- 1 Re: Happy New Year!
- 2 Good new
- 3 FTBW
- 4 Articulo Venezuela
- 5 The map is completed ^_^
- 6 ¡Felicitationes!
- 7 Nasser of Arabia
- 8 TSPTF
- 9 Triunfa, España!
- 10 Bolivia FTBW
- 11 ENIE
- 12 Gran Colombia RA
- 13 Congratulations
- 14 Chile
- 15 South America (Napoleon's World)
- 16 Letter Ñ
- 17 Hello
- 18 ADH
- 19 Revivir Central World
- 20 Hetalia (Napoleon's World)
- 21 Brazil
- 22 Re: Colombia in RA
- 23 New List of Cardinals
- 24 Uruguay
- 25 FTBW International Organization
- 26 Return of the Kennedys
- 27 Chile / Santiago
- 28 Reversing Edits by Anons
- 29 Brazilian Civil War
- 30 Re: Allende
- 31 Re:States of Colombia (RA)
- 32 Re: Winter Olympics
- 33 Colombia
- 34 Guyana's in FTBW
- 35 RE: BETTER CATEGORIES
- 36 Presidents and US Civil War
- 37 Adopting
- 38 Ideology in Brazil (FTBW)
- 39 Bazil (Aztec Empire)
- 40 Patricia Janiot (Kennedy)
- 41 Brazil (Aztec Empire)
- 42 Sudamérica en TE
- 43 Chile No Socialista
- 44 Can I get your opinion?
- 45 Infoboxes
- 46 1983: Doomsday Question
- 47 Vicuña of the East
- 48 Perez/Restrepo
- 49 Fractured America
- 50 South America in FTBW
- 51 Re: Algorithm help
- 52 Re: South American Theatre
- 53 Fractured America
- 54 Re:Map FA
- 55 RE: Chile (Nationalist china)
- 56 Napoleon's World College Football Pick'em
- 57 IOC headquarters
- 58 Hola
- 59 Re:Maps
Re: Happy New Year!
Happy New Year! How have you been. I am so sorry, but my mind has been more focused on expanding and editing the New Union timeline, I haven't done much map making lately. But I haven't forgotten you or Fedelede. I promise to do mapping soon. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 03:44, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
(Alright, starting a new heading :p)
Anyway, yeah, the Tri-Powers works, though I think I'm going to replace War with something like Conflict, as their is no actual war between all three sides yet, and possibly not at all until one side collapses due to the pressure. I'm thinking the way it works is that two will always be at their throats, like say the US allies and the French Allies, while the Brazil Allies are persuaded and bribed by both sides to try to bring them into their camp over certain issues. An example will be when the ATL version of the Cuban Missile Crisis happens (not sure when it will be, but most likely in the 1960's). Tbguy1992 14:52, January 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Got ya in a scare, huh? Well, at the moment, the plan is that Venezuela will be divided apart... for about twenty years. Then Venezuelan freedom fighters will try to restore the nation, and it will become a version of the Vietnam War for Brazil and allies trying to prevent it from happening, but with some US and (mostly) French supplies, eventually the Venezuelan Freedom Forces will emerge triumphant. This will in Turn be followed by a Vietnam situation for the US (in Cuba, unless plans change) and in Scandinavia (which will be to the French Empire what Afghanistan was to the Soviet Union). The next thing I will also plan on doing is a version of OTL's Cuban Missile Crisis, only it will instead be simultaneously in Quebec (French Allied) and Ireland (US allied)... both plans were complete secrets but discovered about a week apart in the mid 1960's. How does that sound for Cold War Crisis's, huh? Tbguy1992 01:12, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
- No, Venezuela will not be two separate countries. The entire nation will vanish from the map until after they gain their freedom in the 1970's or so. As for the Korean War, I'm thinking it might actually be in (dramatic drum roll) the UK. Yes, the UK. This is the reason: after the war, the UK was divided into Scotland (with American Support) and England (with French support), so it is divided. Now, I'm guessing that Churchill (who did not have office during the National Socialist era) will be the one who leads England, and manages to convince France to let him try to take on Scotland. Despite early success, the US send's forces with approval of ATL UN, and manages to hold their ground. But the larger population of England does not make it necessary for France to send many forces while the US (and later Russia) will send sizable forces which halt the attack. It then plays out from there: Scotland refuses to join England, while England always wants to unite their former land. A border with mines and defenses is placed in Central England, while both sides warily acknowledge the other's existence. What do you think? Tbguy1992 06:53, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
- For India.... I have no idea yet. Most likely Gandhi will lead the revolt, though the area that is now Pakistan would have been annexed by the Persian Empire. Otherwise, I'm open to suggestions in India. Tbguy1992 14:48, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds good. I'm guessing the majority of the army will be from Japan, as they will be in China, while the French would be able to send some forces, but the US might be overstretched by this point to send anything. So It most likely will become a right-wing dictatorship like France and Japan, maybe with a new Mogul Emperor? and Gandhi becoming the first PM/Chancellor to said Emperor. Also, I;m thinking Gandhi should not be killed in ATL until the 1960's, at least. Tbguy1992 16:49, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
- Lets just Chile has the island of big stone heads. Will that be good enough for ya? :p Tbguy1992 23:34, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
I know that some maritime possessions have been left out in the making of the maps, as in the beginning not that many Islands had been claimed by the Colonizing powers. However, I'm starting to rectify this by redoing many of the maps, with a new base ground template that will help me to more accurately display the world. An example of this is my new map on the French Trafalgar, British Waterloo (1940-1978) page. Some details in this map aren't as much as the previous one, with no major lakes and many Pacific Islands no longer are their, but it contained a map of the US States and Canadian Provinces, which really helped in accurately drawing the US, the two CSA's, Assiniboia, Quebec and Alyeska. I think I can live with it, though I might come back to edit it to show where Islands would be.
As you will notice, thus will show the world in the aftermath of the Third Great War, and I will soon come up with a new map showing the three sides of the ATL Cold war. Tbguy1992 04:53, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
- Hola Katholico perdon me equivoque de pagina. VENEZUELA 02:39, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
- Hola Katholico, Tbuguy me dijo que te hablara sobre lo de Venezuela, ya que pienso que todo esto de Venezuela desapareciendo no sucederia, primero que nada aunque Venezuela se independiza en 1829 en la historia, y no se si hay Gran Colombia, los presidentes serian diferentes hasta Cipriano Castro pero antes de seguir, la Central American Republic fue como una gran colombia? porque Venezuela se hubiera separado con Jose Antonio Paez Venezuela se hubiera independizado y todo lo de Venezuela involucrada en estas guerras seria diferente, ademas Cipriano Castro hubiera echo la revolucion liberal restauradora en 1899 contra Ignacio Andrade, por lo que Juan Vicente Gomez le hubiera quitado el puesto a Castro cuando enfermo como en nuestro universo, esto hubiera echo que la generacion del 28 tambien saliera, y dominara el paise entre 1945 (con intermedio de dictadura entre 1948-1958) y 1999, y hubiera seguido la historia igual, por lo que Venezuela no estaria en ninguna de estas guerras, ademas si en la guerra de los 40s, en el caso de entrar se hubieran aliado a Brazil y Colombia, ya que no habia ningun presidente facista durante esa guerra en Venezuela, por eso es que Venezuela no seria separada, y por eso t escribo para arreglar esa parte de la historia, saludos. VENEZUELA 18:14, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
The map is completed ^_^
What do you think? It came out pretty good. If I got anything wrong or I misspelled anything, let me know and I will correct it. I don't want to add it to the main page, I thought you would love to do that. Hope you like it. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:45, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
- I am very happy that you like it. As for Bolivia and Peru, I didn't read anything about them uniting, or about Chile annexing the Falkland Islands. Are these new? I like the idea of a United Bolivia and Peru, but I think we should leave the Falkland Islands to Argentina. But than again, Argentina lost all that region. Anyway, let me know when they become canon, and I will upload a new map. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 02:38, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations to you and the rest of the gang at Historia Alternativa. You have all been awarded the 2011 Stirling Award for Best Non-English Wiki in recognition of your vibrant sister community. If you'd like, this award may be presented on the front page, talk page or anywhere else that you wish on the spanish wiki. Though keep in mind, it is for the community and I am messaging you as a representative of Historia Alternativa. Red VS Blue 21:19, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
Well, congratulations on the administratorship, Katholico. It's nice to know that you appreciate the award. You can consider it a gift from everyone in the English althistory wiki, a gift of recognition.
