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)


 * I see. Well that doesn't change anything. I am still confused. Not how or why Virginia would continue to have them, but how they would work in a functioning nation (not state). I'm sure I will get used to it over time.


 * Well, how can I argue with an Albertan over the region, lol. But now I can see your point (and have found better maps). My initial idea (what is on the map at the present) was to have the southernmost border of the Stickine Territory also become the northernmost border of Columbia. This would require having the (and ) as the border. But this would have Columbia control area in the Peace River region. So I guess I completely understand, the Continental Divide would be the border (no exceptions).

However, this then leads me to Russian America (Alaska). While I currently doubt it, what of the chances that Alaska would look different (aside from the dispute over the panhandle's border). --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:35, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Would work like the otl state, just with the counties reporting to the national government instead.

Actually, having that river/lake system as the northern border of Columbia - combined with the nearby Rockies/Divide as another part of it, south of the river system - places the whole of the Peace Country in Assiniboia. River network is pretty darn close to the top of the Rockies, there. The Peace Country is only the area in that part of BC east of the mountains, too.

Alaska's borders, beside the panhandle, would likely be the same. I'd also kinda expect the Brits to buy the area from the Russians at some point.

Lordganon (talk) 06:19, September 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * I am still so confused. So am I dead on with Columbia?


 * As for Alaska, I do agree that it would probably look the same as OTL. However, I highly doubt that the Brits would purchase Alaska. Russia attempted to sell it to them OTL, but the Brits weren't biting, and the only reason Russia was trying to sell it was because they feared loosing it in a potential conflict with the UK. And knowing me, you should be aware that this gets a big "hell no" from me. But I am actually quite interested in this idea (in a twisted sort of way). --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 22:14, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Sort of - the river and lake you mention being the border does, in fact, get all of the Peace Country in Assiniboia.

Well, the Russians also viewed it as a bit of a money pit. Until gold was discovered otl - no reason to think it would be all that much faster atl - the area cost them money to hold, for little benefit.

Lordganon (talk) 00:27, September 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "faster" (referring to Alaska)? But you do have a good point. [WARNING, sappy speech ahead] The Alaska question here is pretty much pulling me apart. On one hand, I am pro-Russia, and automatically rejected the idea once you brought it up. But at the same time, I need to think fourth dimensionally (regardless of my opinions). But if it weren't for the fact that I already have a timeline where Alaska (and much more) remain Russian, than it wouldn't be a complete loss for me to show some interest in a British Alaska. Come to think of it, aside from Two Americas (which only had this canon for a short time), I don't believe I have ever explored a British Alaska. So if it is possible, I believe I am going to do it. If so, I believe it would have been merged into Assiniboia (does this sound about right?).


 * I also have another question, which I believe you may be able to answer quickly. I know the Americans were (for a lack of a better world) brutal towards the Russian population of Alaska. But given the record of the Brits treating the French (more or less in Quebec) with enough support to allow a continued French population to this day, would've the Brits (in one way or another) allow a greater Russian population in Alaska (than OTL)? I may be off, but this is a possibility that I would like to explore. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 03:29, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be merged into Assiniboia.

By "faster," I meant the discovery of gold would be unlikely to be faster here than in otl.

Yes, the Brits would be far more tolerant of the Russians than the Americans were. They'd also not be opposed to more Russians moving the area. Heck, even if they bought the area, I wouldn't be shocked if the population was still mostly Russian, lol.

Nuke, if you don't want them to sell it, then they don't have to. Your timeline, remember.

Lordganon (talk) 04:02, September 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Nuke supports Russian Quebec! Hooray! Lol!


 * Please forgive me, I wasn't trying to write a guilt speech. I was only trying to get my feelings and ideas out, arguing with myself to look differently from my Russophilia. In short, I look forward to the idea of a British Alaska. I also believe I need some sleep, lol. Again, forgive me. I have updated the map. Again, the northernmost border of Columbia would also be the southernmost border for the Stickine Territory of Assiniboia. The Peace Country is all in Assiniboia, and Alaska will also be merged in Assiniboia. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 04:52, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

