michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 489
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on May 18, 2024 21:42:59 GMT
Now without Napoleon as ruler.
How would the Holy Roman Empire evolve ?
Certain it will rot further.
On long term be will conflict and war between Prussia and Habsburg, over who rule the Holy Roman Empire ?
There will also uprise and revolution unter member states, against their authoritarian ruler.
Also Demand for unified German national state.
The question is when ?
1812 Famine
1830 romantic nationalist revolutions
1848 Famine
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856 
Likes: 13,236
|
Post by stevep on May 19, 2024 16:21:40 GMT
Now without Napoleon as ruler. How would the Holy Roman Empire evolve ? Certain it will rot further. On long term be will conflict and war between Prussia and Habsburg, over who rule the Holy Roman Empire ? There will also uprise and revolution unter member states, against their authoritarian ruler. Also Demand for unified German national state. The question is when ? 1812 Famine 1830 romantic nationalist revolutions 1848 Famine
Without the French revolution how long would a nationalistic identity take to spread into central and eastern Europe, moreso one with linguistics as its core? Don't forget that unless the Polish partitions are avoided/drastically changed which seems unlikely by far the largest city in Prussia will be Warsaw. Without the defeat of 1806-07 and the nationalistic resurgence that occurred in reaction Prussia is largely German, and dominated by Germans but its not in a position to claim to be a Germanic leader. Also without that defeat the system set up under Frederick the great, which had fossilized rather is going to set Prussia up for a big defeat at some time. Given its position at the time, plus it doesn't have the bulk of the Rhineland here, one defeat, especially against an Austria that retakes Silesia and boosts Saxony as a rival could be fatal for its great power desires.
Both Germany and Italy could be disunified, both politically and in terms of the ideas of many of their people for a good bit longer here. Austria already is because the Germans are only a minority of the total population but the Hapsburg's can live with that.
|
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 489
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on May 19, 2024 18:16:33 GMT
Without the French revolution how long would a nationalistic identity take to spread into central and eastern Europe there is short civil war in France were nobility vs the National assembly with King Louis. it show slowly success, what inspire in some Holy Roman Empire to get rid of autocratic or despotic rulers. This with nationalistic resurgence will let to revolution in 1830s~1840s. Given its[Prussia] position at the time, plus it doesn't have the bulk of the Rhineland here They already own territory in Rhineland were they operated military, that reason why they expanded westwards after Napoleon. Without Napoleon Prussia will still rise to rival power against Habsburg in Holy roman Empire both will goes to War over Control, were Prussia also follow the goal to united there fragmented Territorium in west sooner or later the Holy roman Empire will collapse and two blocks will form: Prussia and their subordinate vs Habsburg and their allies. Interesting will be how Britain (with Hanover) und France (including Burgund) will take side in this conflict. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,236
|
Post by stevep on May 20, 2024 17:27:35 GMT
Without the French revolution how long would a nationalistic identity take to spread into central and eastern Europe there is short civil war in France were nobility vs the National assembly with King Louis. it show slowly success, what inspire in some Holy Roman Empire to get rid of autocratic or despotic rulers. This with nationalistic resurgence will let to revolution in 1830s~1840s. Given its[Prussia] position at the time, plus it doesn't have the bulk of the Rhineland here They already own territory in Rhineland were they operated military, that reason why they expanded westwards after Napoleon. Without Napoleon Prussia will still rise to rival power against Habsburg in Holy roman Empire both will goes to War over Control, were Prussia also follow the goal to united there fragmented Territorium in west sooner or later the Holy roman Empire will collapse and two blocks will form: Prussia and their subordinate vs Habsburg and their allies. Interesting will be how Britain (with Hanover) und France (including Burgund) will take side in this conflict.
a) I doubt that removing a lot of the smaller states will occur that rapidly in the HRE and the two most powerful states, Austria and Prussia are also pretty autocratic.