Regards to you too.
Red VS Blue 22:33, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
Nasser of Arabia
I am sorry. I wrote about it here, but I got deleted it primarily because I feel it was an ASB timeline. I just came across the word, it means "alien space bats." Pretty much it means to create a POD which is impossible. After years of trying to have it work out, I can't get it to. IMHO, the Arab world is too complex and diverse for a completely pan-Arab state. I couldn't figure out how to have the Arab monarchies agree to become republics, I couldn't figure out how to correctly divide the states, and as recent history shows, it might not have been successful for long. Recently, VENEZUELA made mention that Lebanon should not be part of this nation, as it was primarily made as an Arab Maronite state (not Islam). That, and recent events in Egypt, Tunisia, and other Arab states, it is too confusing for me to work out. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 19:37, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
Would you be interested in a position on the TSPTF, Kath? Lordganon 23:13, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
Heh. Just accept the nomination on the request for user rights page when its made, and give reasons why you think you can do the job - in your case, a fair amount of it is your are committed to the wiki and know a fair amount about how to run one. Lordganon 07:04, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
You have now been nominated. Please accept the nomination, and why you'd like the position, at the appropriate section of Request for user rights
Lordganon 08:45, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
Si, lo de las categorías es un error. --Fedelede 00:40, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
That is sort of what I was thinking: it was going to parallel Italy in that time of history: joined the allies in World War One, got little in return, and became Fascist and joined Germany in WW2. That was my main intention all along, and I'm glad to see you noticed it to!
BTW: congrats on your Nomination to the TSPTF! Tbguy1992 06:51, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for moving the page. I don't know how to get the accent mark over the 'N'. Chicagoan 20:21, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
Gran Colombia RA
Hello there. How have you been? I am not too sure how much you understand or are interested in Colombia and Gran Colombia, but you are the only active user I know who has expertise on South America. Since you just added a category to the page I created, can you tell me what you think about the idea? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 20:25, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I made a map of how I think the departments would look like. Along with the original three, the three republics of the Peru-Bolivia Confederation (North Peru, South Peru, and Bolivia) will join Colombia. Panama would become a department, and possible Acre would join, or it would be annexed by Brazil (I still need to study). Does this sound right? Do you have any suggestions? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 19:48, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'm pretty sure Argentina and Chile would be the same. Since Bolivia and Peru would join Colombia, Chile would not be able to expand north. Maybe the little territory that Paraguay has would be annexed by Argentina. I am now thinking that Brazil would get Acre, and maybe Uruguay would either remain part of Brazil, or they would reannex it later. As from Guyana, It would have the similar story as that of the Mosquito Coast. With Britain loosing both Canadas, they would take more action to keep their interests in the Caribbean. It's still a work in progress. If you are interested, would you like to help out? Thank you again. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:42, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Wow... parts of Argentina wanted to become part of Chile? Cool. I like the sound of that. I was going to mention it, but I wasn't sure if it could be possible, but I was thinking that Chile could seek going eastward rather than north (similar to the Central World timeline). As for Argentina, I am a bit confused. How would a stalemate be interesting? You mean a new nation? Can you explain a little more? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 21:54, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
No, you explained it quite well. I really don't like the idea of two Argentinas, and I think that Argentina would be a united nation in TTL. That sounds a lot like how northern Brazil attempted to secede as the "Confederation of the Equator." But as for Chile, I really like that idea. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 22:48, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds interesting. Going south faster, I wonder how that would turn out. I thought of a weird idea, with Argentina preoccupied with their civil war, maybe Chile could take advantage and gain all of Pategonia. Just a thought, I have a feeling you will like the idea. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 00:10, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations, you are now a Lieutenant in the TSPTF. This allows you to showcase the TSPTF membership badge on your user page. Furthermore it gives you administrator powers on this wiki. I would like to spend sometime discussing those powers:
- You should now notice a red button at the top of every article with the word "Delete". You can use this to delete articles, obviously. Use this power sparingly and always stay within the framework of the Deletion Policy. The policy itself was passed with little discussion, so if you have any suggestions or comments regarding it I would be glad to hear it.
- You can also block users from editing. This can be done by clicking on the History page for articles or the Contributions tab on editor's user pages. Again, use this sparingly. This is our most destructive tool. We don't have a policy on this, but there is a general custom that has been followed: always assume good faith with edits (unless obviously vandalism), warn before blocking (try using the three strikes approach) and start with short block durations for first time offendors. Generally other administrators will not interfere with your decisions regarding blocks, as long as it appears fair on its face. Permanent blocks, however, must be brought before the TSPTF as a whole and will only be confirmed if there is a 2/3 approval.
- You will also notice a button on the top of every article that says "Protect". With this you can prevent certain people from editing a single article. The first level prevents anons and new users from editing an article. The second level limits editing only to administrators. Use this to prevent excessive vanadalism or to prevent edit wars between users.
- In the History page of an article you will notice a new option called "rollback". This is an anti-vandalism tool. It allows you to quickly undo edits in case someone has made more than one edit to a page. By clicking rollback it will immediately revert the article to a time before the offending editor edited the page.
- There are other obscure powers that are not used often. If you have any questions on those or the ones I mentioned above, feel free to ask me.
Finally if you go to the TSPTF page, you will notice that we have a list of Responsibilities. In reality, none of us have the time to devote to all of the duties that are expected of an administrator of the wiki. You are expected, however, to sign up for at least three responsibilities listed in that section. These are duties that you are agreeing to carry out to the best of your ability every time you are on this wiki. I'm hoping that by doing this the members of the TSPTF can efficiently share the work load of the wiki and gives us time for the real reason we are here.
Again, congratulations on being elected to the TSPTF and good luck. Mitro 15:25, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
That is fine. I am positive someone from Chile can do a lot better job at the article than I can. Mitro 19:01, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
South America (Napoleon's World)
Hola amigo. Voy a empezar a escribir los articulos para el Sudamerica en mi TL, Napoleon's World. Hablo un poquito espanol pero no tengo mucho informacion de la historia, politica o cultura de Sudamerica y necesita ayuda. Tengo poquito informacion de la Republica de Gran Colombia, pero no se ya la informacion se correcto o "plausible" (no se le palabra en espanol). Puedes ayudarme?
