Friedrich III. On the other hand, he did show considerable military talent, and if not for those victories the Orleanist government might not have lasted the first few years. Which brings us to another exploit, soon after the war, where he first defeated leftover radical republican forces that retreated to the countryside after a failed coup, and then moved to crush a Legitimist army in the Vendee. This granted him considerable political leverage. He held presidential power for 10 years after 1803, carrying out political reforms, removing all but the most ceremonial remnants of the feudal system (those left were removed much later in the century) and building a modern, professional army that combined the Prussian military innovations with the popular army of the Revolution.

But still "masterpiece of maneuver and decision", right?

Yes, but he wasn't quite as renowned as in OTL, mostly because his situation never did get that desperate.

While I realize you probably haven't thought that out so much, were there any particularly interesting tactical results? (I can't imagine a Napoleon without the example of Leuthen, for one.)

Indeed I haven't thought it out much, though I'll bet that there were some nice battles in the War of Bavarian Succession, possibly even in the same places where Friedrich II fought in OTL.

Also, there was no Napoleon, only an alternate version of one of his brothers.

The same Heinrich who was a prospective King of the United States? Cool.

The very same. His reign was fairly short and boring, though he still is adored by alternate historians for his attempts at liberalisation and detente, not to mention his attempts to forge a lasting alliance with Britain.

Someday you're going to have to reverse that you know - you keep giving the Germans Poland and the Rhineland to France.

What can I say? It just makes so much sense with an early modern PoD.

Sometime the Poles are going to have to get Berlin and the Germans will need to get Ile-de-France.

I think I did do a super-quasi-Poland with OTL Brandenburg. I certainly did have more proper Poles vassalise it once. And I think I suggested a possibility where Poland and France carve up Germany in the 20th century; that's one out of two, I guess.

Am interested - a different outcome of the naval wars with France could have this factor, but I am somewhat leery of the outcome; the limeys seem to have kept Gibraltar after all.

The French taking over Egypt did not alter the balance of power in the Mediterranean in Britain's favour. Also, consider all the implications of the OTL Revolution and the French Revolutionary Wars with regards to the naval balance; here, both France and Spain remained much stronger as compared to OTL, and the British didn't get as many opportunities to grab bases there.

These Americans are used as ANZACs for the British then?

Pretty much, yes. Ofcourse, while the fighting in China may have been quite gritty at times (if only because of the sheer numbers of the opposing side), it almost never got quite as disastrous as Galipoli.

Also, what happened to Korea - is it a Japanese puppet or did it achieve independence due to sponsorship by some state or other during the fighting

It was independent, but a British puppet as of early 1880s. Then a Russian-backed coup d'etat occurred, and full independence was reclaimed; the Anglo-Russian War began soon after and the Japanese briefly occupied most of Korea, but between the surprisingly stiff local resistance and the large Russian forces arriving via the new railroad, the Japanese were mostly pushed out and the British came too late. At the end of the war, Korea was left independent and neutral, but the unabashedly pro-Russian government remained in power. I suppose you could call it Russian sponsorship.

As noted before, I be's interested in the reason the frogs can beat the limeys out of the brightest crown jewel in the Empire.

Something of a butterfly effect. Basically, without the War of Austrian Succession, the French paid more attention to India, and supported the efforts of their local commanders better (while also exerting somewhat more efficient control over them). That support proved crucial, and Dupleix was able to establish a better power base, badly beating the British in a colonial war. His successors weren't as good, but they still managed to build upon his successes and further frustrate British efforts during the 1770s Jacobite War.

 

[Dachs]

after Prussia aligned itself with Austria

It's always fun to see that.

Tsar Ivan VI

Butterflies, or what's the reason for that? How did Russia's dynastic system end up anyway?

The French taking over Egypt did not alter the balance of power in the Mediterranean in Britain's favour.

Why did the British let them do it, is more what I'm asking.

Also, consider all the implications of the OTL Revolution and the French Revolutionary Wars with regards to the naval balance; here, both France and Spain remained much stronger as compared to OTL, and the British didn't get as many opportunities to grab bases there.

While those are indeed very handy opportunities, the French, being a fundamentally hybrid power, should be at a perpetual disadvantage when it comes to fighting on land and sea. They normally oughtn't be able to do both at the same time at all well, because they just don't have the resources or the central banking system to finance a naval war (unless they established one at some time) and fight a Continental giant like Prussia or Austria too. I suppose Spain could serve as something of a puppet to beat up on Britain navally while France concentrates on the ground or on other theaters, but Spain doesn't look like it's in enough of a renaissance of naval power to do that kind of hurt to the Royal Navy. In any event, I think that the British Mediterranean squadron should be able to at the very least interrupt the flow of supplies out of Toulon and Marseilles to the Egyptian theater, or threaten to do so. That way you end up with a huge interned French army with nothing to do except get shot at by the local dervishes and whatnot.

...then again, with your track record on "French armies that have been cut off from supplies", maybe not. Or maybe the British were dealing with something else, like

the 1770s Jacobite War.

or something. What was that war anyway?

 

[Disenfrancised]

While those are indeed very handy opportunities, the French, being a fundamentally hybrid power, should be at a perpetual disadvantage when it comes to fighting on land and sea.

luckily being the most populous country in europe at the time goes a long way to compensating for that .