pboily
fingerlickinmathematickin
alex994 said:
My bad. Your points were valid nonetheless.
Alternate History
- Thread starter pboily
- Start date
My bad. Your points were valid nonetheless.
joycem10
Deity
pboily said:
Large scale slave revolt (John Brown on steroids) instigated, funded and supported by the Federal Goverment and northern abolitionists?
EdwardTking
Deity
Well I suppose you could always invent a ficticious incident whereby a gung ho Union ship fired on a British ship in bad light thinking it was a confederate ship and killed some very important people such as Queen Victoria on a visit.
rilnator
Emperor
Not impossible (apart from the Queen Victoria bit). During the civil war there was a fair bit of sabre rattling going on between the Union and Britian.
And if Britian entered the war this would have made it easier for the French to do so as well.
And if Britian entered the war this would have made it easier for the French to do so as well.
Or you could go closer to actual history and have the Trent Affair be a causus belli between the U.S. and U.K. If Prince Albert had died of typhoid just a month or two earlier than he actually did, he would not have been alive to convince the Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, to accept Lincoln's apology.EdwardTking said:
Except for the fact of how Canada seems so small and how the "nation" of Texas wasn't annexed by the Americans. 
Hotpoint
Rome Treaty Legions
YNCS said:
That was the initial timeline divergence in Harry Harrisons Stars and Stripes series, it started with a great premise then got really bad really fast due to diabolically poor research that ignored such minor details as the fact it was the British that were providing not only much of the armament used in the American Civil War but were also supplying the Saltpetre needed to make gunpowder for them.
The Naval dimension of the books is particularly comical given how strong and high-tech the Royal Navy was in the early 1860's and also how small the US Industrial base was compared with Great Britain at the time.
One alternate history I've never seen is if relations between Germany and Britain hadn't badly deteriorated in the 1890's. The two powers were traditionally allies and their monarchs cousins so it is perfectly feasible that if history had run a slightly different course they would have been allies in 1914 instead of enemies.
France and Russia really wouldn't have stood a chance against the German-British Alliance and would have known it which leaves the geo-political situation of the 20th Century very different. You're probably looking at no Communist Revolution in Russia and no Fascism/National Socialism developing either.
Brittania Rules the Waves and Germany Rules the Land... Anglo-Deutschland über alles
.
I'm not impressed by Harry Harrison as an author, so I've never read his "Stars and Stripes" series.
Right now I'm waiting for the next installment of Harry Turtledove's "Settling Accounts" series. Yes, I know a lot of it is soap opera, but it's such good soap opera.
Right now I'm waiting for the next installment of Harry Turtledove's "Settling Accounts" series. Yes, I know a lot of it is soap opera, but it's such good soap opera.
HalfBadger
The Great Whackyness
Yeah I thought the Brits and French helping the confederates was a bit odd.
Also I think you need to include Canada a lot more in this scenerio. At one point you mention it being part of British North America, but by then it had become it's own nation.
As well, you didn't mention Riel and the Metis wars against the Canadian Government in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, those could be impleneted quite well into some of your story.
A lot of the time I was b it confused and wasn't sure where/why you were going a certain direction with your story/alt history. What were your intentions? and what events or results did you want to have a different outcome?
Also I don't like how the story started after the War of Independence, where many alternative stories could have been branched off of. Depending on your intentions etc, maybe tweaking the event of the early 1770s, could yield more logical/plausible results.
Also I think you need to include Canada a lot more in this scenerio. At one point you mention it being part of British North America, but by then it had become it's own nation.
As well, you didn't mention Riel and the Metis wars against the Canadian Government in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, those could be impleneted quite well into some of your story.
A lot of the time I was b it confused and wasn't sure where/why you were going a certain direction with your story/alt history. What were your intentions? and what events or results did you want to have a different outcome?
Also I don't like how the story started after the War of Independence, where many alternative stories could have been branched off of. Depending on your intentions etc, maybe tweaking the event of the early 1770s, could yield more logical/plausible results.
Dreadnought
Deity
No way would have the British/French joined the Rebels in 1860. Like in the American revolution, they'd need to prove they could win. I could understand in 1862 if you included that they won at Antietam, but...
Also, I highly doubt Britian would gain New England. The people wouldn't allow it and probably Britian wouldn't want it.
Also, I highly doubt Britian would gain New England. The people wouldn't allow it and probably Britian wouldn't want it.
Dreadnought
Deity
YNCS said:
Britian would have just gotten more cotton from Egypt and India. And Britian wouldn't have gotten much for siding with the Confederacy.
Dreadnought
Deity
YNCS said:
And perhaps that would have happened!
das
Regeneration In Process
Some person posted your TL without giving you any credit on a different forum, so anyway, I might as well move my comments here.
Florida - believable. Hispaniola - tentatively... Cuba?! Nope, sorry. More likely is Spain refusing to sell Florida and starting a war over it, though I'm not sure if the American fleet is strong enough to seize Cuba.
