Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel

[Dachs]

What about Hoche for the colonial job? (Yeah, maybe he's too sockpuppety. But still.)

Guess who's ironing out his Meade TL again!

(speaking of which, I would like to know Dachs' opinion on General Yermolov)

The artillery guy, from Kulm? Didn't he sympathize with the Decembrists, or at least some of the dudes who were participating in said uprising? He does seem like he could pull off a Napoleonic coup from what little I know (). I think there's been some speculation on alternatehistory.com recently about the Decembrist Revolt; somebody said that a temporary success might lead to a brief revolutionary government that abolishes serfdom before the reaction rolls in, thus initiating social warfare in the countryside. He could certainly take advantage of something like that.

 

[Yui108]

The problem with Boney and a North American empire is that the PoD would likely have to be before the end of the 1790s at the very least for the French to have a good chance of even trying to retain Louisiana. By 1803 he definitely didn't have the ability to defend Louisiana from the Brits. In all practicality a North American empire would end up being lost, so he traded the United States something he fully expected to lose - Louisiana - for not-insubstantial cash monies. Had the negotiations broken down (and I doubt a higher price would have prevented the Americans from taking advantage of the offer all that much, especially since they had $10 million ready for New Orleans alone), Napoleon would either have sold it to somebody else (back to Spain? They were insolvent, I suppose) or he would have tried to retain it and promptly lost it to the United Kingdom, just like all the other French overseas possessions during the Napoleonic Wars. Britain gets Louisiana, which could sour relations with the United States a lot faster and spur a War of 1812 before 1812 (or a purchase agreement from Britain...hell by now I'm just speculating really).

But yeah bottom line is that I dunno if France is going to have even a remote chance of holding onto Louisiana during the Napoleonic Wars, cause either the US or Britain would try to grab it.

I'm thinking no aedes aegyptis virus destroying the haiti invasion force.

 

[Thlayli]

There's tons of ways to make Haiti work. Like, for example, France offering concessions to the creole ruling classes. Or killing off Toussaint L'Ouverture in inter-faction conflicts, etc.

 

[Dachs]

I'm thinking no aedes aegyptis virus destroying the haiti invasion force.

There's tons of ways to make Haiti work. Like, for example, France offering concessions to the creole ruling classes. Or killing off Toussaint L'Ouverture in inter-faction conflicts, etc.

The point is that even if France keeps Haiti and doesn't sell Louisiana, they'll either lose it to the Brits or the Americans, take your pick.

 

[Shadowbound]

Jefferson was dead-set on keeping France from having Louisiana, even if it meant having to ally with Britain.

 

[das]

The artillery guy, from Kulm?

Among other things, but he's more well-known for the de facto conquest of Caucasus (sure, there was some presence before that, but he was the one who turned it into real and stable dominion). He was in part "Russia's answer to" Charles Napier, but he also became something of a patron of radical political thought because most political malcontents from late Alexander I onwards were either (lightly) exiled or themselves fled to the Caucasus, where they found Yermolov to be more than a bit sympathetic. He definitely kept in touch with Griboyedov, Küchelbecker and the southern society. Since he was practically the supreme military ruler of the Russian Caucasus, that made him by far the most powerful "republican" in Russia, if somewhat removed from the main theater of action. Still, had the rebellion in Chernigov succeeded, he probably would've helped, and that would've meant a lot. Had the revolution succeeded in general (and had it done so, it would not have been replaced by a near-immediate reaction, since the only ones capable of pulling it off were the ones who would've died or fled upon its success; rather, it would've turned into a nice Jacobinesque bloodbath), yes, he would've definitely been a contender.

Ofcourse, my impressions of Yermolov, and the period in general, are somewhat coloured by Tynanov (who rather aptly compared him "with Pompey, rather than Caesar" on account of the hesitation that secured his rather anticlimactic downfall), since the good general features prominently enough in his historical novels. Still, most of the stuff from there seems to check out just fine, and Tynanov is generally good with his history and characters.

 

[Dachs]

Among other things, but he's more well-known for the de facto conquest of Caucasus (sure, there was some presence before that, but he was the one who turned it into real and stable dominion).

Prussian history.