Nuke, nothing to apologize for. Was just reminding you that you don't have to listen to me if you don't want to, lol. Lordganon (talk) 05:51, September 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing to worry about, because I appreciate all the help I can get. I was only stating that when you first suggested it, my brain automatically said no, but then it went to work looking into the idea, and it inspired me. I do like the idea of a British Alaska, and bringing up the idea that the Brits would support and even endorse a continued Russian population in the region (unlike the Yanks) makes me support the idea even more. But yeah, I put too much wording and emotion into it, so forgive me for that as well, lol. If the UK were to purchase Alaska, when would this be. And if so (because I have seen a few timelines that have done this), would the UK carve the territory up (like giving the panhandle to the Stickine Territory [for instance]). --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:34, September 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Sorry to bring back old wounds, but I had another inspiration moment to bring back Denendeh. With no Canada or US to worry about, the move towards establishing a nation in the region would be slower. By the time gold is discovered in Alaska and the NWT, combined with the lack of population and infrastructure to connect Alaska-NWT to Winnipeg (combined with a vast difference between Anglo-Russian Alaska and Anglo-French Red River Colony), British North America would become two nations. Unlike my original idea (which had no infrastructure to work with), this new idea would have Alaska and gold to help it along. I am rather exited on this idea, but could it be possible? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:59, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

At a guess, the purchase would be sometime in the 1870s. Exact date depends a bit on how Russia does in fighting wars.

Very doubtful that the UK would divide it up. At most, the Alaskan boundary dispute from otl - still would be up for debate atl - gets settled slightly more in favor of Assiniboia/Columbia than otl went for Canada. Would still see the coastline itself as part of Alaska, but, perhaps, with a little more territory inland going to the other colonies. If you look up the dispute on wikipedia, and at the map, what I'm referring to would be part of the area between the yellow and red lines going to the other colonies instead of Alaska. Would matter more for internal borders, of course, given things.

Even adding Alaska to that proposed nation wouldn't help, much.

You're also overstating the differences between them, and the distance. Remember, this nation-state would be concentrated slightly further north than the Plains Provinces are otl. For instance, a transcontinental rail network would be more like: Churchill or York Factory/The Pas or Flin Flon/Prince Albert/Lloydminster/Edmonton/Grande Prairie/Dawson Creek/Fort St. John/Juneau or Sitka, compared to the otl southern route. Spur lines would then be directed southwards.

And, all told, even adding Alaska to the territories doesn't give you infrastructure population enough for a real state.

Lordganon (talk) 02:52, September 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * How would you mean? While I plan on getting into greater detail on it when Asia comes up, I do plan on Russia retaining Manchuria (with Japan not being as much a threat to Russia). But I am not too sure how Russia's military would be ATL (aside from being okay).


 * I would agree, a smaller panhandle.


 * In my defense (for Denendeh), I swear I thought Alaska had a larger population than it does (silly me). Either way, I am going to have to take a closer look at Assiniboia and how it would have evolved. So forget I even brought this subject back. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 03:38, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

As in they lose wars, have to pay large sums of money, have an expensive war, etc. The Crimean War did this part otl.

But not too much of a smaller panhandle. Definitely not the green BC claimed line, and not the red line, either.

Add to all that that until the last half-century, Alaska had a very low population. And, really, the rest of the north has grown at around the same rate, just starting with a far lower base.

Lordganon (talk) 04:09, September 22, 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)



Greetings. After getting a comment by Yank, I realized I forgot to post here in quite a while. Plus I had made a map and forgot to post it. Well, here it is. Nothing too special, since I am confident that things will be changing.

Not much to say, a completely balkanized "Italy", a somewhat united "Germany", Russia without Finland (no big deal, they still get Saint Petersburg), a shrinking Ottoman Empire, no Scandinavia, and a greater Netherlands.

I have extended the Netherlands as far as Hanover, though I believe I may have gone too far (figured since Hanover was in a personal union with the UK, it might happen). Prussia unites the remaining states in the north, while Austria looses Hungary and Croatia. I am not too sure about the remaining German states, but added Bavaria and Luxembourg as states (but no borders at the present). The Balkans are based on their pre-WWI borders (with the exception of Romania having portions of OTL Ukraine), and I believe Montenegro would have united with Serbia by today.

Other than that, I don't have much else to comment on. I am open to any suggestions. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 03:23, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

Another great map, Nuke.

However.... I think you may have taken the idea of a fairly united Germany, and a balkanized Italy, a little too far. Germany, more so.