KingSweden 19:39, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
Si, puedo hablar en espanol simplico, yo hablo un poquito de espanol a mi trabajo (todos de los otros trabajeros en la restaurante son mexicanos).
Si tu eres correcto, necesito ayuda. No se mucho de la historia de sudamerica, solomente comprendo la historia de Europa y Norte America. Que es la problema con los nombres de politicos Colombianos? Yo uso los nombres tipicos de mexicanos, pero ya puedes los nombres colombianos posiblamente eres diferentes (or spelled differently).
Para las partidos politicos, yo creo que la historia colombiano (y de todo el sudamerica) evolver diferente de en OTL, porque la relacion de los Estados Unidos y Francia es diferente, y Espana y Inglaterra es menos importante. Colombia, para exemplar, es un nacion muy grande (Gran Colombia) y un "world power" y la mejor pais en sudamerica. Por esta raizon, y porque la historia es diferente, los partidos nuevos existen en ATL. Eren usted familiar con mi TL, Napoleon's World? Y, mi otro pregunta - que es tus ideas para el reste de sudamerica? Esta un guerra en Brazil en 1978-1983 con los Estados Unidos y Colombia (similar a la guerra de Vietnam en OTL), pero no se mucho otro. Argentina existen, y Chile y Peru tiene la territoria de Boliva en OTL, pero no mucho otro.
KingSweden 00:22, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
Pues que Argentina es en un alliancia con los Estados Unidos, porque invadieron Brasil en la Guerra Brasiliana. Por esta razon, es posible que Chile es un amigo a La Emperia Francia, porque los francianos no le gustan los argentinos. (Switching to English - however, I don't know if Chile and Brasil would necessarily be allies, they might just both be enemies of the Argentineans). Yo tengo un idea tambien - Pinochet no esta el Presidente en los 1970s, y Allende es un dictador en Chile? Y, posiblamente Peru es neutralo. Colombia es, por supuesto, un amigo mucho bien para los Estados Unidos, y esta en NATO.
KingSweden 02:51, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
- Lee que Chile es comunisto en los 1980's en Napoleon's World en la misma articulo, ya es canon. Pero, no tengo un diferencia a esta enemigos con Argentina, porque es un enemigo tradicional, no?
- KingSweden 03:01, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
Katholico you had posted on my talk page earlier about how in spanish you have an accent mark over the 'n'. Well I have discovered how to add the accent mark. If you hit ctrl + v then you will get the ñ. Gracias por ayudarme! :-) Mi español no estan bueno y todavia estoy aprendiendo.
Chicagoan 01:46, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
Chile National Socialist Symbol
Yep, that looks good. The fist and star is the symbol of the National Socialist movement in the America's, though other symbols, like the German Swastika, the British "crown and scepter", are also going to be used. Do you think you might be able to try something like that for the CSA? It might have to be edited, but I don't have much time right now to do much. Thanks! Tbguy1992 02:16, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
Well, It really doesn't matter, in my opinion. My idea originally was the it was going to be the Battle flag (the second option) in the canton (like the Stars on the US Flag), with the fist and star beside it. But, you do what you want, it was just an idea. Tbguy1992 04:45, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'm starting to think that something else might have to be used than the hand/star combination. I'm just not sure what.... Tbguy1992 21:56, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
Hello there. I am new here, and I trying to get to know more Altists.
I am also fluent in Spanish
21:19, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
Es algo como Rise of Roses, te acuerdas?
Revivir Central World
Hola Katholico, esta viendo Central World, y me di cuenta que iba muy bien hasta que quedo abandonada. Queria preguntarte si te gustaria revivirla? conmigo y otros usurarios como Lordganon o Fedelede. Saludos VENEZUELA 23:06, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
Bien gracias, ya hable con Fedelede y tambien la va a revivir con nosotros, y la reviviremos despues de Semana Santa. Saludos VENEZUELA 23:22, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
Por cierto recientemente e estado pensando, no crees que una replica de las revoluciones arabes podrian pasar en Lationamerica, en especial en 2012. Veras Evo perdio 70% de popularidad y en Venezuela hay elecciones el proximo ano, ademas que la asamblea ya tiene varios diputados opositores, es ovio que chavez hizo trampa en esas elecciones porque es una minoria opositora y se sabe que ganamos con 52% de los votos. Ademas la situacion que t digo ya sucedio una vez en Venezuela en 2002, te recomiendo que busques en youtube La Cadena (Parte 1 de 5) para que veas el dia que tumbamos a Chavez por 47 horas. La gente salio a protestar masivamente, el gobierno empezo a dispararles, la policia empezo a dispararle al gobierno, Chavez puso una cadena porque los medios mostraban todo, los medios dividieron la pantalla en dos, Chavez es arrestado, tratan de obligarlo a renunciar, el dice que solo firman si lo dejan salir con su familia del pais, no lo aceptan, un empresario se declara presidente, las fuerzas pro-chavez salen a marchar la policia los ataca, los militares pro-chavez toman el palacio, Chavez vuelve al poder, empieza un paro petrolero por varios meses, falla y termina. VENEZUELA 23:29, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
Hetalia (Napoleon's World)
I saw you add to the Hetalia page. I want to ask you if ou want to contribute to it. You could add the personalities of the South American countries.
Yank 03:20, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
I did not like the List of Confederate States (Southern Victory)
I was the one how made the (Southern Victory)
Near as I can figure, the caretaker is indeed HAD.
Sure, go ahead and do that for the president. Change the 2006 date in the History article to 2005 to match the president article for the election date, and add the one elected in 2009, your candidate, in both places.
Lordganon 08:29, April 21, 2011 (UTC)
It is indeed canon. Lordganon 16:41, April 21, 2011 (UTC)
Go for it. Lordganon 17:15, April 21, 2011 (UTC)
Re: Colombia in RA
Hello, how have you been. I have been okay, to an extent.
New List of Cardinals
Not likely. Same year, at best, though probably not even that. The date is largely up to the individual Pope, and the year is more so as needed for us. We've also got contact dates, etc. that would need to be worked around here. Lordganon 17:38, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
As I said in the post on the main DD page, there are differences. Namely, that the presence of the Vatican in Rio means more Cardinals for South America. I'm well aware of each and every case, and they were intentional. Lordganon 20:45, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
FTBW International Organization
Yeah, I kinda realized that as well. For one thing, I was thinking of calling it the League of Nations, then using UN symbols to represent it. However, I've been thinking about trying to rename it as well, but it has been difficult to find one that sounds good, but not too cheeky (like World Council or something....)
Any ideas you may have would be good, cus I'm only now starting to get out of my self-imposed hiatus from the Wikia, working more on FTBW and such.