b) Yes Prussia has some territories in western Germany but relatively little compared to what it had after 1815, which was set up specifically for as they termed it "the watch on the Rhine" to guard against renewed French aggression. There is much less incentive for that here, or for the rulers who own much of this territory to be displaced to expand Prussian possessions. Coupled with controlling much of the Polish heartlands this means that Prussia is likely to be far more focused eastwards towards Russia and SE towards Austria then be looking for lands in the west.
|
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 489
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on May 21, 2024 7:43:39 GMT
that Prussia is likely to be far more focused eastwards towards Russia and SE towards Austria then be looking for lands in the west. In this case everything blue in east remains Prussia.  |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,236
|
Post by stevep on May 21, 2024 8:23:04 GMT
that Prussia is likely to be far more focused eastwards towards Russia and SE towards Austria then be looking for lands in the west. In this case everything blue in east remains Prussia.
Agreed. They have territory in the west, but their relatively scattered rather than one large continuous region and nothing really on the Rhine and points west of it.
|
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 489
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on May 21, 2024 16:55:33 GMT
I doubt that removing a lot of the smaller states will occur that rapidly in the HRE and the two most powerful states, Austria and Prussia are also pretty autocratic. Agreed Some thing in scale of Napoleonic War or Third years War would change the Map of HRE. I guess that around 1812 or 1830 will happen series of Revolts and uprise in Netherlands and HRE For various reasons, Famine, political reforms, get rid of their authoritarian rulers or independence etc. the Kingdom of Burgund could profit by revolts in Netherlands if dutch catholics renounce the protestant King. on Long term there will war between Habsburg and Prussia over rule of HRE either to break the military power over rival or conquer the Electorate state and put allies as new prince-electors ? note the HRE elect there Emperor by the ten prince-electors |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on May 23, 2024 23:46:21 GMT
If the American colonies stat British you would have less diversity in American cuisine. It’s also easy how the American revolution could have failed. I do believe if the British won the war they would’ve pointed out that Canada has plenty of land to inhabit. The Native Americans would have eventually be pushed out of the west but it would’ve been a slower more gradual process. Also remember the British did favor British fur trapping.
Well I really don’t know the British West Indies would be more valuable for a longer period because American colonies provided food for the west Indies this became a problem during the American revolution. However once the British threaten to abolish slavery this would provide the southern colonies to possibly break out in revolution possibly aided by the northern colonies as long as they have a broaden goal.
As far as the slave economy is concerned they would be better off under the British colonial system until abolition.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,236
|
Post by stevep on May 24, 2024 14:45:57 GMT
If the American colonies state British you would have less diversity in American cuisine. It’s also easy how the American revolution could have failed. I do believe if the British won the war they would’ve pointed out that Canada has plenty of land to inhabit. The Native Americans would have eventually be pushed out of the west but it would’ve been a slower more gradual process. Also remember the British did favor British fur trapping. Well I really don’t know the British West Indies would be more valuable for a longer period because American colonies provided food for the west Indies this became a problem during the American revolution. However once the British threaten to abolish slavery this would provide the southern colonies to possibly break out in revolution possibly aided by the northern colonies as long as they have a broaden goal. As far as the slave economy is concerned they would be better off under the British colonial system until abolition.
A lot would depend on how the revolution ended and what happened to relations between Britain and the colonies in the following generations. However assuming that butterflies would be minimized: a) Expansion of colonial settlement westward would be slowed because the British are likely to respect the 1763 proclamation line longer, along with more protection of the southern "5 civilised tribes" so they might not be expelled from their lands. However its going to happen sooner or later and could also be triggered if in a later war with Spain Britain/America occupies Louisiana.
b) Not sure how long the duration of importance of the W Indies colonies would be but food supplies from the southern colonies especially could definitely help. I suspect both the ending of the slave trade and of slavery inside the empire will occur later than OTL simply because the influence of the pro-slave American colonies would back that of the W Indian planters in opposing such reforms but they will come.
