Talk:13 Fallen Stars

Any chances of a map? --VonGlusenburg 19:38, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

I adopt this TL out of the kindness of my extremely large heart. Bobalugee1940 18:40, May 30, 2011 (UTC)

Nuke here


Greetings all. I am happy to announce that I have become the caretaker of the 13 Fallen Stars timeline. I have always been a particular fan of this timeline since I came across it about a year ago, and I have been of the timeline for a few months now. After talking with Bobalugee1940 on the matter, he has allowed me to take over. I am honored to be here, and I hope to get this timeline up and running.

I do have big plans for this timeline, starting with updating the articles already in place. I also plan to create a map of this timeline, in order for all of us to better understand what is going on. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:30, December 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I can see European conflict in the America's since the Monroe Doctrine would never exists, then again James Monroe could gain a strong arm in politics. The Carolina's and Virginia would engage in a long-term competition for control of trade involving products such as Cotton and Tobbaco; The Cotton War's, I daresay, would wear off in the mid/late 1800's. I don't have very plausible idea's but I still would like to see something similar to my "Cotton War" idea at the very least. However, this is your timeline and you should try to to satisfy everyone (including yourself). I admit that I love reading through your existing timelines and would love to see what you plan to do to expand this. BlackSkyEmpire 02:41, December 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad to see you are exited. I do have some plans for Carolina and Virginia, but nothing on the order that you propose. My understanding (and interest [nothing against them]) is very limited on the southern states. But what I do know about TTL is Virginia goes into bitter wars with the British Empire in North America, and Carolina witnesses a terrorist movement by . If you are interested, you are more than welcome to get involved in this timeline (I am completely open to outside work). --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 02:48, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

.

What is going to be happening


Like I mentioned before, I have big ideas for this timeline. The first things I have to work on would be how the butterfly affect really affects this timeline. With no US, the French Revolution would be a bust. Any revolutions in Latin America would be pointless, with all of them becoming commonwealth-like nations of Spain. Europe remains a hodgepodge of small nations and divided peoples. Monarchism is the most popular form of government, and what we know as the thirteen colonies become more like OTL Latin America (divided and unsure). I have to admit, it took me a long time to be able to see myself in this timeline, as it is completely alien to me.

Okay, on to the main event. I have uploaded a map showing how I see North America. It is based on the nations list, but also my own ideas put in mind. The only new country I added to the list is the. This was a proposed nation of Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico. Unlike the proposal in OTL, it would be a Canada-like confederation of Spanish commonwealths. Other than that, I don't see much else to add or remove at the present. My only concern would be New Spain. I am wondering if it could remain a united entity, or whether it would eventually be divided into its three main regions (California, Guatemala, and Mexico). Yes, I know very little about monarchism, so my understanding towards this dominion would be limited. I also am curious if France could actually hold onto Louisiana. Granted, there is no way it would become part of any post-US nation, but could a poor and war ravaged France (no Napoleonic Wars, but still war ravaged) hold onto it for long. Could it fall under British or Spanish possession? One of my favorite ideas at the present is that it would become a safe haven for revolutionaries of France (maybe Napoleon himself), and become an independent republic. Just a thought, I will see what you all think.



I have currently updated and, giving them new information boxes and flags. The new flag of Carolina looks a lot like the Stars and Bars of the Confederate States of America, and it seems appropriate. For this timeline, the flag is based loosely on the former flag of the United States. The three stripes (bars) represent the three founding states. A circle of eight stars represents the eight states currently in the confederation. The flag of Pennsylvania is based on the flag of Philadelphia. This seemed appropriate, since the flag of New Netherland I heavily based on the flag of New York City. I currently don't have TTL symbolism for the flag, but all in good time.

I also have an idea for Virginia, but I want to see what you all think. Basically, it is the Confederate flag (a rectangular version of the CSA battle flag). The battle flag originated in Virginia (I never knew this until recently), so it seemed appropriate. Much like OTL, the flag originated from war in TTL. My back story for the flag would be it came out during the Second Northwest War. The original coloring was blue with a red cross, but Virginia reversed this because it looked too much like the British flag. The twelve thirteen stars don't represent any subdivisions of Virginia, but officially represent the thirteen colonies which revolted against Great Britain. This is compared to OTL flag of Honduras, which has five stars on its flag to represent the five Central American nations which once formed the. Similar to OTL, the flag was originally a battle flag, but an altered versions was eventually adopted as the national flag. I would love to know what you all think of this particular idea before I make anything canon, but I love the idea.

That's it for now. TTFN. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 05:31, December 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I just noticed the map and how Nova Scotia and New Brunswick aren't apart of the map. It dawned on me then that the only reason the colonies stayed with Canada in the first place is because of the possible threat of an American takeover. Without the US there would be no threat for those colonies of course, but what of Quebec? Surely the fact that there's no threat to the colony as well as the fact that these smaller American colonies had gained independence would influence Quebec too to either become independent or not join Canada. That could possibly mean Quebec would be independent in "modern-day" TTL. Just a thought of course, not trying to push you into it. (Also, if you don't want this comment here I could move it to a new section.) ChrisL123 05:43, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Prepare to kill me, for I have an ambitious idea, and it will greatly affect the timeline (and I am looking forward to it). Chris, you have inspired me ^_^



Okay, okay. Onto business. Chris does make a good point (I should know, he is the Canadian expert). With no US, there may be enough reason for Great Britain to not divide the (at least not initially). Not to be a British hater or anything, but I can envision the British acting "cocky" about the former US and its remaining colonies. I mean that the UK could adopt a policy in which they truly believe that given time, the independent colonies would come crawling back to Great Britain (this obviously doesn't happen).

The second half of this idea involves around the failure of the French Revolution. The timeline doesn't exactly mention why this happens, but I believe this is a given. The failure would be seen by the French people in America as outsiders affecting the fate of France itself. By this time, Louisiana is under Spanish control (the failure of the revolution would mean France never regained it, and obviously the US never bought it), and Canada is under British control. Both regions were lost to them in the 1760s, when France lost the Seven Years War. Despite a decline, I can see the French population remaining strong enough to make change. With the ideals of the American Revolution still fresh, Britain still recovering, Spain focused on potential revolution in South America, and most likely backing from many of the now independent British colonies and especially France; I believe we can witness a "Second French Revolution" breaking out in America. Similar to Haiti, war would break out across Louisiana and Quebec. The revolutions would be successful, with the two French regions gaining independence. With them independent, this would further encourage the British and Spanish to allow political change in their [remaining] colonies. I can see the Loyalists from the Thirteen colonies (who emigrated to Quebec during the war), being more encouraged to flee Quebec rather than fight. Winnipeg would become larger, and I would love to see Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territories become the Dominion of Borealia. I know this makes it sound a lot like my Russian America timeline. But unlike which, the French population in America would boom after the revolutions. With only a few decades between the occupation and independence, there may be enough incentive to "purge" the English culture form the French land, and so on. Both would be republics (most likely federations).