Tbguy1992 00:17, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
Return of the Kennedys
Thankyou for cleaning up my timeline, I have been busy. Alexanders 02:31, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
It is a Sociaology experiment, instead of a Regean Revolution, there is A New Deal II, which means a much more left wing America, this enables the rise of the Libertarian and the Green Parties Alexanders 03:05, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
I looked at your list of Presidents for Chile No Socialist, and I saw you made Regean President in the 90's he would not have become President however as was contrasting Alzhimers by the late 1980's
- Bob Dole
- Jack Kemp
- Dan Quale
- George H.W Bush
- John Mccain
Alexanders 14:30, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
Chile / Santiago
A war between Chile and Santiago? What did you have in mind? - Mister Sheen 23:26, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't thought much about it, do you have any ideas? - Mister Sheen 00:32, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
- If enough people in Chile had support for Santiago then it could happen; but otherwise I think Santiago's military might be too weak to go to war with Chile. - Mister Sheen 23:26, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, Chile has a much bigger population (and a much bigger military) than Santiago; so unless some Chilean people were on Santiago's side, I don't think a war could happen. - Mister Sheen 10:33, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
- I like both of those ideas, which one do you prefer? - Mister Sheen 10:31, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, what do you think the war should be called? - Mister Sheen 15:41, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really like naming wars after the countries (eg. "Chilean-Santiagan War") because the name gets too long, but I like the names "South Pacific War" and "Spring War". From Chile's point of view it might be called the "Uprising of 1973" (or 1974), and from Santiago's point of view it might be called the "Chilean War". - Mister Sheen 00:59, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
- I'll start the article if you want, but it was your idea. One thing I have to ask: is the war in 1973 or 1974? - Mister Sheen 12:28, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I've started the article :) Here it is: South Pacific War. - Mister Sheen 22:25, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, I will add to the article over the next few days. - Mister Sheen 15:58, August 4, 2011 (UTC)
I've added some troop numbers for Santiago, but I'm not sure about the casualties. The Santiagan flagship is called the ARS Almirante Ibarra, but I don't know about the other ship names. - Mister Sheen 16:54, September 23, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the ship names, and nice work with the photographs! The Santiagan navy will probably have 6-8 ships, but will not send them all to fight in Chile. The casualties might be too high for a 5-month war, but we can change that. - Mister Sheen 23:16, September 23, 2011 (UTC)
OK, the Santiagan Navy will have 6 ships in 1974, but will only send 3-4 to fight. The war lasts about 110 days, so a third of the current casualties sounds about right. What do you think of the new casualty numbers? - Mister Sheen 10:07, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
- I like those ideas. You seem to have a good plan for the naval warfare, do you want to write it up? - Mister Sheen 23:58, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
The biggest battles seem to be:
- Occupation of Chiloé (including Puerto Montt, Valdivia & Osorno)
- Battle of Santiago (rebels vs. Chilean military)
- Battle of the Chacao Channel (naval battle)
So should we start articles for these battles? - Mister Sheen 17:37, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Ok, nice :) Are these the right dates for the battles:
- Occupation of Chiloé — February-April
- Battle of Santiago — April
- Liberation of Chiloé — April-May
- Battle of the Chacao Channel — May
Mister Sheen 15:46, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
Personally I like the photograph of the MIR troops, but you can decide if you want. - Mister Sheen 22:38, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the military part of the Department of National Intelligence is like the CIA. - Mister Sheen 23:20, October 15, 2011 (UTC)
Reversing Edits by Anons
Glad to see someone besides me doing this, lol. As an fyi, mind, when you see it, feel free to ban them for a few days - make sure that they stop ;) Thought I'd drop the note lol Lordganon 05:53, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
xD Much obliged for doing that, Kath. But don't be afraid to block them for a few weeks next time too ^^ Lordganon 07:59, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your recent diligence on Abraham Lincoln (Two Americas). The anon was obviously trying to restore the 'honor' of the American president, conveniently forgetting that this is alternate history! He seemed to like the fact that Lincoln survived the attempt on his life, but took issue with how I had him react. SouthWriter 20:16, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. I've finished the article. :) - Eduardo Sellan Brazilian 22:51, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
Eres correcto. Que sabes que es mas realistico? 1952 o 1965 para la revolucion socialista? Y es la revolucion muy rapido o multipos anos?
Yo sabe que Allende posiblamente morir, y Ernesto Platera es el proximo dictador de Chile, pero no para mucho tiempe (uno o dos anos).
KingSweden 00:59, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
Ah oh well :/ Maybe you could suggest some people to succeed Platera? (Democratically)
KingSweden 02:10, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good and appropriate. Thanks!
KingSweden 03:14, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
Re:States of Colombia (RA)
Greetings. I have been okay, you? Interesting idea. I have been saying I may divide Bolivia into two, but I never got around to it. I like this idea very much. I am currently not working on the RA timeline, but I will keep this in mind when I get back to it. I need to upload a rough map to show the borders of Colombia and its states. Thank you for the input ^_^ --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 00:57, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
Re: Winter Olympics
Where in Chile would be a good place to host the Winter Olympic Games? (I figure Chile is more mountainous and probably has better skiing than Argentina). Also, would that work with the traditional Olympic schedule? (Since the Southern Cone is in the southern Hemisphere, wouldn't the winter be during the summer months?)
KingSweden 02:03, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
Alta Real (OTL La Paz) seemed to have a better climate and be located right up in the mountains, so I picked that as the location for the Winter Olympics.
KingSweden 03:36, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
Ideas are always good! I would probably sprinkle them in here and there throughout the list. I know I definetely don't have any Presidents outlined in the 1800's (pre-Iglesias), and I could probably throw real Colombians or Venezuelans in here and there throughout the TL.
KingSweden 03:32, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
KingSweden 00:30, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
Well is the Colombian Liberal party not left-wing in OTL?
KingSweden 22:00, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
Guyana's in FTBW
In FTBW, the Guyana's are divided in three and are held by Britain, Spain and France before the Second Global War, and after the Third Global War, the French and Spanish sections are merged by France to create an overseas colony in South America, while the British held Guyana's is annexed by Brazil (and would later join Venezuela after they gain their independence.)
Hope this make's sense! And thanks for pointing stuff like this out! Tbguy1992 22:50, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Man, you sure pick out the hard ones for me to figure out :P
- I think I will have to get an actual map of the Caribbean to help out with this one, as I have no idea what islands I actually put with whom. Once I get the time, I will make up a detailed map and give it to you so that should answer most questions
- Until then, keep a running tally of questions, and I will do my best to answer them! Tbguy1992 04:21, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, now that I'm thinking about it again, I was thinking I was going to use the collapse of the Brazilian Bloc to allow Peru-Bolivia to break with their puppet masters in Brazil and realign with the Juneau Pact, say a military coup in 1979 as the Brazilian Civil War is ongoing? This would not mean that the confederation would break up, as the military leaders realize that Peru and Bolivia are stronger united than divided. what do you think? Tbguy1992 02:32, August 23, 2011 (UTC)
RE: BETTER CATEGORIES
I appreciate your assistance.
Presidents and US Civil War
Hola, Katholico. My Spanish is weak, so forgive me if I don't try more than the greeting. :-)
Anyway, given the death of Zachary Taylor and the presumed loss of Texas and California, I would say that the next president would be Henry Clay. He had opposed the War and was an opponent to Polk's politics. He was greatly respected and took second place against Taylor in the 1948 convention. His politics, as the "Great Compromiser" kept the nation united a bit longer. Since his friend Henry Clay was the nominee of for president, Daniel Webster would not have turned down the vice presidency, so the ticket would have been Clay/Webster in 1848. Henry Clay died June 29, 1852, leaving Daniel Webster president in the midst of the presidential campaign. Since Webster was in Washington as Vice President, he probably would not have died from injuries from falling from his horse at his home in Massachusetts.