Yes, that's far too much of Germany as part of the Netherlands. Really, only border principalities are going to be possibilities, especially the bishoprics. I don't see their moves going further east than a rough line going from the Duchy of Oldenburg to the state of Berg - and even that may be pushing it.

Hanover would likely stay independent - the personal union with the UK is a big part, though by far not the only part, of why they would sty that way.

Really, the larger states are going to stay independent - along with the tiny ones that take advantage of their neighbors fast enough (basically, that means ones next to bishoprics) - and be the ones to grow. Some small ones, of course, outside of that, will stay small and by themselves. Divide ones may end up getting half-devoured, even. Hesse, Mecklenburg, Baden, Württemberg, Hanover, Oldenburg, and Bavaria would all likely still exist. Bet on, in areas with no large states, one or two of the little states becoming big states - I'd guess one in most directions from Hesse.

Berg or Nassau to the west, Gotha or Wiemar to the east, Braunschweig to the north, and Waldeck to the northwest would all stand good chances of that. Gotha and Berg would have better odds when it comes to a choice in their directions, mind, by my guess. Either Baden, or some other state, would also take over the area southwest of Hesse (my guess, however, is a split between Hesse and Baden, and whatever state is out on top west of Hesse). The big area to the south would largely go to the south German states, with Hesse and the eastern victor also taking some.

Saxony, however, given Prussian ambitions, would fall to them in some form.

Italy, having far less states, is likely to suffer from the same effects to some degree - i.e. some annexations occur. Genoa is likely to become Sardinian, the papal domains likely to be split up, and Lucca probably goes away as well. You also may want to mark the Ionian Islands as being Venetian, too.

Correct on Montenegro. Even without WWI, the two would likely have become one state within a generation.

At a guess, however.... Bosnia and Albania probably would not exist. Serbia and Croatia would likely split Bosnia, and then Greece and Serbia do the same to Albania. A-H isn't around to stop them, after all. Have a look into their territorial claims for more.

I expect Hungary would be smaller, too - Galicia and parts of Transylvania would go to others, quite probably.

The Turkish state is very likely to be smaller, too - otl Turkey, give or take a bit.

Lordganon (talk) 05:52, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it means anything, I thought the countries displayed on the map would be interesting to see. I do think Italy should be slightly less Balkanized but agree on the unitedness of the Germany between 3 states. It would be interesting to see how events would play out. Imo, Hanover possibly should be independent but the Netherlands should remain mostly that size. And would you be able to draw the border between Luxembough and Baravia please?

For Hungary, Transylvania to Hungary would I think be suited while maybe seeing an independent state of Galicia and a bit of Lodomeria would make things interesting in the region.

Moving to Venice, is it just me or would it be interesting for Venice to occupy the Croatians and make them follow their ways, sice they are the least populaced country in Europe... This would give Venice a way to link most of its land outside Italy.

What dya say Nuke about my two pence? :D Imp (Say Hi?!) 13:29, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

And you definately must show me how to make maps like those! :D Imp (Say Hi?!) 13:31, September 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * I am so confused and frustrated that it isn't even funny. I don't know what annoys me more, the fact that I know realize how grateful I am for Europe truing out the way it did OTL, or that you guys talk about the former German states like they exist today (lol).


 * Jokes aside, I have no idea what is being said. So lets start simpler. I have updated the map, showing seven independent German states (not to mention a larger Netherlands and an independent Luxembourg). Austria, Bavaria, Hanover, Hesse, Mecklenburg, Prussia, and a united Swabia. I chose a united Swabia over the two states mentioned there, because they (OTL) chose to unite into a single state of modern day Germany, but you can primarily chalk this to me trying to keep things simple for the time being (and I will change it later).


 * I merged Genoa into Sardinia, and Lucca into Modena. I am not too sure what you mean by "the papal domains likely to be split up", did you mean it is divided into two or more states, or it is divided between neighbors? Also, my map did include the Ionian islands in Venice.


 * I have enlarged Croatia and Serbia. I used the Bosna river to divide the two (seems about right), and divided Albania between Serbia and Greece. Hungry looses Transylvania and Galicia, and since Galicia would be Slavic (Polish and Ukrainian), I believe it may have been annexed into Russia. Also, what of the Serbs living in southern Hungary (Vojvodina), would they also leave Hungary? Not to mention within Transylvania. As for Turkey, I am aware it wouldn't include all of its claims in the Arabian Peninsula. But since I am focused on Europe, I chose not to worry about it at the present. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 19:05, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

The map included for Europe show no changes at all. What happened?