I am exited about this idea. I hope you all like it. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 21:19, December 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hm, very interesting idea. If you like, I could help out with the Canada-side of the timeline. ChrisL123 21:43, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly a new twist on the Balkanized North America trope. I will be following this. Mitro 01:58, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't the nation be called the Kingdom of Borealia, as the Americans were the primary reason Canada was declared a "Dominion" rather than a "Kingdom" Also I would think that "Assiniboia" would be a good name, as it was what the Earl of Selkirk officially called his land grant in what was then "Rupert's Land".

Yank 02:19, December 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * It could only be called a kingdom if it was ruled by a king (or queen), which it wouldn't be since the British Empire would rule over it. And I doubt that the whole country would be called Assiniboia since that was only the Manitoba part of the country, but of course that's all up to Nuke. ChrisL123 02:32, December 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * It could be a kingdom, just that the current British monarch would be the king and would have a longer title. Mitro 02:40, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

I am a republican. If I had it my way, the United Kingdom would be called the United Republic (this is joke, you laugh now!). But seriously, I believe it should only have the name "Kingdom" (or Empire in the case for Brazil and Mexico in OTL) if it were run by their own royalty, not a monarch who is an ocean away. I believe "Dominion" or even "Commonwealth" is a better title. Like Chris said (as I was the one who told him this), Assiniboia is more of a regional name. Granted, it was used to describe the entirety of Rupert's Land, but this nation would incorporate that and the North-Western Territory. That would be like uniting the colonies of Australia into one "Commonwealth of New South Wales." But than again, they united the two Canadas and the Maritime Provinces into a larger Canada, so maybe I should shut up.

Ironically, this timeline has practically giving all the nations "Kingdom Status," while still being ruled by their motherland. Like I mentioned before, I am a republican, so all this monarchism is confusing me (I know very little about it). All I do know is that England and Scotland (not to mention Ireland and Wales later on) agreed to share the same monarch and are granted "British" citizenship. While Canada still recognizes the monarch of England as their head of state, they are independent from the UK. So unless the UK wants to become the "United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland, and Canada," let's keep "Kingdom" out of the names. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 03:41, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

What would be a good idea for a capital for Louisiana? I seriously doubt either Baton Rouge or New Orleans will suffice, as they are too close to New Spain. I do believe that the (now abandoned) settlement of Fort Orleans is a proper candidate for capital status.

Yank 04:15, December 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * Baton Rouge would be a bad idea... considering it is in West Florida XD But in all fairness, top choice is St. Louis. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 04:50, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? St Louis lies directly on the Mississippi River, which is the border with Canada.

Yank 13:08, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Besides we need to make the changes to the Canada article, as well as the timeline. Not to mention actually creating the Louisiana page.

Yank 03:36, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

No need to worry. There is no rush, we have all the time in the world (or at least another year before the [joke]). But anyways, I have been doing some thinking and I have more ideas to announce. First off, I updated the main map, to show where we all are. For the capital of Louisiana, I have now been thinking about making it OTL (but with a new name). The biggest reason is simple... it's called the "Paris of the Plains." If that isn't a good enough reason, it is located on the Missouri river (giving it great access to the world via the Mississippi), it has become a railroad hub in OTL, and it is witnessing a boom (not to mention its flag is based off of France's flag). My two other ideas involve the states of New England and Carolina. But I am tired, so I will write them in greater detail tomorrow.

Also before I forget, any objections to the flag proposals? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 03:51, December 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a note, Oregon was the name given to the Columbia territory by American settlers. If there are no American settlers, the region would maintain the British name. Likely Columbia or British Columbia.Oerwinde 11:13, December 21, 2011 (UTC)



Here is my Carolina proposal. was established by the unification of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia (not to mention all of its claims to the Mississippi river). Tennessee would be split off of North Carolina (as in OTL), but the remaining states are tricky. The page says that Mississippi and Alabama are added, followed by a divided West Florida and East Florida. As a Floridian, we all learn that the Florida panhandle once stretched all the way to the Mississippi. While West Florida wanted to become part of the US as their own state, there were many things that helped to prevent this in OTL. Border disputes between the US and Spain, the need for water access, among other things.

When it comes to this timeline, I think there could be a way that West Florida would have a better chance at becoming a Carolinian state. First, it should be known that the northern border of West Florida has been debated early in OTL. It wouldn't be until 1795 (I believe) that Spain would agree on the 31st parallel (which is the modern day border for Florida (not to mention the Florida portion of Louisiana). However, since the US didn't exist, there may be no such treaty, and the dispute would remain until West Florida declares independence. West Florida would want statehood, and (being admitted as an English-speaking state) would want the British border (which is further north). Since the region was highly disputed to begin with, I think Carolina would eventually agree to West Florida's border (maybe with a minor border correction). East Florida would follow, and a new question comes to mind... what will become of the western portions of Georgia? (i.e., Alabama and Mississippi). With no defined access to the ocean, I dough Alabama would gain statehood, and would remain part of the Mississippi Territory (or its equivalent). Because of which, I propose the larger state of Yazoo (one of the proposed names for Alabama and Mississippi). This region is most noted for a huge scandal that happened in the 1790s. But aside from that, I believe this name would be resurrected.

So the only major change would be that the state number goes down to seven instead of eight (making a good match to the original Stars and Bars XD). What do you all think? I am still working on my New England idea, so I will write that later. Also, FIND THE EASTER EGG!!! XD --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:41, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine, Nuke. Can't see the EE, mind.

Somewhere around K-City would be a good spot for the capital. Though, it'd almost for sure start out in New Orleans. Call it moving inland to be more secure, I guess.

Lordganon 07:30, December 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed this but perhaps it would be more plausible to use that design if the stars represented something more closely related to Virginia, like its own subdivisions. Also if the stars represent the 13 colonies that revolted against Britian, why is there only 12?  Mitro 17:34, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about 12 stars? There are 13. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:37, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry my bad, you wrote 12 in your statement about the flag. Mitro 18:42, December 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops!!! My bad. But either way, I still like the flag for Virginia. However, I am still open to new ideas. Nice find for Maryland (I knew Liberia was organized by the US, but not mostly by Maryland). --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:50, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well actually Liberia was organized by the American Colonization Society, a private organization that had ties to the US government but was not a part of it.  In fact one of the greatest failures of the ACS was never getting official support for their goals from the US governemnt, hence why Liberia was always an independent country and never a territory of the US.  I did my senior thesis on the organization, specifically the imperial ambitions of some of their members, so I am somewhat of an expert on them.  Mitro 19:44, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Really? So Mr. Expert (saying that is warmth not hate XD), what do you think Liberia would be here. Do you think there could be enough support from Maryland to treat it more like a colony than an independent nation? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 19:47, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be rather difficult for Liberia to exist ATL. Early Librian history was full of moments where they were almost swallowed by another power.  The existence of the US, who had no official interest, kept that from happening.  Without the US, even if a free slave colony was created by Maryland or another nation, it is unlikely that they would have enough influence to keep the area from being swallowed by one of the great powers.  I say this even though I did write that New Maryland article for that other timeline you mentioned.  It is cool idea, but I do not think it is plausible.  Mitro 21:01, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this straight... you show me an idea, only to turn it down yourself... what was the point? XD

While it may be a long shot, I believe it should be noted that the United Kingdom would have a favorable relationship with Maryland. Like New England, I am not sure how far this relationship would go, but enough that it may be possible the UK supports and enforces the Maryland colony to the point as to offer funds and men to the program, allowing a New Maryland to survive. Besides, Sierra Leone is right next door. But again, a long shot at best. Either way, it seems like too good an idea to waist. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 03:25, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Erie Triangle
I was looking at the map you just made and I realized that you might want to see this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Triangle

That territory was sold to Pennsylvania by New York in 1792, which is after the POD of the TL. Now OTL the federal government was able to put pressure on New York to sell the land to landlocked Pennsylvania. With the the federal government not existing ATL New York may be unwilling to cede the land.

