Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel

[Dachs]

All the interesting Crusader State PoD's are really pre-Third Crusade. Like, for example, the Second Crusade actually doing its' job and attempting to recapture Edessa, rather than violating the peace with Damascus.

Meh. The Crusader States in the Levant are more boring than the one in the Baltic IMHO.

Seriously: Maniakes. Militarily gifted dude, also sufficiently bloodthirsty to be able to quash the nobility. It's that aristocratic-led state of the Komneni that I dislike about the Empire, complete with its ineffective pronoia and over-reliance on mercenaries and vastly shrunken military and inability to grasp basic strategic imperatives. Get somebody like Maniakes in there in the 1040s and you forestall that for a bit longer, which is usually a pretty good thing.

 

[Thlayli]

Hmmmm. Another interesting PoD idea that's superior to Ain Jalut: Mongke Khan doesn't die at the Battle of Fishing Town, continuing instead to skirmish indecisively with the Southern Song.

Not only does this continue the Mongol struggle against the Mamelukes, but it also establishes the possibility for the recovery and reorientation of southern China in a much more maritime-oriented direction. Obviously no Kublai coming to rule China, either.

 

[flyingchicken]

I would like to see an althist where Lotharingia doesn't die off (possibly in the South or the North, but having an Alps-crossing Kingdom would be nice, too).

 

[Yui108]

Hmmmm. Another interesting PoD idea that's superior to Ain Jalut: Mongke Khan doesn't die at the Battle of Fishing Town, continuing instead to skirmish indecisively with the Southern Song.

Not only does this continue the Mongol struggle against the Mamelukes, but it also establishes the possibility for the recovery and reorientation of southern China in a much more maritime-oriented direction. Obviously no Kublai coming to rule China, either.

I don't really understand how this is superior to the Ain Jalut scenario... I don't think the Mongols would stand for a small Chinese state.

 

[Thlayli]

It's not that they'd stand for it, they'd just be reorienting their resources to fighting the Mamelukes. The Yangtze is a natural barrier to begin with.

 

[Dachs]

"If the Kaiser ever causes trouble, it will be from jumpiness and not because of long-thought-out and deliberate purpose." -Theodore Roosevelt, May 1905

Maybe this quote could stimulate some discussion, maybe not. If it doesn't, I recommend the First Venezuela Crisis (that of 1895).

 

[Kraznaya]

Isn't an entangling alliance system the very definition of a long but not very thought out process?

 

[Dachs]

Isn't an entangling alliance system the very definition of a long but not very thought out process?

The alliances in and of themselves were not the problem, and further could be abrogated as necessary, as Germany itself (in 1890) and Italy during the actual Great War, would prove.

 

[Yui108]

"If the Kaiser ever causes trouble, it will be from jumpiness and not because of long-thought-out and deliberate purpose." -Theodore Roosevelt, May 1905

Maybe this quote could stimulate some discussion, maybe not. If it doesn't, I recommend the First Venezuela Crisis (that of 1895).

speakign of teddy, an alt where he wins his third election could be fun.

 

[Thlayli]

The only way that's workable is if he actually gets the Republican nomination, or Taft dies from a massive coronary. The Progressives really don't stand much of a chance.

 

[Cobalt Command]

REPOST: WARNING, VERY BROAD.

The TL I've drafted is one based around Napoleon's interests in America being more adamant than in OTL:

Spoiler ATL Draft :

1802- Napoleon’s rule in Haiti is unquestioned as Slavery is not to be reincorporated in the colony.

April 30, 1803- Napoleon, planning a North American empire, demands too high a price for the Louisiana Purchase by the United States. The United States stays the same size.

1803-1814: OTL is minimally affected. Events occur generally unabated. Colonization of French North America is encouraged for those not related to families being conscripted in the French military.

March 30, 1814- Napoleon, fearing repercussions of the Napoleonic Wars, flees to the colony of Haiti hoping to rebuild his empire in America.

May 30, 1814: With France put back in its place under Louis XVIII, the Royal Navy begins attempting to capture Napoleon as he hides in the Caribbean. Eventually leading to his self-exile in French North America.

1814-1819: France is allowed to keep its overseas colonies (mainly due to fear of USA growth), and several extreme revolutionaries in France are forced to emigrate to French North America by Louis XVIII in attempts to restabilize his country, and fill the vastly uncolonised territory in America. This leads to prolonged search for the fugitive Napoleon, as he is helped by sympathizers in the colony while hiding from the Royal Navy and French search parties.