Since Henry Clay was old and sickly, it is doubtful that he would have been running for re-election, so in all likelihood Daniel Webster would have sought the nomination. The Whig convention was held just before Clay died (June 17-20), and Webster would have lost to Winfield Scott even as Filmore did. Therefore, the election of 1852 would have gone as it did in our time line. Webster would have retired in March of 1853, having served seven months as president. Those seven months, though, may have been enough to change the course of US history.
Already, though, we have Henry Clay in the place of Zachary Taylor. The "Compromise of 1850" would have had very little effect on the slavery debate, for none of the arguments for and against slavery in the new territories and states would have been made. Left with the 'unorganized territories of the plains west of Missouri, the discussion would have shifted to Kansas and areas northwest to the Oregon Territory. The Indian territory that became Oklahoma, would be open to slavery. Without Texas as a slave state and California as a free state, the balance would have been about the same. As president, Daniel Webster would have strongly upheld the Fugitive Slave Law even as he did as Secretary of State in our time line.
The Democratic convention of 1852 would have had a different outcome, with General Franklin Pierce not having the notoriety of having been a war hero against what in this time line was a victorious Mexican empire. Therefore, James Buchanan would become the candidate for the party. As a result, the Pennsylvanian would have become president, defeating Winfred Scott much as Pierce did in our time line. With a head start on seeking peace with the South, Buchanan would have come up against the campaign of the new Republican Party in 1856. The Republicans would not have John C. Fremont (explorer and hero in the "lost cause" against Mexico) and would have instead nominated Supreme Court Judge John McLean. Like Fremont in our time line McLean would have lost to Buchanan. Even with extra time, though, Buchanan would not have been able to keep the southern states from breaking away from the union.
Abraham Lincoln would have become president, but with such a large border with Mexico, and the support the south may have garnered from Mexico, the war may have gone far differently. With no California gold, the north would be hurt. If Mexico had been friendly with the south, and the gold had been discovered by Mexicans, that gold may have given the south an edge. Lincoln would have had to depend on support, not just neutrality, from Britain and France. With practically no war west of the Mississippi, the south could focus on defending it's borders and perhaps have won at least a cease fire. That would have depended, though, on the resolve of Lincoln to keep the nation united.
Long story made short: Henry Clay would serve three and a half years; Daniel Webster for six months; and James Buchanan for eight years. The Civil War would have been fought with Mexico perhaps an ally to the Confederacy. California and Texas would be lost to the North and the South respectively. No California gold for the North, so Lincoln would seek an alliance with Britain and France.
I hope this helps. SouthWriter 19:09, September 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Hola. I am glad I could help. To answer your two questions:
- (1) If Lincoln had not been elected, the Civil war may have been averted, at least for a time. Similarly, if he had been elected in 1856 (highly unlikely), the war may have begun then.
- (2) It is highly unlikely, really. But with the loss of California gold, that is what it would have taken to adequately meet the economic pressure of the war. The south was still inferior militarily, but without the financial means, Lincoln may not have been able to muster the army or kept those that he did have. Of course, if the Mexican government was pro-union, then the CSA probably did not stand a chance any way. That, though, is up to you.
- SouthWriter 22:57, September 17, 2011 (UTC)
I am glad to help, Katholico. As regards to your proposal for a Lincoln loss in 1860, I would say that the loss would most likely be at the convention, where William Seward was favored going in. Seward had been overconfident and heeded advice to avoid exposure in the early campaign. As a result, he went to Europe for several months while Lincoln campaigned "just in case" Seward lost the nomination on the first ballot. So, if he had campaigned instead, he could have gotten the nomination. Some northern states may have voted for Stephen Douglas rather than Seward, making a victory possible for Southern Democrat John Breckinridge. If John Bell had lost to Breckinridge in Virgina, perhaps because support for Seward would have been stronger than what Lincoln got, the result might have been a southern Democrat in the White House in 1860. This would have caused a stir in the north, but the war may have been averted. I'll think a bit on that one. --SouthWriter 21:43, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think Lincoln would give up if he had lost to Seward. In fact, it might work out that the two would have been on the 1864 ticket instead. As you state, the tensions would continue to rise. You will have to work on the Mexico connection with this one. What would Breckinridge have done if Mexico threatened the western expansion? Would the Lincoln/Seward ticket have used the tensions to their advantage? With such a split in the electorate - south against north - and the irregularities of the election (assuming some of the states would have not had the Republican on the ticket (thus skewing the results), I'd say that the election of 1864 would be about as contentious as the 1860 one was in our time line. The same animosities would exist, and things may turn out just about the same, only delayed.
- Long story made short. I'd say 1864, but perhaps 1868 if the 1864 elections are assured to be fairer based on complaints from the Republican Party after the close election of 1860. If this happens, then Lincoln would have to 'govern badly' in the eyes of the South (like occupying border states to prevent another war with Mexico), before the South would rebel against him in 1868. SouthWriter 05:26, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't get right back to you. Anyway, The South would make the same threat, given the problems with his continued attempts to end slavery in the west and even in the south. I figure, once he gets in office, he will make an effort to make slavery a burden instead of a necessity. Tax laws might be changed and so on. After massive voter irregularities -- including refusing to have Lincoln on the ballot in four states -- Lincoln wins anyway and the states begin to leave the union even as they did in OTL. You might consider, though, what might have become of Robert E. Lee and U.S. Grant in the eight years that the war was avoided. The war might go much different if one or both of these men are missing. Add eight years to their lives, imagine how the border war with Mexico in the mid 1860's might have affected them. It might be interesting - even leading to 'two Americas' like the one I am a part administrator of. Just some thoughts. SouthWriter 03:55, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
- If you do have two Americas after a short war, then a reunified America might come between the two World Wars, perhaps as a result of the increased threat to world peace seen in the expansion of Germany and Japan. They would be minor players in the first world war, allied to Mexico and Brazil, and see the wisdom in becoming a single nation to at least be somewhere near as respected in the world as their neighbors to the south.
- As for Lincoln's second term, I'd say he would keep Seward. He dropped Hamlin for Johnson in OTL because Johnson had stayed in Washington instead of resigning in 1860, and then had served as military governor of occupied Tennessee (his home state). Hamlin had been a radical, and Lincoln had seen a problem with having him in place after the war. So, Seward is in, Hamlin never is in place, and Johnson would not have the same place in this history. SouthWriter 16:53, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the unauthorized changes on my Lincoln article. I rolled it back to the way I wrote it. SouthWriter 20:16, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
- The Democratic Party had been a strong promoter of 'states rights' before the war, and the CSA despised the new Republican party of the North (in our time line) for obvious reasons. I tried to convince the creator of 'Two Americans' that there should be some other parties that would win sometimes. But he could not get away from our time line as far as the 'solid south' was concerned. There were other parties, we decided, but they weren't strong enough to get a president elected until the twentieth century. --SouthWriter 19:23, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
I really had not thought to much about vice presidents. But here are my thoughts on the points you posted to my talk page:
- According to the law at the time, the office of vice president was not filled in case of a vacancy. The Speaker of the House stood in line to be president if the president could not continue in office (dead or incapacitated!).