Yank 19:15, September 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * I know. Forgive me, but Wikia wasn't loading my image at the time. It is updated now. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 20:42, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

The area of Croatia you refer to, Imp, was part of A-H. Even the remnant Croatian state would be too strong to take it from.

Yes, that Europe developed like it did was a bit of a fluke.

The three states that made the modern one only did so under Allied pressure otl - and there were numerous lawsuits and challenges otl to the concept, with the "referendum" almost being nullified more than once. And even voting "yes" to it was much more so because both of those two states had been split up when the area was divided into three. What they actually wanted was to reform the old states.

Hesse would likely only hold the middle third of that area. They have their own problems - i.e. merging the two Hessian states into one, overall, kind of a federation of the two - and while they would survive, there's a good reason why I noted that others would take charge to their east and west. Same goes with the spot marked northwestern Swabia.

But, as you said, keeping it simple for now, lol. Am interested to see it more complicated.

Divide the Papal territory between its neighbors. Good chance of Rome itself, plus a small amount of nearby land - something similar in size to the otl Province of Rome - remaining under some sort of papal-aligned government. Call that the only compromise between the other states not wanting each other to hold it, and it being the center of the Pope's strength.

What I meant about the Ionians was make it a little more obvious that they are part of Venice.

Good adjustment to the Balkan states.

A bit too much of Transylvania going to Romania, however. Some of the northwesternmost areas of Transylvania would likely stay with Hungary. Székely Land would be autonomous in Romania, or deported.

I figured that would be why Turkey looked that way. A border may be a good idea, however, there.

On another note, Turkey would be very likely to not include Hatay Province and some of the Kurdish areas. My guess, European Turkey is also smaller, and parts of northeastern Anatolia get eaten away too.

No A-H to stop them means the Balkan states eat more Turkey, more or less.

Lordganon (talk) 03:01, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Nuke, this is probably going to confuse you more (lol), but with so little states (in comparison to the no. there were) in the HRE, would it not be able to move toward a confederacy? This would be useful as Austria is now on its own and would not try to go against anyone else and it would be usful for them to be in the HRE.

Or we could have a Confederation of States (basically Confederation of the Rhine) which are not under Prussian or Austrian control, apart from Hanover as well. Maybe Mecreburg would not be in in this Confederation as it would fall under Prussian influence and eventually (I used eventually) be absorbed by it.

What dya say Nuke? :D Imp (Say Hi?!) 11:56, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Wrong about Austria.

Really, that idea, Imp, is unworkable.

Lordganon (talk) 12:53, September 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Imperium Guy, I highly doubt Venice would expand into Croatia. Dalmatia aside (which was Italian), the remaining portions of Croatia are distinctly Slavic. From what I can make out, the only reason Croatia includes Dalmatia is because both were part of Austria-Hungary at the time it dissolved. I have looked into a united Germany, but it appears it won't work ATL. Either way, I am interested in see a different Europe, the only problem is that I have no idea how it should look,


 * Yes, LG. Keep it slow. Think of it like I know absolutely nothing about the region (because that is the truth). I never thought my brain could explode, but this whole thing has done that and more. I even tried to focus solely on the HRE, which seems to have OVER 9000 states within it, making me feel even more confused. So forgive me, lets keep it simple, and work towards complexity.


 * Let's start here. I have seven German states (Austria, Bavaria, Hanover, Hesse, Mecklenburg, Prussia, and Swabia). Are these enough states, or should there be more/less? And is Swabia being a united entity okay? I have expanded Prussia into Weimar, thereby making a smaller Hesse. Also, is the Netherlands okay?


 * Thank you for the idea to use the Italian provinces. I have transferred Lucca and parts of Modena into Tuscany (like the Tuscany region), and gave Modena the area roughly the same as the region OTL. The remaining portion of Rome I just gave to Modena, but only because I have no idea how to divide it. Also, what of Milan and Parma (since they are so small and close to great powers)?


 * I shrunk down Romania. As for Turkey, like I said... lets focus on Europe first. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:14, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly why Dalmatia is part of Croatia otl.