1819: Napoleon, with armies of willing revolutionaries stages a coup of the current governor of French North America. He proclaims the colony the new nation French Republic of America (FRA), and sets himself up as the King and military commander. Britain and France immediately declare war.

1819- May 5, 1821: FRA Revolution. The United States fights on the side of the FRA against a British and French coalition. British aggression is mainly in the north from Canada; battles are few but decisive. The USA splits British forces by keeping a front open in Ontario, and French aggression, mainly in Louisiana, is weak due to the Napoleonic wars shelling out the nations economy and man power. Britain, unable to gain significant ground and with US forces in vital areas, ends aggressions with the French Republic of America and officially recognizes the nation. France, yet again facing rebellion, also end aggression. In the treaty signed on May 5, 1821, the FRA becomes a sovereign nation, the USA returns all Canadian acquisitions but gains land on the eastern bank of the Mississippi River, and France retains control of Haiti.

1821-1835 : Settling of the FRA’s interior is encouraged under Napoleon I, and immigration sometimes spills over into Mexican territory.

November 18, 1835: As the Texan offensive against Mexico begins to deteriorate, Napoleon I declares war against Mexico to protect his interests in the region. The First Mexican-French American war begins.

February 23, 1836: A force comprised mainly of FRA soldiers defeats Santa Anna’s forces. The Mexican offensive is halted.

February 23,1836-April 21, 1836: Santa Anna, unwilling to accept defeat, attempts several invasions of Texas. Under personal supervision by Napoleon I, Mexican advances are defeated and Texas, occupied by FRA forces, is defended from Santa Anna’s army. With the capture of Santa Anna, Texas is liberated from Mexico.

1837-1872: Napoleon I annexes the short lived nation of Texas. Settlement in the FRA eventually reaches the Pacific Ocean, and a border dispute between the FRA and Britain is created by the Columbia territory. War looms, but is avoided when the nation divisionary line is set at the Thomson River, with Vancouver Island placed in the hands of the FRA. Napoleon I dies. Joseph Napoleon is briefly the elected King of the FRA as Napoleon II; he dies shortly after taking office. Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte is elected King of the FRA as Napoleon III. Second Mexican-French American War; ends with the annexation of all of California West of 120th Vertical.
Division is forged over time in the USA over the problem of slavery, the Southern Slave States (as they call them) believe the FRA will support their secession.

1873: As war between the Republican Anti-Slavery North and the Democratic Pro-Slavery South seems inevitable in the USA, Napoleon III dies on September 4, 1873 (Successor not yet decided). The Southern USA goes to war with the Northern USA without guaranteed support from the FRA.

This is the Trigger Point, which side does the FRA support. Whichever side they choose determines the other sides allies, and those allies determine even more allies, and even more possibilities. Or, they could simply not choose a side and the Civil War(although delayed) stays just that. I may not have enough information, but I'm trying to base the decision off economic, political, and world social standards at the time... but with the addition of a strong French Nation in the Midwest.
All criticism is welcomed.

 

[Dachs]

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.

 

[das]

Also: Napoleon and revolutionaries extreme enough to be exiled by a government that contained Talleyrand and even tried to retain Fouche, up to a point? Now, Napoleon is ofcourse an opportunist, and if he were to flee to North America (which is more than a bit dubious - I don't think any French statesman back then, how ever minor, would have settled for a contemptible backwater colony if there is even the slightest chance of seizing or in this case holding on to Paris instead, but not wholly beyond him, I suppose) he would have also been willing to use whoever he could, but those people would've gotten rid of him at the first possible moment.

Also: just whom do you expect them to exile there, exactly? Most revolutionaries are dead or hopelessly minor by now. Fouche, one of the few radical survivors, is in the government at first and even when he was exiled it was very comfortable and in Austria of all places.

I guess what I (and Dachs?) am getting at is that to get where you want to you need some major changes in European affairs or in the pre-revolutionary period, preferably both. The idea of a penal colony for French republicans is great, but you could only pull it off by means of a serious reaction before they had had an opportunity to self-destruct, basically (there are several possible points for this between 1783 and 1797, maybe 1799, I think). Even then, getting them to be self-sufficient in time for the British and/or American invasions would be a challenge, though a one they might just be up to if they stop killing each other for a moment (bringing in the Metis, alliances with the natives, with Mexican separatists and with any sympathetic Americans - I am sure there were some that disliked the idea of expanding westwards and so upsetting the balance of power between the states, but would not have been at all unsympathetic towards the idea of establishing a new and friendly republic in the place of highly unsympathetic French or Spanish colonial rule or a threatening British military occupation).