- The Vice Presidency of King had been a political move to put Buchanan's best friend in the second spot when he lost the nomination to Pierce. They knew that King was deathly ill but honored him for his long-time service. With Buchanan the nominee, some other politician would have been pushed. I am not sure who, though. King was overwhelmingly supported in the convention. Going down the list, though, David Atchinson of Missouri looks like the most likely candidate. If Atchison is Vice President in Buchanan's first term (1853-1857), he may have even been able to do politically what he couldn't do by force in 1854 (that is, get Kansas to be a slave state).
- Given the strong pro-slavery stance of Atchison (if you have him as VP), I am sure that choosing a more moderate candidate to replace him would have been prudent in 1856 (sort of like Lincoln switching to Johnson in OTL 1864). The choice of Breckenridge would set him in good stead to become president in 1864.
- Since Davis was injured in the siege of Monterrey was slight, but having been carried away from the front lines, he would have succeeded, leading to his subsequent return to politics via appointment as Senator from Mississippi. If Buchanan had chosen him as Secretary of War, he probably would have kept the position in Buchanan's second term, leading all the way up to the 1960 election. I think that Breckenridge would be a fool not to pick him in this case. SouthWriter 17:25, October 10, 2011 (UTC)
In our time line, Johnson was elected to the Senate in 1856 after losing a bid to be the nominee for the Democratic Party for president. When the war came, he remained loyal to the Union, believing that secession was unconstitutional. Lincoln made him military governor of Tennessee (Johnson had served as governor in the mid 1850's before becoming Senator. Instead of becoming military governor he would be re-elected to the Senate in 1862 and again in 1868 (right before the war began in early 1869!). He would find himself loyal to the Union as in OTL, and be an asset to Lincoln throughout the war (maybe even as military governor as in our time line). Unfortunately, though, just like with Robert E. Lee in 1870, Johnson would die of a stroke in 1875, half-way through Lincoln's third term.
In the alternate time line, though, Johnson would be an odd choice in the waning days of what obviously was becoming a lost cause. Johnson's home state would be part of the CSA. If he had served as it's military governor, he probably would be in danger of being tried for treason in the new country. Seeing the inevitable, he would be withdrawn for his own safety. Lincoln had chosen Johnson in our time line as a part of the "Union" party as a statement of his resolve to keep the union together. In this time line that probably will not be the issue. The Republican party, instead, would seek a solid ticket to manage the inevitable end to the war and a divided America. I am not sure how long you want the war to continue, but if it is about the same time frame, given the differences I'd say Lincoln would want to end the war quickly after becoming the first three-term president.
Simply put: Andrew Jackson will be a "foreigner" as soon as the peace treaty is signed. If he had been serving as military governor of Tennessee, he would have been removed for his own safety when it looked like the war would end in a draw. He would not be a good candidate for VP given this change in outcomes. SouthWriter 02:29, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
Robert E. Lee
Unfortunately, Lee died from complications of a stroke. Though there are things that can be done to prevent strokes, and the stroke may have been brought on by lifestyle changes after the war, it can usually be assumed that he would die 'on schedule' given the nature of his death. This would mean that his death would have come at the height of a late-starting war, and thus it could have been disastrous to the war effort in the south. This is assuming that he would have joined the war effort on the side of the south.
Lee had been the commander that put down the threat of a slave rebellion in 1859 at Harper's Ferry. Texas having never become a state, it would not have been assigned duty in Texas for it was not an American state. His father-in-law had died in 1857 and the will was honored with all the slaves being freed by 1862. After Texas in our time line Lee was promoted to Colonel in 1861. Without the secession of Texas, Lee may not have been in place for that promotion. In out time line President Lincoln had signed the orders for that promotion and subsequently offered his another (to Major General!) which he had not taken because Virginia seceded. The offer had been made because Lee had proven himself loyal to the union when Texas has seceded. Consequently, the rise to General would most likely have been postponed.
It's hard to tell if Virginia, given eight years, would have seceded from the union. If Lincoln's first term had gone better having started under better circumstances, then Virginia may not have been in favor of secession at all. If Virginia had remained neutral, Lincoln would have probably offered Lee the command and he would have taken it. The southern uprising would probably have failed if this were to be the case. And so, if you want Lee in the War, Virgina will have to secede!
- Simply put, Lee never served in Texas, but he had commanded the capture of John Brown in an attempted slave rebellion. He got rid of his slaves in 1862 - before the war that started in 1868. If Virginia seceded, Lee would fight for them, if not, he would fight for the union. Either way, he would die in the midst of the war. If he is the leader of the CSA army, then the CSA is in trouble and may lose the war. If he is with the USA, the south probably would lose the war - but there are other southern generals with promise from outside of Virginia, so anything is possible. SouthWriter 02:03, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
In 1860, Grant had been out of the army for years, having been discharged due to allegations of being drunk back in 1852 while serving on the west coast (our time line in California). He had been in Vancouver, though, so I think it is safe to say he might have stayed there. He was a lieutenant at the time, and had had to serve away from his family back in Missouri. Anyway, in 1860 he began working for his father at a leather shop. He became prominent again only when he was active in recruiting soldiers after the war started. In this alternate history Grant may well have continued in his depressed state, maybe even succumbing to the abuse of alcohol (assuming he had a problem). Eight years is a long time to put off the advancement of his military career. However, even with the passage of time, it is possible that he would have performed well in early border battles as he did in our time line, leading to his promotion to General in 1870, about the time that Lee would have collapsed unexpectedly of a stroke! These two things would have led to a quick end to the war before the end of Lincoln's second term. If we assume Virginia secedes, then Lee dies mid-way into the war, I can see war hero Grant becoming president to succeed Lincoln in 1872.
With things being different in Mexico, Grant's presidency would not have had that crisis. If the cease fire had meant that the CSA remained, then perhaps Grant would have remained in office only to 1876 and the US presidency would continue much the same as it did in our time line. Reconstruction would have to be replaced with efforts of border security. --SouthWriter 19:50, October 23, 2011 (UTC)
- Simply put, Grant might not have been discharged if he had not been in California, but stayed in Oregon, but I'd think he would still have left the army anyway because of his family. By 1860 he would have settled own in business with his father. With the coming of war in 1868, he would probably do the same thing he did in OTL and become a general about the time Lee dies. Whether Lee is CS or US general, Grant is promoted. The war is short (1869 to 1871) with Lincoln losing the resolve to keep the union together. Grant becomes president in 1872 only if the war has ended by then. Otherwise, he is needed in the war effort. SouthWriter 02:12, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
I don't see Abraham Lincoln making a comeback in 1880. He was not in the best of health, and if the south was lost under his watch, then I don't think he would want back in to the fray. Besides, he was not in good health so he may not have been willing to risk further damage to his reputation by attempting a come back. If the war had been still going on near the end of his second term (1872), he probably would have maneuvered himself into a position to stay in office and probably have served a third term. If the war went as long as in our time line, he would been left to face that term without the animosity of a John Wilkes Booth (since the south did not lose). Three terms would be enough and he could retire or perhaps even resign due to bad health. --SouthWriter 03:35, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
James G. Blaine
I agree, Blaine would make a good choice. Garfield would probably have been still in the House of Representatives where he had been serving since 1863 (before the war in this time line). In our time line he was assasinated in 1881 at the age of 49. It is doubtful if he would have angered the assassin as a congressman. That does lead to the question of whether president Grant would have been the target of the madman who killed Garfield in 1882 in our time line. Anyway, Blaine had been chosen by Garfield as Secretary of State after losing the nomination to him, remaining in that post until Chester Arthur (Garfield's succesor) left office. Without this boost Blaine would have been a senator. In OTL he had helped Benjamin Hayes get elected, finding himself Secretary of State again. In your ALT Harrison does not become president (yet, anyway). However, as a senator, Blaine would have had an edge over long time representative Garfield in 1884 in this time line. SouthWriter 15:03, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, you still have to ask. If no answer in a week, ask on the timeline. Three days after that, its yours. Lordganon 02:50, September 20, 2011 (UTC)
Ideology in Brazil (FTBW)
Well, before the Brazilian collapse after the Venezuelan War, Brazil and her allies really had no fixed ideology. They were almost solely dictatorships, but the majority were not Sorelist. However, after the end of the Venezuelan War, Brazil will become a Sorelist Dictatorship. I believe I had described the changes here, just didn't go into much detail.