No worries, Nuke. Take your time - the HRE is a hard beast.

Yes, Germany is going to be more split up than that. Would not count Austria as German, either.

A Swabian state existing like this really isn't possible. It'd be spilt into at least Baden and Wurt~

Prussia really isn't going to go further than Saxony. Saxony itself will be hard to digest - going further really would not happen.

The Dutch borders need to be bumped northwards in the southeast, and westwards in the northeast.

Modena wouldn't lose ground like that, or be the one to benefit from the Papal territories.

The Papal territories would get split between Venice, Sicily, and Tuscany. I'd also say that Rome would only have the middle third of what you have them marked as, too.

Parma could be divided up by its neighbors. Milan, not so much - stronger, and a useful buffer for Venice and Sardinia.

That's more or less what I meant for the Ionians.

Good size for Romania.

Is Turkey itself not part of Europe? ;)

Lordganon (talk) 03:58, September 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * I got Dalmatia right? Woo Hoo!!


 * Well like I said, lets start simple and work towards complexity. It appears to be working. Why not Austria? Don't they speak German? Aside from Austria. I now have eight states: Baden, Bavaria, Hanover, Hesse, Mecklenburg, Prussia, Saxony, and Württemberg. I have decided to just have Saxony be independent, unless it is that important for it to be Prussian. I morphed the borders a little bit. I gave Bavaria its current border and worked from there. Baden gains territory south of Hesse (as mentioned). I also have Hesse extending more eastward, but since you were mentioning an independent Weimar, should Hesse be this far east? I also moved the Dutch border further west, and tweaked the Franco-Dutch border (wanted to get rid of that panhandle), just in case it needs to be reverted.


 * I gave Lucca back to Modena, and moved Parma into Milan. The Papal States are now divided between Sicily, Tuscany, and Venice; with a smaller Roman state.


 * Nothing against Turkey, lol. But since you keep bringing it up, how should Turkey look? You mentioned Kurdistan. Also, could Russia expand into the Armenian regions? And how far south should Turkey go? As a benchmark, would Baghdad remain part of Turkey (let alone Mecca or Jerusalem). Speaking of Russia, since this map shows the Crimea as part of Russia (the map meaning the original and not my updates), would there even be a Crimean War (since you mentioned it in our discussion about Alaska). But again, Russia probably was bound to get into conflict when they supported and attempted to expand their influence into the Orthodox regions of the Ottoman Empire.


 * And for those who are truly interested, this map is only a temporary one. When I get the basic border ideas, I plan on making a detailed version. Once Germany and Italy are finalized, I plan on making a detailed map of just those regions, but more later. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:54, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Austrians speak a dialect of German - but they sure as heck don't consider themselves to be German. Think of it like the Scots speaking an English dialect, but not being English.

Saxony was long a target of Prussia. With the events as they are, Prussia would have moved on it rapidly, taking it over.

It would be more accurate, I suppose, to say that Wiemar and the other "Saxe" duchies would have joined together. No way Hesse gets that far east - especially since they first have to make an arrangement with their own relatives. There was, after all, two "Hesse" states - the Landgraviate of Hesse-Kassel, and the Landgraviate of Hesse-Darmstadt. The two would still dominate much of the local region, however, but it limits them slightly.

I'd tweak the French border slightly more, in the west. The Dutch border in the east probably needs to be adjusted somewhat, however.



Looking into things a bit more, there's a number of areas on the HRE maps - even the low-detail Europe one here - that look to be independent states, but are actually Prussian or Bavarian. A few are also actually under the bishops - several of them, seemingly, were also dukes, etc. of properties attached to their bishoprics.

Odd area. There's a lot less states, in reality, than it seems to be at first glance. And the number of them that could actually do anything are less than that - the states west of Hesse, for instance, are actually parts of other states in all but name.

I've attached a map based on this looking. It's only of the HRE, however.

Italy looks good.

I suspect that Turkey - my assumption is that it collapsed somewhat by itself, not in war - would be smaller than otl. The northeastern areas of otl Turkey - along with parts of what is today northernmost Iraq, and bet on nearby areas of Iran too - would have been quick targets for the Russians. Have a look at the map A line from Trabzon in a semicircle towards Iran through these vilayets would likely include the areas in question. Would be something like half of three of them, and around a quarter of another.