c) The formal ending of slavery inside the empire could well prompt a revolt in the southern colonies but its not certain as Britain also offered compensation to its own slaver owners and this might occur here. [Although with the vastly greater numbers of slave in the mainland colonies and the desire not to have freed blacks around would make this a more difficult proposition for the southern planters to accept].
d) If there is a revolt in the south a lot would depend on the status of the northern colonies. They might support the south or the British or most probably be divided. Unless there is quite a lot of support for the southern rebels their going to be crushed pretty quickly as Britain will be able to supply a fleet and army to suppress it right from the start. Again a lot will depend on how unified feeling is either way in the assorted colonies.
e) In both the British and American colonies the slaves were frequently treated abysmally until abolition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on May 29, 2024 16:52:04 GMT
Sorry I'm late to this. The exchange of Burgundy for Bavaria would be very interesting indeed. However, Frederick the Great (who'd be still alive until 1786 after all) was against this, fearing the Habsburgs becoming over-powerful in the HRE. So he organized the Fürstenbund to counter it. Said alliance fell apart in OTL 1791 because the French Revolutionary Wars now mattered more. But since those won't happen ITTL... OTOH, Frederick's successor really wasn't that great, and as soon as Metternich's in power (if you want him to! But then again, before 1809 he wasn't much.), he might simply buy off "fat Wilhelm" to approve the switch. Karl Theodor died in 1799... his successor Max Joseph, whom the Bavarians called "good father Max" might have other ideas...
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,236
|
Post by stevep on May 29, 2024 22:32:53 GMT
Sorry I'm late to this. The exchange of Burgundy for Bavaria would be very interesting indeed. However, Frederick the Great (who'd be still alive until 1786 after all) was against this, fearing the Habsburgs becoming over-powerful in the HRE. So he organized the Fürstenbund to counter it. Said alliance fell apart in OTL 1791 because the French Revolutionary Wars now mattered more. But since those won't happen ITTL... OTOH, Frederick's successor really wasn't that great, and as soon as Metternich's in power (if you want him to! But then again, before 1809 he wasn't much.), he might simply buy off "fat Wilhelm" to approve the switch. Karl Theodor died in 1799... his successor Max Joseph, whom the Bavarians called "good father Max" might have other ideas...
One thing worth mentioning is that I think calling the new state Burgundy is confusing. Belgium was part of the duchy of Burgundy at it height in the 15th century but only a relatively small - albeit wealthy part. The core Burgundian territories from which the larger state took its name came under direct French rule after the eclipse and partition of Burgundy post 1477 and stayed there, with the so called Free County of Burgundy to its immediate east which became Hapsburg ruled for a while also in French control by this time. The state might include the Upper Palatinate which the Wittelsbach dynasty ruled as well as Bavaria proper might be transferred with it, the Hapsburg's only getting the core Bavarian territories but that was never part of the Burgundian Duchy so I don't think that would be a basis for reviving the name.
|
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 489
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on Jun 14, 2024 8:51:19 GMT
I think calling the new state Burgundy is confusing Most Sources on Proposed exchange label the new Wittelsbach Kingdom as Burgundy. Interesting the Wittelsbacher were obsessed with an idea of German Burgundy in France until 1918. Back to Topic 1840s happen emigrate wave from Europe to America, mostly do Political discontent and poor life conditions. The USA was catch basin for those people, what make on long turn the USA a Superpower in 1940s. But would Britain let those emigrates into there American Territory ? and if no, were goes those emigrates ? French Territory ? (if French not sell it (to who ?)) Mexico => Texas buffer state between Mexico and whoever own the territory at Mexico border. Brazil ? Argentina ? Whoever get those masses of emigrates will be some day a superpower in this Timeline |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,236
|
Post by stevep on Jun 14, 2024 12:46:06 GMT
I think calling the new state Burgundy is confusing Most Sources on Proposed exchange label the new Wittelsbach Kingdom as Burgundy. Interesting the Wittelsbacher were obsessed with an idea of German Burgundy in France until 1918. Back to Topic 1840s happen emigrate wave from Europe to America, mostly do Political discontent and poor life conditions. The USA was catch basin for those people, what make on long turn the USA a Superpower in 1940s. But would Britain let those emigrates into there American Territory ? and if no, were goes those emigrates ? French Territory ? (if French not sell it (to who ?)) Mexico => Texas buffer state between Mexico and whoever own the territory at Mexico border. Brazil ? Argentina ? Whoever get those masses of emigrates will be some day a superpower in this Timeline
Interesting as I can't remember reading that anywhere, thanks.