Now I am not sure what you want to do with this, but perhaps Pennsylvania would involve in the Vermont War to secure this territory from NY. Mitro 19:00, December 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am very well aware of this, and absolutely not, there is going to be no war to this. I could never see New York and Pennsylvania (my two favorite states I may add XD) going to war over such a small piece of land. Plus the fact that Pennsylvania has Delaware now, it wouldn't be like they would be landlocked. But I have already come up with how Pennsylvania gained the triangle. First off, both New York and Pennsylvania (not to mention New Jersey and Delaware) would have friendly relations after the American war. I am even considering a failed idea between the three/four (Delaware is the variable) considered uniting as a "Federation of the Delaware" (or something like this), which never happened. Pennsylvania would remain neutral in the Vermont War. After New York looses, and the shuffle to create New Netherlands, the money situation in New York would affect the map of what we know as NY (even Richmond County would be sold to New Jersey). It would be agreed to sell parts of the Albany Territory (upstate New York) to Pennsylvania. It would be done peacefully, and the treaty would also take into account cooperation between the two nations, as well as safe access between their waters (such as the Delaware and so on). --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 20:29, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Native Americans
How is Carolina going to handle the ? Will they be strong enough to force them to leave country like OTL, or is something different in store for them? Also, how will Canada handle the tribes of the old Northwest territory? Mitro 20:46, December 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * IF it were to be anything like I have in mind for the Iroquois in New Netherland, I highly doubt that Carolina could force their native people out of the country. But my expertise on Native Americans is very limited (I have only been ready about the Iroquois for a few months now and still know very little). --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:21, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

More stuff


Greetings. Sorry for the delayed response, but life and Inkscape being a bitch, I have been busy. But anyway, I have not been inactive in the timeline. First off, I have decided to not have New Netherland expand anymore than it already is. This is due to many things, but mostly because this idea is more based on the idea of creating a greater Dutch nation in the west, not true expansionism. Plus the current ideas I have for the Netherlands in TTL, it seems better to drop the idea. Despite this, I am still interested in the "New Maryland" idea. Despite it being unlikely to occur (as mentioned by Mitro), I am going to leave the idea open for anyone who believes they can have it work. Nor that is out of the way, time to give detail on a few ideas I have come up with for now.


 * United Republic of the Netherlands

This is 100% true, prior to me getting into alternate history, geography, and history; the only things I knew about the Netherlands were:


 * 1) My sister was apparently named after it (my sister's name is Holland, no joke).
 * 2) Austin Power's dad hates them (XD)

But in all fairness, I know much, much more now. But there is still a lot I didn't know, especially when it came to the Dutch Republic and the current Kingdom of the Netherlands. I don't want to get into details as to what happened in OTL (read a book people), here is my new idea for the Netherlands for ATL.


 * The failure of the French Revolt would only strengthen the which is currently in exile in northern France. With the sudden death of  in 1806, and backed by revolutionaries still residing in northern France, the Patriots cross the border and launch a revolt in the Dutch Republic. Greatly supported by the people, the Patriots occupy Amsterdam and proclaim a new republican form of government, based on democracy (more or less a Dutch-dominated Batavian Republic). With chaos in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and neighboring nations launch an attack on the Dutch and their colonies. More exiles (many in the now independent nations of the former USA), travel to the Netherlands to assist in the conflict. The new republic is able to survive the conflict, and the war would end with the British agreeing to return their colonial possession (excluding Ceylon). With no Napoleonic Wars, the Dutch would be able to keep their possessions as defined in in 1802 treaty with the UK OTL. I am not completely sure on what the name of this nation would be. The Batavian Republic seems weird, but after doing some research, it seems like an okay name. My personal favorite would be the "United Republic of the Netherlands," which would be a federation of Dutch-speaking provinces.

Maybe over time (I first need to bring up the fate of the HRE), the Netherlands would expand to include Flanders.


 * Spanish commonwealths of California and Mexico?

Personally, I think New Spain is quite big to remain united. Granted, there is a big difference from OTL and ATL, but I still see events eventually dividing New Spain into three. Obviously, the Spanish East and West Indies would be removed from New Spain over time, while Guatemala may split off much like OTL. The discovery of Gold in northern New Spain could have the same consequences as OTL, leading to a new power growing in the Californias. With California being powerful enough to declare independence from Spain, Madrid decides to simply divide the power between the gold regions in northern New Spain, and the southern agricultural regions in the south. California and Mexico gain commonwealth status as separate nations.

--NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:15, December 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * An update on whether or not New Netherland will become an empire and include areas outside the two founding states... I think I now have to say yes. Let me explain. For the past few weeks, I have been attempting to debunk the idea, trying to find convince myself that this idea isn't possible. But when I came across something which seemed to debunk the idea, I will come across another article which equally gives me the idea that it can be possible. This has turned less into an ASB-type of idea, and into more of a POD idea, making it just as likely to happen as not. So I have decided to cut the BS, and now New Netherland has ten states, with the new addition of "Curazao."


 * Curazao would include all of the former Netherlands Antilles, as well as including the disputed islands off the coast of Venezuela, the French-half of St. Martin, and also St. Barts. I have a detailed history for how this becomes, as well as big ideas on how this expansion would greatly affect New Netherland for the better. I have definitely decided to leave Suriname out (primarily because it is about the same size as NY and NJ combined [not including the areas which would not be annexed by the UK ATL]), and NN will not expand further. The only possibility of NN expanding would be the creation of the Panama Canal (which would be under greater Spanish-New Granadan control, making it less and less likely to happen).