Turkey itself, quite likely, would include much of otl Turkey. The northeastern regions in question going to Russia, Kurdish areas past that to them, and Hatay Province to whatever state is in power in Syria.

I'd also guess that parts of European Turkey would vanish, too. Along with all of the islands in the eastern Med.

No, there would not be a Crimean War. What I meant with it before was the financial impact of the war, not that war itself.

Lordganon (talk) 06:51, September 27, 2012 (UTC)




 * Wow! I am impressed, LG. To be honest, I have been tempted to have you (or someone who understood the HRE more) to make a map, but you are full of surprises. Thank you so much, it has helped me out.


 * Because of this, I feel I have enough information to make a more detailed map. The only changes I have made are on Baden's southern border, and the borders of Hanover-Hesse. As for Oldenburg and Waldeck (I hope that's what "Wald" means), they seem too small (IMHO). Could they maybe me merged into Hanover? Otherwise, never mind (can't really argue about a subject I don't know to begin with). I also have a question about Swedish Pomerania: is is manditory to have it become part of Prussia. I do agree it shouldn't remain Swedish, but my thought were to have it in Mecklenburg. Again, never mind if wrong. Other than that, I believe "Germany" is about ready.


 * Glad Italy is finished. I have started a page for , which I am kinda getting exited over.


 * Turkey apparently is going to become the next topic here. I am quite interested in a smaller Turkey, maybe even an independent Kurdistan and Russian presence in Anatolia. I do have an idea I have been interested in looking into, and here it may be possible. What of a Greater Greece. Along with Russian support (I would suspect), Greece gains control over (at least) the coast of Anatolia, and the recapture of Constantinople. I will work out a map of Turkey in the coming days.


 * I also have two questions that I have been meaning to ask (but keep forgetting). The first is obvious, would the western European powers (Spain, Portugal, and France to be more specific) fully integrate several of its colonial possessions into them (as OLT). The Canary Islands in Spain, the Azores in Portugal, and the regions of France (Guiana, Guadeloupe, Reunion, .etc). They are mentioned as only colonies (according to what is canon), just would like to check.


 * The second one has more to do with New Netherland and the Presidential lineup I am working on (have to start somewhere). I read that without the Italian unification, the separate states (especially Sicily) would not go through hard times and poverty, meaning no mass emigration (especially to New York). I know this is trivial, and I am probably making a bigger deal out of it than it should be, but this does have to be asked. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 00:52, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what "Wald" meant, lol.

Hanover is really about as large as it could possibly get. And both of those other states are more than strong enough to fight back.

Few small matters with your map, however.

Where Hesse and Württemberg join, Hesse would have a border further down than that. Basically, where it is further south in the eastern half of that border needs to go all the way across the border. That area of Hesse-Darnestadt is where its power was actually centered. No way it'd be in a different state.

Where Waldeck and Hesse join, you've got half of Waldeck itself included inside of Hesse. That would not be the case.

You could probably also shrink Oldenburg somewhat northwards if you wanted, too.

Like with Saxony, the Prussians had long held ambitions towards Swedish Pomerania. They'd move on it, without a doubt.

Constantinople is likely a bit much for the Greeks - basically, if the Bulgarians have that Aegean coastline, the Greeks likely would not get the city.

You could probably give that coast to the Greeks, and have them and Bulgaria split Thrace, with most of it going to Bulgaria. The city itself would become Greek.

The coast of Anatolia would be too much. But I would not be shocked if areas around the Sea of Marmara, and around Izmir, went to them too.

Yes, such integration is very likely.

Without unification, immigration from Italy would increase. Really, the unification actually made the south more able to keep its people. Without it, investment would be lower in the south, and they would not be subsidized like they were otl. There's a reason why Northern Italy feels disgruntled, lol.

Northern Italy would probably be better off, truth be told. The south, definitely worse. Well.... more so, here it would mean areas north of Modena are better off than otl, areas south worse off.

As for immigrants... looking into prominent Italians that either immigrated or are the children of them, very very few are from the northern areas. There should be little to no difference with regards to those who went otl and those who did not.