Why should it? I mean, most of those in California who wanted independance from Mexico by that point were also those who wanted to join USA. A decade earlier, ofcourse, a Spanish-majority free California is much more likely.
Again - any reason in particular?
Incidentally, Texas-less USA is likely to get an earlier Civil War, which is an overwhelming northern victory barring unforeseen circumstances.
Again - why? Maybe if USA is facing military defeat...
Why would Britain join the war (I assume it did)? Also, Lincoln being assassinated is more likely to happen in 1860, where he nearly was. Also, New Englander separatism was by then rather dead.
BSA strikes me as a silly name... Dominion of Columbia, perhaps?
Details! Details!
Well, we can go for something like this. I assume France lost that war? Start a civil war. Communists (syndicalists? separatists? judeo-masons? penguinists?) win, a huge emigre community that happens to be filled with French nationalists sprouts up in Quebec. That said, Quebec separatist rebellions were already on in early 19th century, so...
They had slaves?
And without New England, too. Which leaves them with... not much.
And on the brink of secession in the first decade of 19th century. Not sure how to do it given your original idea, though. Technically, the best way to do it is the Decades of Darkness approach (btw - someone MUST start a NES in that setting, damnit! MUST!!!), but how to make CSA separate after THAT? Unless, ofcourse, we can have Douglas win the elections and antagonize both the North and the South into seceding, but somehow keeping the Great Lakes region.
Hmm.
Florida - believable. Hispaniola - tentatively... Cuba?! Nope, sorry. More likely is Spain refusing to sell Florida and starting a war over it, though I'm not sure if the American fleet is strong enough to seize Cuba.
Why should it? I mean, most of those in California who wanted independance from Mexico by that point were also those who wanted to join USA. A decade earlier, ofcourse, a Spanish-majority free California is much more likely.
Again - any reason in particular?
Incidentally, Texas-less USA is likely to get an earlier Civil War, which is an overwhelming northern victory barring unforeseen circumstances.
Again - why? Maybe if USA is facing military defeat...
Why would Britain join the war (I assume it did)? Also, Lincoln being assassinated is more likely to happen in 1860, where he nearly was. Also, New Englander separatism was by then rather dead.
BSA strikes me as a silly name... Dominion of Columbia, perhaps?
Details! Details!
Well, we can go for something like this. I assume France lost that war? Start a civil war. Communists (syndicalists? separatists? judeo-masons? penguinists?) win, a huge emigre community that happens to be filled with French nationalists sprouts up in Quebec. That said, Quebec separatist rebellions were already on in early 19th century, so...
They had slaves?
And without New England, too. Which leaves them with... not much.
And on the brink of secession in the first decade of 19th century. Not sure how to do it given your original idea, though. Technically, the best way to do it is the Decades of Darkness approach (btw - someone MUST start a NES in that setting, damnit! MUST!!!), but how to make CSA separate after THAT? Unless, ofcourse, we can have Douglas win the elections and antagonize both the North and the South into seceding, but somehow keeping the Great Lakes region.
Hmm.
Dreadnought
Deity
I agree with das. More details!
das
Regeneration In Process
Whilst we wait for pboily...
Problem with Britain and France being involved is that that will start a World War. Russia was very vocal in its support for USA, if I recall correctly Alexander II even sent a fleet on goodwill visit during the Civil War. Prussia, however, will probably be on the British and French side, as will Italy - intending to get future French and British support for a war with Austria. Austria is likely to wind up on the Russia side if it gets to that, mostly to spite Prussia.
IMHO that war will be very nasty indeed. Russia and Austria will have pretty decent chances at knocking out Prussia, but it will be a hard fight and if France and Britain prop up Prussia efficiently then Germany will probably be once more The Battlefield like in the Thirty Years War. Italy doesn't stand a chance by itself - with French help, however, there will be opportunities. Not sure about Turkey, but if it DOES get involved then it will be on the British side.
So...
Problem with Britain and France being involved is that that will start a World War. Russia was very vocal in its support for USA, if I recall correctly Alexander II even sent a fleet on goodwill visit during the Civil War. Prussia, however, will probably be on the British and French side, as will Italy - intending to get future French and British support for a war with Austria. Austria is likely to wind up on the Russia side if it gets to that, mostly to spite Prussia.
IMHO that war will be very nasty indeed. Russia and Austria will have pretty decent chances at knocking out Prussia, but it will be a hard fight and if France and Britain prop up Prussia efficiently then Germany will probably be once more The Battlefield like in the Thirty Years War. Italy doesn't stand a chance by itself - with French help, however, there will be opportunities. Not sure about Turkey, but if it DOES get involved then it will be on the British side.
So...
Gabryel Karolin
Gammelgädda
Napoleon manage to flee to NA (he did have such plans; to create an empire in the Americas) and lead the French-speaking lands there against the British with the support of anto-royalist colonists 
.
.Similar threads