 * Next business, since my choice for Virginia's flag was the only one which gained criticizing feedback, I have decided to change it. Consider it a temporary flag if you wish, but I have decided to use the flag of for the flag. The fact that the flag is based off of George Washington's coat of arms, it seems like a good idea. But since I am not as enthusiastic for making a Virginian flag as I was for the flag I made for New Netherland, I would rather leave it up for someone who would love to work on and expand Virginia for themselves. So for now, consider it a temporary flag. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:17, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

Germany and Eastern Europe

 * DO NOT EDIT THIS SECTION! --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:20, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

With no Napoleonic Wars in the 13 Fallen Stars timeline, there would be no collapse of the Holy Roman Empire. However, considering the fact that the HRE was more of a loose entity of Germanic member states, and the big fact that (at least) two of its members (Austria and Prussia) claimed regions which were outside the HRE border, it just seems to me that the HRE was bound to end sometime soon. Granted, I am not an expert on the HRE, so I could be completely wrong. However, here is my idea for a potentially interesting Central and Eastern Europe.


 * Greater Germany under Austria's monarchy.



Based greatly on the (limited information) from the A Place in the Sun timeline, Austria and Prussia would move away from the HRE, or the HRE would fall (peacefully). During the run for dominance over the German people, Austria would win a war between Prussia. Despite the eventual independence of Croatia (including Dalmatia), Hungary (including Galicia), and Veneto; Austria would remain a powerful nation. The unification of the German nations would take place, even including Prussia and the northern German nations. The "German Empire" would be much like OTL, but with Austrian dominance, Vienna as the capital, and much bigger.


 * Tensions break into war.

Tensions would still break out in TTL. Germany and France go to war, with a German victory and annexation of French territory. While Germany would have tensions with its neighbors, there would be no military alliances that (in OTL) lead to World War I. Instead, war breaks out between Hungary and Russia. The Third Balkan War would be a major victory to Russian moral. The Serbs and Coats would agree to unite under a single Yugoslav monarchy. Russia would be able to expand into Galicia (ironically with German support that the land is out of Hungarian hands). Hungary would still hold onto Transylvania, but Romania would still gain Bukovina. With a victory, the Russian people would feel confident with the monarchy, and the Russian Revolution is avoided (for now), and Russia's sphere into the Balkans is further secured. Radical ideas such as fascism and communism remain in the minority and would not grow into power.

Americas


Greetings everybody. It has been a while, especially since I have been doing work on several pages since last month. I feel it appropriate to let those who are curious to know what I have in mind, plus opportunity for me to get out ideas that you all will love or hate.

First and foremost, I have uploaded an updated map for how I see North America. Quite a few changes. As a quick key to help explain the map, dotted lines are variable (meaning I am not completely sure where the border shall go), and country names in italic means I am not sure if these states could exist. I will give more explanation in a bit. The most noted changes (from the original Thirteen Colonies) include New Netherland retaining the, Pennsylvania gaining the , and the potential expansion of Virginia to include parts of the Northwest Territory and Carolina.

I have also abandoned the idea, because I have learned that all of  would most likely be French (so pointless to unite these regions as of now). New Spain will be divided into two states, with the  becoming separated as "California." I doubt that Guatemala and Yucatan would become separated from New Spain (but I am leaving the option open), but I believe Venezuela would probably be separated from New Granada, because (but maybe a Canada-like confederation between the regions could be possible).

Lastly, the Lesser Antilles are divided between France, Great Britain, and New Netherland. I have also left out from this map, because the initial admin to the timeline left out Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago; so I am considering whether to abandon the WIF idea, or include the missing states (and maybe more). But given that there is no "American threat," it may be interesting to leave out the WIF (in exchange for what is shown here).

You will also notice a dispute between New Netherland and Great Britain over Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands. I am debating (but moving in favor of) including these regions into NN, because of NN's encroachment in the region and timing. From what I have read about both colonies, they were growing tensions with Britain, to the point that an armed rebellion was planned in 1887, and lest we forget the "" (granted, this was a century later, but still). My idea is with an imperialistic NN expanding into the Caribbean, the idea of expanding in the region could be likely. With this, there might be enough room for this armed rebellion (or the ones thereafter) to be successful and gain support from neighboring NN. Since Grover Cleveland would [most likely] be President by this time, there would be no chance of annexation at the start, but this could lead to a prolonged rebellion. Combined with support from NN (a la Cuba and/or Hawaii OTL), the islands could become completely separated from colonial Britain on there own. After conflict breaks out between NN and Venezuela (a la Spanish-American War), peace agreements could come out in this region as well. The only problem with this is that I know of no such scenario to compare from OTL. The only say I can give is that NN is not like the US, given more tensions between NN and GB. So LG (if you happen to be reading this), what would be your two cents (or from anybody).

Another New Netherland idea I have is an old one, just rewritten (so to speak). This is the inclusion of Suriname into New Netherland. The premise is simple, when NN purchases the Dutch West Indies, Dutch Guiana could be included in the purchase (especially since [OTL] Dutch Giana/Suriname was incorporated with the Antilles in ). I initially left out the idea because of how big Suriname was (just about the same size as New York [if not bigger]), top it off with the fact that with no Napoleonic Wars, the Dutch would retain half of OTL. But now that I think about it, this may be too much of an opportunity that William H. Seaward would not want to pass up (after all, this man purchased Alaska just because it was large and on the Pacific). My new idea would be that this region would become a Commonwealth of New Netherland, under the historic (and unique) name of the "Wild Coast." Much like OTL Puerto Rico, the Wild Coast retains autonomy and sovereignty from Albany, but isn't independent. I have begun to, so you can read more about it here.

The last idea I have is not so much an idea, but rather I would like to get others' opinions on this, helping me on whether I should bring it up again. With New Netherland to the north, and Virginia to the south, I considered the possibility of a union between Pennsylvania (which includes Delaware) and Maryland. I call this union "Columbia" (which seems to perfectly fit for these states). I lost interest on the idea, because I am not too sure how well a union could work for these two/three (especially since the Mason-Dixon line would divide them). I know what the New England states would work, and there is enough support for a NJ-NY union, and even a Carolinian-Georgian Confederacy; but personally I couldn't say for PA/DE-MD. Any thoughts or support?

That's it for now. Hope I haven't written to much. TTFN. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 02:46, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

The continental divide - more or less the irregular border that's one of the options for Columbia (which is the better of the two names) - would be the better choice for a border there. Makes far more sense than the otl border does/would.

Central America and the Yucatan would likely become separate from New Spain itself, though probably as one state. Same would be the case with Venezuela and New Granada.

While I have to agree that the northernmost areas of New Spain would be a good candidate for their own state, the size wouldn't be nearly that large. Population dictates that one, in the end. Somewhere in the range of otl is more likely. Either way, it'd be further north all around than what you're proposing.

Border between Carolina and Virginia would be as straight as possible.

Virginia's northern border likely ends up being the Ohio. Nice, natural frontier.

I would think, however, that Pennsylvania likely goes further west than that, to the western tip of Lake Erie, and south from there to the Ohio.

Hispaniola is, indeed, likely one nation.

A WIF is rather unlikely. The islands just don't have the same interests. However, I'd say the odds are better than in otl that it exists.

While NN expanding into the region makes sense, the idea of them being in dispute like that with the Brits does not. Neither of those two problems had anything to do with separating from Britain, either. Really no way a rebellion would be successful, either.