Lordganon (talk) 22:22, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Hello?
This certainly is disappointing. I found it enjoyable to read the behind the scenes goings-on. Why haven't anyone posted anything here for months? --Yank 04:25, January 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Primarily because I lost interest in the timeline a few months ago, and decided to move onto other projects. It seems to go in a cycle for me, so it will come around. Right now, I have been getting back into the timeline. Do forgive me, as this timeline still needs cleaning. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 04:29, January 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Now that I remember, you already brought this up, and I explained it to you there as well. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 04:35, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

Hetalia (13 Fallen Stars)
What would the personifications of the American nations look and act like? Would Alfred be one of the nations? --Yank 00:36, January 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * I personally couldn't say. After doing some reading on Alfred, he seems to be more of a Northerner to me then anything else. I would suggest New Netherland, but I also noticed he has a "strange crescent-shaped lock of hair on his head [that] represents Nantucket, while his glasses are Texas". Your guess is as good as mine. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 03:02, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

The personification of New England would have the ahoge, the personification of California would have the Texas glasses. I've got ideas for all of them.
 * New England- A tsundere like England himself, which would exacerbate tensions between him and the boisterous New Netherland. Looks like a darker haired version of England, complete with massive eyebrows.
 * New Netherland- America minus ahoge and glasses.
 * Pennsylvania- cheerful but not obnoxious.
 * Maryland- very shy and polite due to how small he is. Looks and acts a bit like Latvia in this regard.
 * Virginia-
 * Carolina-extremely conservative and always in a foul mood.
 * Louisiana- an enthusiastic party animal who thinks every day is Mardi Gras. He's a combination of France and Spain.
 * Canada- He looks and acts like France Junior.

Yank 03:38, January 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems alright. I would also like to add:


 * Maybe we can keep Alfred the same, but maybe the ahoge is shaped like Long Island. I also like the glasses, maybe giving him more Teddy Roosevelt ones or something.


 * I would consider Canada to be much like OTL... somewhat (just not part of the Commonwealth and has Chicago).


 * I also wouldn't go as far to create any characters in the western-part of the continent as of yet (because I haven't finalized the borders there). --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 04:24, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

13 throughout '13
Hello to everybody who watches this timeline. While I have been meaning to do this for quite a while now, I am writing the talk page to give the details about the future. I have big ideas for the timeline, and I hope to get a lot of them down throughout 2013.

Already some of these ideas are slowly taking place. The United Kingdom no longer exists here, being replaced by a of the British Isles and their settler colonies. New Netherland has entered the imperial business, establishing colonies of their own and influencing the Americas and the newly established Spanish-speaking republics during the late 1800s. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.



I am currently working on a set POD for the timeline (one which does not involve the death of Washington). I will also be uploading newer versions of the North America and Europe maps. Afterwards, I plan on creating maps for Africa, Antarctica, Asia, and South America (all of which should be easier for me to establish borders).

That's all I have for now. But to hold you all over until them, here is a map of that I created a while ago. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:16, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

North America '13


I am happy to say that I believe North America is pretty much done. Only a few things need to be addressed, and they involve two new ideas I got from doing more reading.

The first thing is Louisiana's border. Under Spanish rule, Louisiana's western border was the Mississippi watershed, but it would expand to the Sabine River in 1819 (the current border). After doing more reading on the history of New France and Louisiana, I got the idea that Louisianans may want to expand their borders more west on the Gulf of Mexico.

My reasoning is primarily because of revolution. When they gain independence, I believe they may also have their eyes on all French claims in the region. This would include Texas (see ), which was also the basis that had the US look towards Texas OTL. I would also believe this should be done in order to allow more coastline for Louisiana, as opposed the the bayous of the Mississippi. While I have no doubt they wouldn't gain all of it, but I do believe there would be enough room for some kind of compromise.

In this case, I chose the. It seems like a good benchmark for a border, and would include the majority of historic French settlements in Texas. I don't think they would go any further, but this seems like an OK spot. I currently have the border in dotted-lines, to show the differences between the two borders.

The second change brings me back to the in northern New Spain. In the 18th Century, a Spaniard by the name of. He envisioned a new Viceroyalty (or something to that affect) incorporating the northern provinces of New Spain. This was not possible at the time, due to the lack of population in the region. Despite this, the provinces were given more autonomy, and moves to populate the region were under way by the time Mexico gained independence OTL. The same man also lead to the formations of Argentina and Venezuela (true story).