Also, I would like to take this time to thank you a lot for helping me with FTBW, and all the work that you have put in. It means a lot to me, and I will be forever grateful. In return, I will gladly help you in any of your TL's if you need it! Tbguy1992 15:05, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad that I was able to convince you to continue with your timelines! I only know English, unfortunately, so I won't be able to contribute directly to the Spanish AltHistory Wikia, but I will gladly help you with any questions you may have regarding North American or European history. Tbguy1992 23:19, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the Franco-Prussian War might have not been the end of the Second French Empire. The Franco-Prussian War was almost defiantly going to be a Prussian victory, no matter what: despite French technological superiority and overconfidence, the Germans had newer tactics and ideas, as well as the deadly Krupp steel cannons. The French generals were almost all appointed for political reasons, not battle smarts or merit.
- In my opinion, with Napoleon III leading from the front, then surrendering, his army at the Battle of Sedan spelled the end of his rule. So, I think that by simply having him not take personal command of his armies, he would have been able to continue to hold his position as Emperor. Therefore, I would say for a way to make it happen, say that, though he wanted to go to the front, he was convinced by advisers to remain in Paris. Therefore, a French General would then have surrendered, and then Napoleon III could then ask Prussia for peace. The German armies wouldn't have to march on Paris and force the populace to withstand the Siege, and, even if Napoleon had to give up Alsace-Lorraine, he would still be in charge and able to finish the reforms he started in the later 1860's (he was moving toward a more open and free society: loosening censorship and opening the political system.) The failure of the French Army would allow him to clean it out, retire old generals and get newer generals in their place, allowing them to reclaim the "lost lands."
- Also, not to sound like a nitpicky person, I believe that having wars between two countries so soon (in your case, five years) is a bit too soon. I think 10-12 years minimum, or else a few months, at most two years later after the end of one war is best. (Examples for the first one would be the First Gulf War against Iraq in 1990, then the 2003 Invasion which is over 12 years later. For the later option, one would be Finland after the Winter War with the Soviet Union in 1939-1940 then their cooperation with Nazi Germany from 1941-1945.) Of course, their have been instances were it does happen. I just feel like it is used to often in Alternate History and that, and I think at least a generation should pass before another war (15-30 years). Its just my opinion, but I feel very strongly on that. Tbguy1992 06:20, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Taking into account your idea with Lincoln being elected in 1864 instead of four years sooner, then having to deal with Mexico then the Civil War, I would say Russia selling Alaska to the US is near nigh impossible. After two wars that could cripple the USA for years after (even if the South wins or not), buying Alaska would not be even considered. Also, Russia would not sell to Britain, as they were both very confrontational at the time (OTL, but I would I be wrong in assuming that still might be the case ATL?), almost going to war over Central Asia multiple times from the 1850's until 1907 when they signed the Entente and effectively became allies. Therefore, I would say that, barring any wars that could change control with Alaska that it would remain Russian, in my opinion, from what you are describing. If you want to make both Russia and Britain allies at the time (again, highly unlikely due to Russian desires to reach the Indian Ocean, and British desire to protect India), then this can be changed.
For Canada, it is almost imperative that sometime before 1900 that it is Confederated into a Dominion of the British Empire. The British had multiple reasons to encourage the Canadians to do so: high defense costs against American expansionism that could be shouldered by an independent Canada, attempts to build railways that nearly bankrupted the individual colonies and, once again going to American "Manifest Destiny", the need to present a strong, united front to the threats of the US. It would be easy for me to go into the history of Canada now, but any kick glance at a Wikipedia article (English or Spanish, I'm sure) should resolve the issue and help you plan out how exactly it would happen. Tbguy1992 23:49, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
- It is difficult to tell, but I would say not really. France would most likely divert a lot of attention to colonization to try to bolster her strength against a German Empire, under Napoleon III or not. If their is changes, I believe it will be just simply a difference in who gets what colony/area. France would have a strong foothold in North Africa, and Britain in Egypt and South Africa even before the POD of your timeline. The rest, frankly, is up for grabs by whoever could.
- It will be important, however, if you decide Otto von Bismark will be Chancellor of Germany until at least 1891 as in OTL: he was the one that pushed for the unification of Germany into a single state, and, after achieving that, wanted to keep France isolated and Russia on good terms with Germany. He is not a colonialist, and the German territories were mostly just to silence those that wanted them at home; Germany, therefore, got some of the colonies that the rest of the Great Powers did not want. So, depending on what you do with Bismark, it will effect the course of later 19th century diplomacy (not to say other people are also important, but he was the premiere statesman of his day, managing to keep "Deutschland uber Alles" with shrewd diplomacy and back deals). If no one else in Europe in this time, Bismark is a, if not the, most pivotal figure of the time. Just keep that in mind Tbguy1992 02:48, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for still reading my TL! Actually, it was correct: I meant to say that, the war having started in 1858, France and her allies had almost won the war before 1860. However, due to things I was going to be going into detail later, Britain and Prussia were able to ultimately gain the upper hand and win the war in 1862. Tbguy1992 14:15, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Well, I would have to say that does sound very unrealistic. Spain, since they held the various Latin American countries until the bitter end would not exactly be welcomed by them, even thirty-forty years later. Also, the US was very good friends with Chile and Brazil OTL, mostly due to their strength and protection. Plus, Spain most likely couldn't be bought over, no matter how hard they would try: they were already on their way to "has been" power, and couldn't afford to get into a war at the time due to political crisis at home.
Mexico might have been able to win the war by themselves... had they had different generals, a stable government to pay the soldiers and what not. Frankly, I believe the Mexican-American War was a forgone conclusion: American ingenuity and better leadership carried the day. However, Mexico could have won had they decided to let disease and exhaustion cripple the much smaller American armies instead of fighting them every chance they had (almost all of them to their dismay.)