Along with that, NN, while having more issues with the UK, isn't a major state or anything. They wouldn't piss the Brits off like that. And the Brits are definitely not Hawaii, Cuba, or Spain, so they can't be "pushed" around.

Nor would the Brits just let the islands go, either. If anything like that was tried, there'd be a war - which NN would lose.

Basically, there's no way the islands would leave British control.

The Dutch selling Suriname would be unlikely. Unlike the islands, the end of slavery meant left it still worth something.

You're actually misreading that article, however. If you look a little closer, you'll see that they reorganized their colonies, in the end, into first three, then one, then two entities - unified, very unhappily, for only a short period, and with Suriname being separate almost the whole time, and definitely so by the era you're discussing.

Pennsylvania is just too different from Maryland and Delaware. Unification wouldn't happen. Different attitudes, religions, etc.

Lordganon (talk) 08:09, September 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your two cents. However, I find it ridiculous for PA to expand any further than what I have in mind. I think Virginia would be too strong to not be able to hold onto a portion of the NWT, plus the region in question just seems too Virginian to me to pass it up. As for Suriname, I guess I did read it wrong, but this still hasn't changed my mind. What I failed to mention (because I believed it was a sure win), is that the Dutch would sell the region because of potential encroachment from the UK (which OTL took area from Dutch Guiana) and the French (which is right next door). Top it off with the fact that the Dutch retain the Cape Colony ATL, and the end of slavery would turn costly, it seems reasonable that the Dutch may indeed sell the region. It wouldn't matter so much had it not been the fact that William H. Seward was the man negotiating the deal. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:31, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

If I may ask, would there not be a possibility that at least some of the Eastern states would not get along with Lousiana and eventually this could lead to a war maybe? With this, you could get many of the unions that you planned as a way to increase co-operation and this could lead to temporary unions becoming permanent? And it would be interesting to see what the NNers would do about it. Plus, I really do like the idea of a NN Suriname as it is unique. It would be interesting to see a North American power having land in South America! :D Imp (Say Hi?!) 19:14, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

By the end of the Revolutionary War, Pennsylvania's influence can be considered to have reached to at least the Pittsburgh area, which had been established for some time already.

With no union, and separate nations, their control would extend westwards pretty fast - for it no to extend into otl Ohio would really make no sense.

Remember, Ohio only sat uncolonized for so long because the government was trying to get a compromise decided. With no federal government, even those colonies without claims are going to move in. And since PA is right there, they'll be among the first. It makes no sense at all for them not to do it.

As a matter of fact, the Wheeling area of otl West Virginia, which was only given to Virginia by the feds, would belong to PA too.

Given what I know of the situation with NE and the Brits, I figured the river would probably make a good border in the end between the Brits and Virginians - defensible. Not that the Virginians won't have colonized over it beforehand, mind. Thinking more into it - though this depends on the Brits - PA would likely run with its southern border still at (39° 43' N), to a line running south from somewhere in the otl Toledo area. South of the (39° 43' N) line goes to Virginia, and the remainder to the Brits.

The Ohio River as a border is a bit too far south, and the other proposed border on the map is too far north, ignoring the problem with PA.

The Dutch dominated that area of South America until the Brits took some of it away - without the Brits doing that, it'd actually be the Dutch encroaching on the others. And even with them still in possession of South Africa, Suriname is going to be very profitable, slavery or no slavery, like in otl - and with more territory there, that margin would increase.Indeed, their profits went up in that area with the end of slavery. Not the case for the islands.

It just doesn't make any sense for them to sell it.

Lordganon (talk) 06:35, September 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * Regardless of Pennsylvanians being closer, and Virginians "preferring a natural border", why on earth would Pennsylvania be able to gain territory with (presumably) no conflict (either against the Virginians or the Brits), while Virginia (which is by far more powerful and [according to the page] does gain some territory [granted, only temporarily under the current layout]) wouldn't be able to gain any territory (regardless of your border proposal). This is the only thing that puzzles me, may you please clarify. Other than that, I am rather intreagued at your border suggestion. No joke, but you had me at "Wheeling." --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:16, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

The Brits, natives allies aside, really held almost no power in the area - both colonies have settlers and bases far closer than the British forts in Upper Canada. New England, as you've noted before, can only maintain its claims with British help - and New York isn't in a better spot in that regard, as an fyi.

Essentially, any war in the area won't be won by the Brits. Sure, they can apply pressure in the east, but on the ground in the west, they can't come out on top. And apply too much pressure in the east, and they piss off the New Englanders, Maryland, Carolina, and the New Dutch, leading to possible interventions.

They aren't going to want to rule many of the "American" settlers, either. Kind of just recognizing the situation, so to speak. They'd get their - and, New England's - claims recognized past a certain line, and kick out those who violate it.

Basically, the Brits can force a peace, but... in this area, past a certain point, they cannot enforce it. They recognized in the Treaty of Paris that they wouldn't be able to control the area long, they'd recognize it here too. The borders being drawn like I'm saying would be a realistic move on their part. By the time colonists got there, the Brits should be able to at least somewhat enforce the border. About as well as the one they had with Upper Canada in the same period otl, lol, but at least a little bit. Pennsylvania extends itself west, as would be fairly logical, at the same time.

I'm not saying that there wouldn't be conflict - but that for either side to get the whole thing is really not possible. I figure the lines I've suggested would be reasonable enough on all sides.

Lordganon (talk) 08:35, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

Nuke, the Ohio River really doesn't work as a northern border for Virginia that well. Colonization would be past it before any war could break out - and, as I said before, Virginia would actually be stronger in that area than the Brits and their allies could possibly be. Lordganon (talk) 04:31, September 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? What happened to "Virginia's northern border likely ends up being the Ohio" and "Nice, natural frontier"? I am quite shocked, lol. Just to say, I have grown attacked to making the Ohio the border... again. My initial reasons for including the region was because I felt them to be "Virginian". My main arguments were Cincinnati and many Ohio Presidents having Virginian qualities. But after doing much needed research, I have found out that Cincinnati (named after the society of the Founding Father, which was named after George Washington's nickname, which was in honor of ) was established well after the POD; and most of these "Virginian-like" presidents were actually of Pennsylvanian ancestry. I have also grown attached to having the NWT (primarily Illinois) become the long proposed colony of . I also have to agree with your earlier statement, which is that I find this border more pleasing to look at. Not too sure what to say about this. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 05:00, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

Changed my mind in the posts after the one you're referencing. Thought that was clear o.o Guess not. :p

With the collapse of federal authority in 1787, and its formal end in 1788, settlers from otl Kentucky are going to cross the river and settle. Heck, they did it otl as soon as they were able. Settlement is probably going to even be sped up in some regards by a year or so, as the collapse of the congress would more encourage the settlers. Add to that the the lack of a Northwest Ordinance like otl, meaning that slavery can exist in the area, would also encourage those people to move into the area, when they didn't otl. Otl southern Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois would be settled by Virginia, and Eastern Ohio by Pennsylvania, though a touch sparsely, by the Northwest War in 1795, and even more by its end in 1797. By the time of the second war in 1811, this is even more the case.