With no independence in sight, I believe this Viceroyalty would come true over the decades. I initially proposed having the entire region become one entity, which proved to be a bad idea. However, I recalled another idea I thought of years ago for this timeline, and it seems it may be workable here. Instead of one, why not two?

Dividing this area into two makes great sense. Aside from being on different coasts, the borders I propose would incorporate similar regional cultures from OTL. And cutting off the northernmost parts of New Spain (as well as the southern parts), we are left with a smaller New Spain which is more in line with the historic borders of the Aztec Empire.

The two new nations are California and Rio Grande. California includes all the west coast, and all the basin of the Colorado River. Rio Grande would include the river basin of the... Rio Grande. Rio Grande would also be an equivalent to Texas OTL in area.

I hope you all like these new ideas. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:35, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

The difference between the relative strength of the powers in the area would pretty much prevent Louisiana from going further than that river. For that matter, even the river may be a bit of a stretch.

I really don't think that the northern areas would get split into two, Nuke. Too much area, too little people, and the cultural difference between the two sides is a more recent construct than you'd think. Still think that New Spain/Mexico one is too far south.

Lordganon (talk) 09:28, February 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * It has been a while, but here is an updated version. I believe North American borders are 99.99% done at this point, only a few things to add and correct if needed.


 * California is once again larger and the only northern state to form out of New Spain. I extended their border a bit south than what I previously had, and this is what I see as "evening out" New Spain's territory to make New Spain and California more or less the same size. The southernmost border is (I don't remember the exact parallel), which was the initially endorsed border the US proposed during the . This would also give California the entire Colorado River watershed (the previous border used the Gila River, which is a tributary to the Colorado). I don't believe New Spain would complain about this border, but I have been known to be wrong before. I will revert the border back to only include the Californias and New Mexico if I must.


 * I have altered Louisiana's border to no longer be the, but not the Mississippi Watershed as the border. After my previous idea bust (which sounds stupid now that I think of it), I did more research on how Louisiana gained its border. Without going into too much detail, the US chose the Sabine River because everything east of it was populated by the French and other non-Spanish settlements. However, Louisiana wouldn't be the US in regards to military power; so I believe LG is right that this would probably be a bit much. However, the Spanish (who initially supported either the or the watershed of the Mississippi as a border) would loosen their claimed border to actually be the  (in fact, the area between the Sabine and Calcasieu became known as the ). While I believe there may have been a few settlements to the west of this river, I now believe the Calcasieu is probably a good compromise border. It incorporates the majority of French-speakers, while giving New Spain the closest border they can get out of it. Any complaints?


 * The only other major change is that now Canada is part of the, and Labrador is once again part of Newfoundland. I have decided to also make the Canada-Labrador border in favor of Canada/Quebec. This is because being one of the first dominions, Canada would gain stronger in the matter; OTL's border gives Quebec this odd "panhandle" which goes away upon giving them their border (so it looks better to the eyes); and I believe I have LG's support on this (otherwise why would have he brought it up in the first place XP). --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:27, March 19, 2013 (UTC)

The larger California works - though in the southeast, where the border goes off to the northeast on that angle, I'd change that border to the Pecos River, give or take - makes somewhat more sense. The parallel, near as I can guess, is around  29° 50′ 0″ N.

Louisiana border works too.

Like the Canada border too.

Lordganon (talk) 08:52, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

Latin America
I read some things about Latin American in other sections, but only a couple of lines. You have now more ideas for the continent? Regards! --Katholico (talk) 05:59, February 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * Glad to see you here, Katholico. I do believe I have a clear picture as to what Latin America would be like. However, much of what is already written needs to be rewritten.


 * What is currently on the drawing boards is that the Latin American Revolutions of the early 19th Century would be crushed (with no Napoleonic Wars). This leaves Spain in continued control over her colonies. At least until later in the century, when new revolutions break out and lead to most (if not all) towards independence.


 * Nation-wise... more or less like today, but more based on the Viceroyalties that continued to exist. I also have plans for becoming a British colony and dominion. But all in good time. Once North America and Europe are finalized, I plan on moving towards South America. Hope to see you get involved. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 06:44, February 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nuc. I see now. That idea for Patagonia seem is very interesting :) Sure, when you begin to write about Latin America and i will glad be to help. Regards! --Katholico (talk) 04:15, February 18, 2013 (UTC)