A lot would depend on the political situation in Britain and Europe at the time, along with possibly the level of political and economic development in British North America. There might be attempt to restrict migration on either racial religious grounds [i.e. no Catholic or French] or political ones if Britain is also quite conservative.
Also I believe that Britain was the initial destination for many people fleeing Europe, whether for political or economic reasons and it was when Britain - which had a big appetite for workers with the demands of the industrial revolution and Britain's laissez fair policy - basically filled up along with better technology making migrant to N America a lot cheaper and safer.
Brazil, Argentina and any other former Spanish - or in Brazil's case Portuguese  ] territory in the Americas might be possible destinations. OTL Mexico did initially welcome American settlers in Texas but as we know that ended badly for them. Another option if France has occupied parts of N Africa is possibly there as it might welcome Christian - especially Catholic - setters to help secure the territories. |
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 489
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on Jun 14, 2024 14:59:08 GMT
i try to find number, this here are british Numbers It has been estimated that between 1815 and 1914, 22.6 million people left the shores of Britain to settle somewhere abroad.
Of these 62% travelled to America, 19% to Canada, 10.5% to Australia and New Zealand and 3.5% to South Africa.
Of those who emigrated between 1861 and 1900, between a third and a half returned to Britain.Source www.britishempire.me.uk/migration.htmltranslated to TL it would look like this: 88% travelled to America. (Dominion and Canada) 3.5% to South Africa. 3,5% to Australia and New Zealand (neglected by Empire) Most of those emigrants are Irish fleeing from 1840s famine and later economic issues. Canada had allot problems with too much emigrants in 1840s, while having famine and outbrake of cholera. I guess similar issue happens in Dominion. it would let to wave of settlers going westwards... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_of_Canadaaccording this source www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/immigrationwere the British very selective on emigrants Pressed by business and railway interests to increase immigration, immigration authorities balanced their ethnic anxieties against a frantic search for settlers.
They listed ideal settlers in a descending preference.
British and American agriculturalists were followed by French, Belgians, Dutch, Scandinavians, Swiss, Finns, Russians, Austro-Hungarians (see Austrians; Hungarians), Germans, Ukrainians, and Poles.
Close to the bottom of the list came those who were, in both the public and the government's minds, less assimilable and less desirable, e.g., Italians, South Slavs, Greeks and Syrians (see Arab Canadians).
At the very bottom came Jews, Asians, Roma people, and Black people. |
|
michelvan
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 489
Likes: 804
|
Post by michelvan on Jun 14, 2024 15:14:24 GMT
Another option if France has occupied parts of N Africa is possibly there as it might welcome Christian - especially Catholic - setters to help secure the territories. That tricky one since the 1830 invasion and occupied of what became Algeria Because king Charles X authorise it, to distract people from internal french problems, but he had to resign and Louis Philippe I became king until 1840s, Here with surviving Louis XVI in TL, his son Louis XVII rules in France 1830s, and not like Charles X absolutist, but unter control of Parlament, who has last word in matter ! |
|
] territory in the Americas might be possible destinations. OTL Mexico did initially welcome American settlers in Texas but as we know that ended badly for them. Another option if France has occupied parts of N Africa is possibly there as it might welcome Christian - especially Catholic - setters to help secure the territories.