Essence of it is, that the Brits (and NE, though their activities would be sparse) would be outnumbered and outgunned in the area. They'd lose on the ground - and they can't squeeze the nation to death, either - that gets the other states to intervene. Virginia - and Pennsylvania, though this matters less - can get troops to the area relatively easily compared to their opponents.

If it helps any, Charlotina was really only used/intended for, mostly, Michigan Illinois, and Wisconsin, with only parts of the other otl states in the area, like Ohio, included. And, Illinois wasn't where the intent was mostly for it to be, either.

The Society of the Cincinnati had actually been in existence for 4 years by the time of the PoD. And with Washington a Virginian, the name likely would still exist atl for the settlement - though its size would certainly be up for debate.

And, really, using a line of latitude - as I actually argued in the last couple of posts - as the border makes more sense overall. More plausible and realistic.

Lordganon (talk) 06:40, September 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I am still shocked at this whole thing. Lol. I see nothing wrong, and I have corrected the map. But now that Virginia is bigger than I originally thought, this bring to me the question on how the nation would be governed. Primarily, would it become a federation, or become a unitary state? I guess it depends on the people (Jefferson may support the idea), but not completely sure. I also have the same questions involving Pennsylvania, especially involving Delaware. What is your take on this? Also, I have been considering whether or not to have the Illinois River be the border of Virginia. Not too sure how valuable the river would have been at the time, but since it would become the hub for a canal from the Mississippi to the Great Lakes (by the 1830s or so), what of it being considered?


 * I also came across a blast from the past today. While deleting redirects to the Monarch page for the UK, I came across some lost articles that the original creator deleted years ago. While for good reason then, they may come into great use from the growing edits I have made. The pages are for, , and the . I decided to bring them back, if not only for the novelty and the feel of exploration. But the Leewards aside (because I have already decided to get rid of the WIF), the idea of Rupert's Land and the NWT being separate has lead me to an interesting idea I would like to propose. With Canada gaining independence by the 1840s, the remaining territories of the UK (RL, NWT) would remain rural and (potentially) separate. With the rise of British settlers in the Red River region, tensions would break out with the Metis people. With no Canada, Rupert's Land would become a dominion (called ). When gold is discovered in the Yukon region, the NWT would gain similar status as the . Despite what the map shows, I intend to include the Arctic Territory in Denendeh. I have also been considering moving Columbia's border further south, to allow the NWT access to the Pacific. But knowing the region, I doubt it would work, but I would love to get an opinion other than my own. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 02:31, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Virginia would be more or less like the otl state government - divided up into cities and counties.

Way I figure it, Delaware joining Pennsylvania makes some sense. Too small to go it alone, and they won't join up with Maryland. That leaves NJ or PA - and they have a historical connection to PA. Pennsylvania would then be divided into states, as a note.

Yes, at that westernmost edge, near the Mississippi, it makes sense for it to be the Illinois as the northern border rather than the line of latitude. But only there - it's just too far north elsewhere.

No way the north becomes a separate dominion. Far, far, far too few people, and far too great distances. I imagine, however, that the two articles would be of use - the Rupert's Land one as a article to what the area was before the Dominion, and the Northwest Territory one for a section of the Dominion.

As for the border of Columbia, doesn't make any sense to give the north sea access there. Not at all practical, and geography means it's difficult at best.

That being said, cutting of a bit of the north parts of Columbia and giving it to whatever state has the north makes more sense, in many ways, than giving it to Columbia - though not as much as you maps potentially indicate. Have a look at the colony of "New Caledonia," which was the mainland of otl BC, and where it's northern boundaries were. Probably would be more in that region.

Lordganon (talk) 08:56, September 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * I do agree that Virginia and Pennsylvania would probably become unitary states, my original belief (for both of them), would be that they divide themselves into "provinces" (or states). In fact, with Virginia being bigger, I would believe "provinces" would be more curial towards stability. I have also been considering the idea proposed by Thomas Jefferson, and dividing Virginia into nice, equally sized plots of land (like what he wanted to do with all of the NWT OTL). But I will have to look into this a bit more prior to making a decision.


 * So the Illinois River would make a good border? Glad you see this. However, the only reason I chose this was to "spice up" the border of a Greater Virginia (so don't believe I chose it for what you described).


 * As for "Denendeh," oh well (nice try, anyway). But I do agree, it would be too unpopulated to make a dominion. Maybe if it were to be a territory to this day, but whatever, I do agree that it would unite with Rupert's Land to form the . As for New Caledonia, no need to read about it (Governorates of Alaska:I happen to be an expert on the subject:0). And if I am reading you correctly, you believe New Caledonia would be part of Assiniboia. That does make quite a lot of sense. With Oregon and those regions not becoming part of the US, it could be enough to assume that BC would not expand north. Hm, I will have to look into this more. Thanks for the idea. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:08, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Not quite what I said, Nuke - Pennsylvania would be more of a federation. Adding Delaware to it more or less means it has to be that way.

But, Virginia is indeed likely to be a unified state - the federal government, with only counties below that. There's just no regional divisions already in place - all of the other states have them. No reason to think that they would add that.

Whatever the reason for the river forming part of the border, it makes sense. That little bit of territory below the parallel west of there would be very hard for Virginia to defend, anyways.

No, not quite what I was saying about New Caledonia. It would be a separate dominion - without otl eastern Canada, there's just no incentive for them to join the plains in one state.

What I was meaning is that the Columbia Dominion would be the New Caledonia colony, and points south. Not the extended version of New Caledonia that eventually became part of BC, but the first boundaries. Eastern border sticks with the Rockies the whole way, and the northern limit is somewhere around the upper stretches of the Finlay River, near Fort Ware.

Lordganon (talk) 21:08, September 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * So Pennsylvania would be a federation (my mistake). Does make sense, and I am quite interested on how the New England settlers in the Wyoming Valley (see ). I initially considered this region being a state in my failed "Columbia" idea (see above), but if PA is going to become a federation (no matter what), this could be an interesting start.


 * Nothing against Virginian Counties, I just personally find it hard to fathom a country the size of Virginia to only have its counties be subdivisions. My guess was that many of these counties unite to form provinces/states (but keeping a unitary government). But now that I think about it, I guess it would be no different from OTL France and its many departments. Just don't expect a map from me for a long time (regarding how the counties would look like). And before I forget, you mentioned that Liberia would be Virginia (as opposed to Marylander). How would Liberia play into Virginia? Would it be incorporated, become a colony/protectorate, or be just like OTL. Just wanted to clarify this.


 * I think I get what you mean. I do remember I wanted to incorporate the . In OTL, the territory (more or less) was incorporated into BC (giving it the northern-most portion of the province). Here, it could remain out of BC, and become part of Assiniboia. Is this right? I will upload the map shortly (because the map of the Territory on Wikipedia is completely wrong). --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 22:49, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

By the looks of things, the Wyoming Valley disputes would have been settled by the PoD. Besides that, New England has to go through New Netherland to get there. Settlers from the rest of PA are going to be a majority there pretty fast, imo.