He was in part "Russia's answer to" Charles Napier, but he also became something of a patron of radical political thought because most political malcontents from late Alexander I onwards were either (lightly) exiled or themselves fled to the Caucasus, where they found Yermolov to be more than a bit sympathetic. He definitely kept in touch with Griboyedov, Küchelbecker and the southern society. Since he was practically the supreme military ruler of the Russian Caucasus, that made him by far the most powerful "republican" in Russia, if somewhat removed from the main theater of action. Still, had the rebellion in Chernigov succeeded, he probably would've helped, and that would've meant a lot. Had the revolution succeeded in general (and had it done so, it would not have been replaced by a near-immediate reaction, since the only ones capable of pulling it off were the ones who would've died or fled upon its success; rather, it would've turned into a nice Jacobinesque bloodbath), yes, he would've definitely been a contender.

Niiiiice. You should extrapolate from that, dude. Von Diebitsch was against the Decembrists, sadly, so if this all works out he won't be around to kick ass and take names. What did Paskevich think about the Decembrists? Or Aleksey Greig?

Also having Pushkin be the Decembrists' Lamartine would be awesome.

 

[das]

Paskevich was always close to Nicholas, and vice versa (the latter served under the former's command in the 1st Guards Infantry Division); I don't think he would've worked at all well with the Decembrists (though historically it was he who made very good use of exiled experienced Decembrist officers in Caucasus after having replaced Yermolov). Greig does not seem to have been politically involved in much of anything, but what he did in Nikolayev was a lot like what Yermolov was trying to do to many Caucasian cities (reconstruction along European lines, colonisation, beautification and commerce, commerce, commerce), so.

Miloradovich seems quite a bit more dubious, but he was as opportunistic as Bonaparte, only less talented, less popular and much less lucky. I don't think he would coexist with the revolutionaries for long, but he might easily had helped them if it seemed to offer a better opportunity for advancement than trying to blackmail and strong-arm the Tsar.

Also having Pushkin be the Decembrists' Lamartine would be awesome.

What the Decembrists lacked in higher-up military officers they more than made up for with poets (which might explain why they failed ). Pushkin might be up to it, but honestly, as far as political talent is concerned Griboyedov is the one to go to; he already had quite a reputation in Decembrist circles, and a bit of recklessness is not that bad at all during a revolution. Being pals with Yermolov and with the heads of all the major Russian (liberal-reactionary flip-flopper) "literary" (read: political whenever they can get away with, and likely to go all the way when the revolution comes knocking) journals at the time helps.

Oh, and Gorchakov (yes, that Gorchakov) was "in" with the Decembrist crowd too, so his career might get a head-start unless he gets, um, beheaded.

EDIT: And Dachs, what's all this about Meade? You were supposed to be writing about the Diadochi!

 

[Thlayli]

I was saying the same thing, but the revision is actually really good. Hopefully he'll just do both.

 

[Dachs]

Miloradovich seems quite a bit more dubious, but he was as opportunistic as Bonaparte, only less talented, less popular and much less lucky. I don't think he would coexist with the revolutionaries for long, but he might easily had helped them if it seemed to offer a better opportunity for advancement than trying to blackmail and strong-arm the Tsar.

Yes, didn't he get shot by the revolutionaries OTL?

What the Decembrists lacked in higher-up military officers they more than made up for with poets (which might explain why they failed ). Pushkin might be up to it, but honestly, as far as political talent is concerned Griboyedov is the one to go to; he already had quite a reputation in Decembrist circles, and a bit of recklessness is not that bad at all during a revolution. Being pals with Yermolov and with the heads of all the major Russian (liberal-reactionary flip-flopper) "literary" (read: political whenever they can get away with, and likely to go all the way when the revolution comes knocking) journals at the time helps.

Oh, and Gorchakov (yes, that Gorchakov) was "in" with the Decembrist crowd too, so his career might get a head-start unless he gets, um, beheaded.

Cool. Dude, you really should write this. The Decembrists have potential!

What about Greece (yeah, I know, I know)? Would any new regime attempt to cement support by going adventuring in support of the rebels, who're just now coming under attack from Ibrahim and his Egyptians?

EDIT: And Dachs, what's all this about Meade? You were supposed to be writing about the Diadochi!

Hahaha, attention span.