Ofcourse, any moderate-to-ultraroyalist reaction in France would seriously change the events in Europe even earlier. No Napoleonic Wars as we know them, I would think.

 

[bombshoo]

So the French Monarchy or some European Coalition some how suppress the Revolution, or maybe a more moderate faction comes to power, and most of the radicals (possibly including Napoleon) are sent to the Americas. (Maybe Haiti to start, expand to Louisiana?). From there they can set up some sort of New French-American Empire with support from Cajuns, Creoles and sympathetic Mexicans and Americans...Something along those lines?

 

[das]

The French Monarchy or just the moderates. I suppose an European coalition works too (I always wondered what the effects of razing Paris would be ). Napoleon is no radical, though; an early moderate military coup led by him or by someone else is one of the options I've been considering, resulting in White Terror and the restoration of the Monarchy but not the ancien regime, all under strong influence of the reformed military and Premier Bonaparte.

His brother Lucien is a different question, though.

 

[bombshoo]

The French Monarchy or just the moderates. I suppose an European coalition works too (I always wondered what the effects of razing Paris would be ). Napoleon is no radical, though; an early moderate military coup led by him or by someone else is one of the options I've been considering, resulting in White Terror and the restoration of the Monarchy but not the ancien regime, all under strong influence of the reformed military and Premier Bonaparte.

His brother Lucien is a different question, though.

Oh I'm aware he isn't. He was very pragmatic and that is sort of what makes exiling him along with the others more interesting. I could see him exiled simply due to connections with the radicals and super liberals, and once he was with them, being the pragmatist he was, he might very well have came to power anyways...Just not in France. To be honest, Napoleon might be the only hope for community of exiled radicals/liberals having any chance of taking power in New France.

 

[das]

Napoleon "I fainted during my coup d'etat" Bonaparte? Really? France had many better statesmen and several generals who were at least as good, to be honest; Napoleon was a competent officer in general, a very good artillery officer and capable of battlefield charisma and some imagination on par with the other revolutionary generals, but other than that it was mostly luck. And remember that just about any moderate government will have to be supremely pragmatic; I suppose a preemptive crackdown by Louis XVI or the Prussian Terror might very well affect Bonaparte, though.

 

[North King]

Napoleon was entirely acting during his coup d'etat. I know there's this fad to downplay Napoleon's accomplishments to soothe British and Russian egos of late, but he's without question one of the greatest generals of all time.

Though Davout was probably better.

 

[bombshoo]

Napoleon "I fainted during my coup d'etat" Bonaparte? Really? France had many better statesmen and several generals who were at least as good, to be honest; Napoleon was a competent officer in general, a very good artillery officer and capable of battlefield charisma and some imagination on par with the other revolutionary generals, but other than that it was mostly luck. And remember that just about any moderate government will have to be supremely pragmatic; I suppose a preemptive crackdown by Louis XVI or the Prussian Terror might very well affect Bonaparte, though.

I suppose saying Napoleon being the only hope of the Revolutionary group surviving outside France proper is a stretch, but nonetheless I still see him as a very good choice for this. He would surely be more successful then if Robespierre or one of the other original revolutionaries lead the exiled faction. In short, in order for a Revolutionary group to survive outside of France and expand in size/power, it would need someone with the charisma to hold together and effectively use a very ragtag force with minimal supplies and they probably would have to hold either a very radical or pragmatic point of view. To me that sounds like Napoleon, so the real question I guess is why not him?

 

[das]

Napoleon was entirely acting during his coup d'etat. I know there's this fad to downplay Napoleon's accomplishments to soothe British and Russian egos of late, but he's without question one of the greatest generals of all time.

It's more that it is unfair to many superior French statesmen, and some French generals as well. I'd rather not talk about "greatness", especially if it's "of all time".

Anyway, my point is that Napoleon would not have been the "only hope" of French revolutionaries in Louisiana or anywhere or anywhen else. There were many others in that line, he just came along at the right time and did better than the most (but not all) under the circumstances.

So how about Carnot? Or Danton? Or Lindet? Or Pichegru? Talleyrand and Fouche seem right out, sadly, if only because they would probably wriggle their way out in case of a reaction a la Griboyedov after the Decembrist Uprising (speaking of which, I would like to know Dachs' opinion on General Yermolov); and besides both they and Robespierre do not seem well-suited for colonial politics - they might've adjusted, but I don't think they would want to.