Compare atl Virginia to otl us states, if you would. By my estimates, it would still occupy less territory than Alaska, California, or Texas, and only a little more than Montana. I figure if they can be divided into counties and work, so can atl Virginia. County-wise it is more, somewhere in the area of 450 or so of them from otl, a couple hundred more than Texas, but it would still work out all right. There's a lot of examples of countries where there's only one subdivision, and it works there. Would be all right here.

Liberia would be founded by a Virginian organization, and hold much the same relationship with them as they had with the USA otl. Maybe as some sort of colony, but I think the otl status is probably more realistic.

Yes, the Stickeen Territories being part of Assiniboia is what I'm meaning. Along with the BC areas of the Peace River Country, as well, if that's not entirely in those territories on the map.

Lordganon (talk) 00:29, September 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * Guess your right, but I am still interested at how PA would look like.


 * Holy crap... it would be about the size of Montana. But I don't believe comparing OTL Montana to ATL Virgina works as a whole. I guess what I was trying to say is... I doubt the counties of the region would be the same, meaning it will have to be redone (if not for the fact that there would be counties sharing the same name). I know very little about Liberia, so I guess it won't hurt to keep it the same.


 * Isn't the Peace River Country in Alberta? Why would Columbia control territory east of the Rocky Mountains? Or did I happen to get the wrong Peace River Country? Also, sorry for the delay in the map (Wikia wasn't working for me), but now it is updated. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 00:53, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know the counties would not be the same - was giving a comparison, really, to show that it could work.

Common misconception, Nuke. The Peace River Country is northwestern Alberta, and northeastern BC, not just in Alberta.

I'm saying that Columbia wouldn't control it. BC does otl, for all the sense that makes.

Lordganon (talk) 01:12, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Europe


Greetings again. I believe North America is about as good as it can get at the moment. I would like to move outside NA and look elsewhere (which I currently have no idea aside from what is already canon). LG has brought to my attention that the Latin American states would probably become independent by today, meaning that having no revolution in France would merely delay the inevitable. However, I would prefer to hold off on this subject, and would like to get Europe out of the way. At the present, I have no idea how Europe should look, and believe this should be discussed.

Rather than having me upload a map of how I would like to see (and compare and correct), I have decided to start from scratch. In short, I am going back to what is already canon (what the original creator wrote), and working from there. I have included this map of Europe from 1792. Why? Because (according to what is canon), Europe would pretty much look the same as it did then. The only exceptions would be the Holy Roman Empire would be solidified (I assume), Denmark[-Norway] continues to have (which isn't included in the HRE), Hungary and Galicia gain independence (I would assume they meant the one in Eastern Europe), and I believe that's it. Great Britain still unites with Ireland. I would also like to assume that Russia gains Finland later on (as OTL), but this is Russophile talking.

Obviously (otherwise I wouldn't be bringing it up), I do not believe Europe would remain this way by today. While I am not so much an expert on European history (especially around this time), I would like to assume that (for instance) the would still happen. But for now, let me put several issues into detail.

I am working on a page for. However, LG has brought to my attention that this would not work. While I have done more research on, I would like to clarify my reasoning. With no Napoleonic Wars, Denmark and Norway would remain united. With the Russians gaining Finland from Sweden (as in OTL), the Swedes would be compelled to work on a union with Denmakr-Norway on the same grounds as was the. Over time, the idea of Scandinavian unity would lead to the complete integration between them. But now that I have done the research (in combination with some ideas I have and will be writing below), I am not so attached to this idea, and would be at least happy that there would be only two Scandinavian nations (with Denmark holding Norway, Greenland, Iceland, Faroe Islands).

I support the idea of a Greater Germany, and like the idea of the HRE solidifying into a single nation. My only disagreement would be the name. Obviously, this entity was not Roman, not Holy, and definitely not an Empire (thank John Green for that quote). Austria and Prussia (members) included areas outside the HRE, while Denmark claimed area within it. I would like to assume (much like OTL), Austria and Prussia would eventually lead to the HRE's demise, but with my added twist that Austria would gain dominance, leading to a Greater German Empire (minus Hungary). The same would be true for Italy (which is divided into several city states). I would like to see an Italian unification.

However, I have also been considering quite the opposite. I was inspired by Chris' No Napoleon timeline, especially when it comes to Germany and Italy. In Germany, Austria and Prussia remain separate and unable to form a united Germany under their control. However, the remaining German states agree to form a single Germany. Italy is also divided into three states. The, the Papal States, and a united Italy which unites the northern nations. What would you all think of this.

The Netherlands and Belgium is another area of interest. According to what is canon, after the death of, the Dutch Republic falls to internal conflict, leading to the formation of a monarchy. I guess I see nothing wrong with this at the moment. As for Belgium (which was originally part of Austria (and thus part of the HRE), I would like to see it be merged into this United Netherlands. My initial idea was to have Belgium divided, with the French Wallonia going to France (leaving Flanders to the Dutch). But I would see nothing wrong with a complete unification. Limburg and Luxembourg being part of this, I couldn't say at the moment. I also came across timelines which have the Netherlands expanding into Germany (gaining Hanover and that part of modern day Germany). I am on the fence about this idea, but it can't hurt to discuss this idea.

That's all I can think of at the moment. Aside form the probably likely chance that the Balkans gain independence from Turkey, and Poland being dived between Russia and Prussia (like OTL), I believe I have gotten out what I have to say. I am open to any and all suggestions, and would love any advice I can get. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:43, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I certainly am flattered that I inspired. But now onto my two cents:

On Scandinavianism, I can't go on one way or another about if Sweden would join. I guess it would depend on how powerful Russia would seem, and almost force Sweden into Denmark-Norway in order to better protect themselves from Russian (and its alliance [see below]) influence.

On a united HRE, I'm torn on their unification. I believe that most of Prussia and Austria's problems came from the Napoleonic Wars, because Prussia thought themselves superior to the Austrians in the Empire (don't quote me on that though), but without those problems, they might look forward to a peaceful unification. Of course that would lead to an independent Hungary, Yugoslavia, and don't forget about the other independent Balkan states.

As for the partition of Poland-Lithuania, you may be interested to know that was given to Austria, and if they would be merged into the HRE, the land would likely belong to Hungary after its split. And unless you have some sort of great war in this timeline, it's unlikely Poland would become a country again.

A united Italy is certainly doubtful, considering the Italian states wouldn't be severely crippled after the Napoleonic Wars, and Sardinia (the one that conquered the Italian states) would have to face the wrath of Venice, the Papal States, etc., etc. A Venetian republic in modern times though, that would be cool to see. Alas, I figure that the states west of Venice and the Papal States would benefit from some sort of unification with Sardinia.