 

[das]

Yes, didn't he get shot by the revolutionaries OTL?

As it turned out, yes, but that only happened when he nearly thwarted them early on. Had he decided to lead them instead, possibly to set himself up as a military dictator under the pretenses of Constantine and Constitution, things would've gotten very complicated indeed in St. Petersburg (because the army would've been both in control and bitterly divided).

What about Greece (yeah, I know, I know)? Would any new regime attempt to cement support by going adventuring in support of the rebels, who're just now coming under attack from Ibrahim and his Egyptians?

Greece was a big cause celebre for the Decembrists, ofcourse. Tynanov might have been making that particular scene up, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were to turn out that Küchelbecker really did ask Yermolov to march to save Greece on his own initiative back in 1822. Ofcourse, marching to Greece from Georgia might've been a bit... complicated, which is part of the reason why Yermolov did no such thing, but such ideas were there and had the Decembrists seized power for long enough to feel even remotely secure this sounds like exactly the thing they would've done (especially since, as with the Tsar, it would've confused the hell out of generally pro-Greek, anti-Russian European public opinion, which is generally useful if you've just overthrown the legitimate dynasty and are perhaps beginning to make Robespierre look like a Moderate).

Now, just how much of an efficient intervention they would be able to organise is a different question, and the reaction of Austria is also... interesting - if Kaunitz was willing to ally with the Turks against a Tsarist Russia, what will Metternich do when faced with a Republican Russia breathing down his neck? Also, something tells me the very Tsarist but definitely not nationalist Muslims in Russian service as well as some foreign specialists would have been quick to defect away.

 

[Dachs]

As it turned out, yes, but that only happened when he nearly thwarted them early on. Had he decided to lead them instead, possibly to set himself up as a military dictator under the pretenses of Constantine and Constitution, things would've gotten very complicated indeed in St. Petersburg (because the army would've been both in control and bitterly divided).

Complicated is good.

Now, just how much of an efficient intervention they would be able to organise is a different question, and the reaction of Austria is also... interesting - if Kaunitz was willing to ally with the Turks against a Tsarist Russia, what will Metternich do when faced with a Republican Russia breathing down his neck? Also, something tells me the very Tsarist but definitely not nationalist Muslims in Russian service as well as some foreign specialists would have been quick to defect away.

Good point. I assume the Holy Alliance is most certainly going to be abrogated by any revolutionary government (it almost goes without saying), but Prussia is still probably going to cooperate with the Habsburgs in the name of smashing nationalistic and revolutionary sentiment. Canning still gets to break up his nonexistent 'Congress System' by dealing with the new Russia against Austria.

The problem is that I don't know if Metternich will want to risk general European war over the Eastern Question and over the Russian government. Perhaps a note of Austrian support will stave off a Turkish concession like the Convention of Akkerman, but more than that I can't say. I suppose it depends on any extant royalist vestiges left in Russia. If Vienna teams up with the Porte and it's timed with a countercoup in Russia, the whole thing may collapse. I assume, though, that this theoretical 'Decembrist' government would have made itself reasonably domestically secure before attempting to dictate to Turkey. And it's not like the Greeks won't keep, either, because even with the Egyptians around they can just hole up in the Mani for years.

 

[bombshoo]

Harald Hardrade defeats the Saxons at the battle of Stamford Bridge, however being fully aware of the intentions of William the Conqueror in Normandy, he sends out a spy with false information regarding an army of 5,000 more soldiers soon to arrive in England as reinforcements. The spy is captured by the Normans and just as Haralde plans, William is forced to call off the invasion. A bored William stays put in his manor for the next five years before being approached by Ralph De Hauteville, a fellow noble and friend who suggests they join his brothers Geoffry, Mauger and William De Hauteville in Southern Italy, reinforcing the growing Norman possessions there. William agrees and the two depart with 8,000 men.

From this change in history, we are given two separate lines to follow with great potential to effect the history of both the Mediterranean and Northern Europe: The new Norse-English Empire of Harald Hadrade and a much more powerful Italo-Norman kingdom in Southern Italy that is also now lead by a charismatic and ambitious leader.