For the Netherlands, I could see another rebellion in the Belgium region happen, and they may face a second as a successor of the Austrian Netherlands. I find it unlikely that the French would ever annex any part of Austrian Netherlands though. For instance, France and Austria were allied kingdoms that fought together in the Seven Years War, and France wouldn't want to just betray their ally for land. Rather, I find a revolutionary war likely, that would get France-Austria involved in trying to have Belgium remain Austrian, the Dutch on the opposing side trying to conquer the Belgians, and the British and Prussians helping the Dutch. Not sure who would win though.

As for the Revolutions of 1848, you'll be interested to know that the revolutions began after the spring of the, which overthrew the , which was formed after the , which was formed after the demise of the (by Napoleon), which was formed after the , which wouldn't have formed because of the fact France would remain a monarchy. But hey, who says France can't turn into a republic.

And if you're interested in a possible World War (for which a spark I cannot even begin to think about given the circumstances in a Europe without a French Revolution), the alliances are likely to go as follows:


 * France and Austria were on friendly terms following the and
 * Would fall apart during the Austro-Prussian War of a united HRE
 * France and the Ottoman Empire, with Spain,
 * And possibly Hungary for the two to better "control" the Balkan situation,
 * Britain, HRE, Netherlands, along with Russia, who would want to stop Hungarian and Ottoman influence in the Balkans.

Hope I gave you a better understanding of what may happen to Europe. You got most of them right, so that's a good sign. And if you ever need any help, my door (talk page) is always opened. ChrisL123 (talk) 02:47, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit of an understatement of the HRE, I'm afraid. Even at its strongest, there was still many, many different political blocs and groupings in it. Have a look into the Imperial Circles for a glance into that.

Really, the most the HRE outside of Prussia and Austria is going to unify, barring one of the two essentially conquering it like Prussia did otl, is that the small states congeal together somewhat. And only somewhat - they all have a lot of disputes, etc. between them.

For that matter, the concept of a "German" wouldn't even really exist here. Without the revolutionary ideas of the French moving across Europe, the concept of a "Germany" as a whole wouldn't arise so soon, or in nearly the same form.

What that means is that the electors, and the larger of the other states, annex the little guys around them. A few of the little states would likely survive, however - the more stable ones in position to benefit when the bisoprics fall.

And, for that matter, Sweden controlled western Pomerania at this point as well - also lands nominally in the HRE.

With no French wars like in otl, Russia won't get Finland. Really, they only went after it otl because the Swedish King was acting all nutty, and with the French going nuts too, they wanted more security for the capital. Not a problem atl.

Leaves two states in Scandinavia - Finland-Sweden, and Denmark-Norway.

Italy only being three states is also not something that is really possible.

Without being conquered by the French, the states in northern Italy, as Chris noted, are not going to be weak like they were for unification otl. And, like in Germany, the concept of an "Italy" won't exist like in otl.

Venice, as a matter of fact, possessed substantial territories outside of Italy still - and with no Wars like otl, I suspect they'd keep them.

Really, about the only Italian states I can seen falling apart, during the 1848~ style problems, is a couple of the republics, and the Bishopric of Trent. Lucca goes to Tuscany, Genoa to Piedmont, maybe Ragusa to Venice, Trent to Austria, likely the papal lands in Naples going to Naples, and Milan probably breaks free from Austria, maybe going to Piedmont.

What became Belgium otl isn't going to stick with Austria. They weren't loyal otl, and wouldn't be atl. More industry, economy, population, etc., too. When they decide to break away, they will get it.

When it happens, they would try to give a go of being a state for a while. But disputes between the two language groups would likely mean it doesn't work long, and the 1848~ style events would cause a fall, and the Dutch/French annexing halves of it, with permission from the locals.

I'd guess that much of Luxembourg actually stays independent of the rest of this - there are good reasons why it happened otl. Locals would prefer that route, too.

Both otl provinces of Limburg would be Dutch.

It is actually pretty likely that the Dutch Republic would shift over to a monarchy. The semi-hereditary position of Stadtholder was not far off of one, remember. Really, had the wars not happened otl, the establishment of a monarchy, following the intervention of Prussia and the victory of Orange forces around the PoD - which means they would still happen, with basically nothing changing from otl - would possibly have happened by the end of the century, and definitely with the death of William V. But the French put a stop to that before it started.

Atl, bet on it happening with the death of Stadtholder William V in 1806, and his successor, otl's William I of the Netherlands, being crowned the first King.

The unrest that it refers to, basically, actually happened - and the result would actually have been a monarchy established.

Bet on the Dutch Kingdom expanding into nearby areas of Germany when the 1848~ style unrest breaks out. The nearby Bishoprics would be very juicy to them.

Yes, the Balkans would gain independence. As would most of the Middle East - though I'd guess that the Ottomans keep authority further south (as in into Syria and otl Northern Iraq) than Turkey did otl.

Yeah, Poland is more or less screwed. Prussia, Austria, and Russia will eat it.

Hungary and Croatia would gain independence at some point. Eventually Austria is going to piss them off - though, Bohemia would probably not join them - and they'll just do it. Hungary would include otl western Romania, and otl Slovakia, while Croatia would include the otl western Balkans between Bosnia and Slovenia, minus those areas belonging to Venice and Ragusa.

Actually, most of the problems with/between Austria and Prussia have nothing to do with the wars. Well.... not those wars anyways. The Silesia Wars and their rivalry in the HRE had everything to do with it.

In that scenario, I'd actually take a guess of Galicia getting independence, not joining with Hungary. They wouldn't want a return of "Poland" either, for that matter.

Piedmont-Sardinia wasn't that much stronger than the other Italian states in that area. And without the unifying factor of Italian nationalism, it wouldn't be able to gain them.

Some sort of 1848-like event is likely. Not because of nationalism - that would not exist like we know it today, because of the French Revolution not happening anywhere near like otl - but more likely something to do with a mixture of religion and corruption.

I can easily see the various archbishoprics and bishoprics being overthrown by more secular-minded people. Happened otl, would happen atl. That would set off a series of protests, ala~ the otl 1848 events, though less violent, rather easily.

Chris, however, is putting far too much emphasis on the alliances. Those ones really aren't likely at all, either.

Alliances in that era shifted dramatically. Every war had different states fighting on either side. Even the French and British fought at least one war on the same side.

Really, alliance-wise, there's a good reason why they ended up like they did otl.

Lordganon (talk) 05:46, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the 1848-esque event should have more prominence here than in OTL, which could lead to an Austrian breakdown (so Hungary and stuff "run away"). It could also lead to Prussia being able to use it to its advantage and get the North united. Then, somehow, Austria would gain dominence and put all the German sides onto the negociating table. I don't know if that would work, however. :D Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:21, September 16, 2012 (UTC)

Prussia would not be able to do that. You forget that most of Prussian abilities post-Napoleon otl were possible because of the resources acquired in the aftermath of those wars, when the gained the Rhineland.

Nor could Austria do that. They wouldn't try, either.

Lordganon (talk) 08:35, September 18, 2012 (UTC)