With extra troops and a united force in Italy, possibly within a few decades, most if not all of Italy and some of the Balkans could be conquered by the Normans just in time for the First Crusade. With a much better base to launch invasions of the Holy Land from, we might see a more successful and powerful Crusader kingdom. Maybe with such easy access to the Mediterranean, we would even see an attempt at a Neo-Roman Empire ruled by Normans.

In Britain and Norway, if the two can be held together for any considerable length of time, we might see a continued "Viking Age" in Northern Europe. There would be more influence of Sea-Power and if some old Viking maps still managed to exist, maybe an earlier discovery of the Americas by Scandinavians or British.

This is all I have thus far. I'm not sure on the plausibility of most of it; its low I imagine, but it creates a pretty unique world doesn't it?

 

[Thlayli]

That's actually kind of a cool idea. Not sure if it's plausible or not, since William has a lot more interest in adding adjacent lands (England) to his current possessions...but figuring out ways to strengthen the Normans in Italy and beyond is always fun.

 

[das]

It seriously makes no sense for him to just go and leave Normandy. Far better to have him lose to the French King (not sure how something like that could happen, but maybe if the Norman alliance with Flanders was to go horribly wrong?) and flee with his retainers to Sicily. Even then, I doubt that he would be in a position to play such a decisive role, though. De Hautevilles did not exactly need him to do their thing; they were charismatic, energetic and powerful enough by themselves, and adding a third rider to the same horse would not really strengthen them at all; he would most probably only shake things up or maybe break off and invade someplace else (earlier start of the Crusades?).

 

[bombshoo]

It seriously makes no sense for him to just go and leave Normandy. Far better to have him lose to the French King (not sure how something like that could happen, but maybe if the Norman alliance with Flanders was to go horribly wrong?) and flee with his retainers to Sicily. Even then, I doubt that he would be in a position to play such a decisive role, though. De Hautevilles did not exactly need him to do their thing; they were charismatic, energetic and powerful enough by themselves, and adding a third rider to the same horse would not really strengthen them at all; he would most probably only shake things up or maybe break off and invade someplace else (earlier start of the Crusades?).

Actually I was thinking that if William did go to Italy (For whatever reason), instead of England, he might be able to convince the Pope to start a Crusade earlier. A Norman Crusader Kingdom led by him in even a loose alliance with the Italo-Normans in Naples and Sicily would still be a fairly formidable force in the Mediterranean. That might be a better way of doing things.

But as for getting William out of Normandy, lets just say he couldn't invade England (for the reasons I gave or any other possibilities), he still doesn't strike me as the kind of guy just content to sit around in his fiefdom for the rest of his life. What are other places he could attempt to expand too at this time, Brittany? This would bring William into conflict with the King Phillip, who was also not in good standing with the Pope, so if William did somehow lose but still escape to Italy he could easily be able to get have Papal support for some sort of new conquest.

 

[das]

That's just the thing, there is always a reason and a way to invade England. Other than that, he is indeed going to fight with his French neighbours; I mean, he did beat the king twice a few years earlier, and wasn't exactly on good terms with anyone else. He might make a bid for the throne. Might very well succeed, at that, and this would make French centralisation go so much smoother and faster.

 

[bombshoo]

That's just the thing, there is always a reason and a way to invade England. Other than that, he is indeed going to fight with his French neighbours; I mean, he did beat the king twice a few years earlier, and wasn't exactly on good terms with anyone else. He might make a bid for the throne. Might very well succeed, at that, and this would make French centralisation go so much smoother and faster.

Lets say William was momentarily stalled from going after England, though was able to claim the French throne in the meantime, and then only a few years later a new window opened allowing him to return his attention to England again. Could a union be possible?

 

[das]

Technically, the French throne should keep him busy for a while. He may have been an opportunist, but he also was a very thorough man: once he started conquering some place, he conquered it to the ground. 11th century France being the way it was, this would take a lot of time (worth the effort, though, even if it is just in the north).

 

[Dachs]

It has come to my attention that the marquis d'Argenson is possibly the worst conductor of foreign policy in the history of the world. He makes von Bülow and the kaiser seem positively Bismarckian by comparison. I am currently engaging in fantasizing about eliminating him entirely and awarding the direction of French foreign policy during the War of the Austrian Succession to somebody who might take advantage of the Forty-five better.