I'm not an expert on the Mexican-American War, so maybe somebody like SouthWriter might be better to ask, I don't know. That is just my opinion on it. Tbguy1992 04:38, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
- No, Argentina was mostly a Secondary power, though could almost be considered a "Great Power by courtesy" before the Second Global War, much like Italy was after its unification OTL. After the Second Global War though, not even that would apply. Argentina would be a secondary power, though a highly influential one, especially as the home to National Socialism that would be adopted by Germany, Britain, China, the CSA and other nations. Lieut. Tbguy1992: Profile; Talk 04:39, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
Bazil (Aztec Empire)
Claro haz lo que sea necesario para que quede bien la pagina pero que quede ad oc a la TL..... gracias :) --Ed9306 00:03, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
Patricia Janiot (Kennedy)
Thanks for catching that. What do you think about my choice? Unfortunately I had to 'kill off' her husband, but that was easy since there was the conflict over Panama in the ALT. I had figured JFK for the lady's man, but also wanted him with someone about his own age. I wanted him in the US Virgin Islands and looked up the Miss World contestants for Miss World 1984 (contest in 1983, finals in December in London). In the ALT the finals didn't happen, of course. I first looked for anything about Miss US Virgin Islands, but only found her name. But there was a link to Patricia janiot, and she turned out to be an excellent choice! SouthWriter 03:58, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
Re: Pan-Eurasian or European
The original idea is that it would have been the Pan-Eurasian, meaning both Europe and Asia, which would encompass both France and Japan. However, later I decided that maybe just a simple Europe based alliance is easier, with the other "allies" being associated with the EDA. However, I might just be changing the name altogether, I don't know yet. Tbguy1992 03:12, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
hey hasta ahora muy bien con Brazil (Aztec Empire) pro el mapa no es el mismo de america en esta TL ..... guiate por el que ya esta por fa :) y pues la idea original era que los incas ayudaran con armas y asi para lograr la independencia, ademas de ser los primeros en reconocer su independencia; esto por que los incas querian un aliado grande (despues de haber perdido a los aztecas como amigos), y asi formando un semi-bloque Inca-Brazil y Aztecas-EUA. Cualquier cosa ahí me avisas. GRAX POR AYUDARME A TERMINAR ESTE ARTICULO =D --Ed9306 20:29, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
Sudamérica en TE
Sí, eso tiene bastante sentido. Mi idea principal era que los federalistas predominan en la Gran Colombia y en Perú, pero luego durante la segunda mitad del siglo XIX en una de las muchas guerras civiles el Valle del Cauca declara su independencia (creo que Joaquín Mosquera hasta hizo eso en la Guerra de los Mil Días en Colombia) y luego otras regiones (la Antioquia esclavista que cree que sostiene al país; lo mismo con Cartagena) la siguen, finalmente desmantelando a Colombia y a Perú. Brasil simplemente se independiza de una forma violenta y termina balcanizada. Los movimientos independentistas de México son exitosos. Ya que lo pensé, decidí que las minorías italianas y germanas, que son mucho mayores que en NLT porque Italia es protestante (los católicos escapan de las regiones mas protestantes de Italia, y llegan a las Américas) y Alemania es católica (lo mismo, a la inversa) simplemente van a mezclarse con los hispanos y portugueses para formar culturas diferentes a las de NLT. Sobre Patagonia, tal vez traiga al Reino de la Araucanía y Patagonia e impido que Chile y Argentina se expandan hacia él.
Finalmente, discúlpame por no poder traducirte los artículos; después de algo de experiencia en otras páginas, me di cuenta de que soy terrible para traducir, jeje. Fed (talk) 02:25, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Estás hablando de Presidente Portales, cierto? Si si es eso, entonces no estaría seguro, porque Santa Anna está muy bien dependiendo de cual fue su función en la guerra contra Estados Unidos y Texas durante su mandato, y como acabó la guerra (viendo tu mapa, me imagino que le fue bastante bien a México, xD). Si le fue bien, Santa Anna podría haber continuado su gobierno bastante bien a través del pueblo mexicano hasta que los mexicanos u los extranjeros se daran cuenta de que Santa Anna era mas o menos un dictador, y lo echaran. :P. Si le fue mal, probablemente a mitad de la guerra y establecieran una república parlamentaria o algo parecido al gobierno moderno. Colombia, al mismo tiempo, hubiera podido caer bajo el gobierno de Mosquera (no es Joaquín, es Tomas Cipriano :P) en un gobierno federal y liberal o una coalición similar al Frente Nacional (presidente liberal, presidente conservador se alternan de a turno) y detener la guerra civil; Panamá hubiera dejado de ser pro-independentista tal vez, y, al caer bajo influencia chilena o mexicana, hubiera podido mantenerse en cierta estabilidad. No estoy muy bien sobre Latinoamérica después de las independencias, jeje, y se poco incluso de Colombia, pero esto es hasta cierto punto lo que veo mas probable. Fed (talk) 03:45, October 9, 2011 (UTC)
Me gusta la idea. Santa Anna al corto plazo, y al ganar la guerra, tendría suficiente prestigio y poder para mantenerse.
No veo esa parte muy plausible que digamos... No creo que México hubiera aceptado seceder tanto territorio: y menos aún que no lo hubiera reclamado después del descubrimiento de oro en Sonoma. Tal vez unas bases militares en California del Sur (tal vez las areas de Los Ángeles y San Francisco por su posición estratégica?) tendrían mas sentido. Fed (talk) 19:45, October 9, 2011 (UTC)
Ya te expliqué? No veo mi respuesta aquí, jeje... Perdón por la demora. :P Básicamente, Mosquera, ex conservador y ahora liberal, inició una revuelta contra el estado conservador que dominaba Colombia en la época a través de los estados de Valle del Cauca, Tolima y Santander, que logró tomar el control sobre el gobierno colombiano en Bogotá y establecer los Estados Unidos de Colombia (creo que se llamaba así). En TE, Mosquera trata de crear su propio estado independiente liberal, sabiendo que en Colombia no duraría mucho (Rafael Núñez, escritor de nuestra previa constitución colombiana, era un conservador acérrimo y deshizo los Estados Unidos) gracias a los muchos estados de mayoría conservadoras.
El Canal de Panamá no tiene mucho que ver con esto. Básicamente, desde mucho que se había planeado un canal; los españoles y escoceses vieron en eso una gran oportunidad para cortar el largo y peligroso camino hasta India a través de los cabos de Magallanes y Buena Esperanza.
Tras la Guerra México-Americana y el descubrimiento de oro en California, los estadounidenses trataron de encontrar una forma para hacer la vía a California desde la Costa Este más fácil: Theodore Roosevelt finalmente vio su ocasión en la Guerra de los Mil Días, una guerra civil que devastó a Colombia. Apoyó movimientos de independencia panameña en el noroeste de Colombia y finalmente, tras la independencia de Panamá, inició construcción del canal.
Hasta ahí es donde entiendo; no se mucho más sobre el tema. Y perdón por los errores ortográficos; estoy bastante cansado, jeje. (No debería estar en la wiki tan tarde en la noche... :P) Fed (talk) 04:21, October 15, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, claro. Simplemente quería decir que Mosquera hubiera llegado al poder, y creado un sistema en el cual se alternara el gobierno con los conservadores para contentarlos. Esto le traería estabilidad para el gobierno, y, tras pedir ayuda de Chile o México, pacificar a los rebeldes panameños, por ende manteniendo cierto control sobre el Canal eventualmente.
Si, claro que te ayudo cuando necesités historia de la región.
Te tengo una pregunta sobre Presidente Portales: por qué la Confederación Argentina tiene las fronteras tan estiradas en territorio rioplatense en el mapa? Es una pregunta muy básica, pero aun así he tenido la duda por un tiempo... :P Fed (talk) 06:58, October 15, 2011 (UTC)
Hablando de Latinoamérica, que te parece mi idea de las Provincias Unidas de América Hispánica, y si tenías ideas al respecto (perdón si esto te parece spam...) Básicamente, es una idea que tengo para poner en ambas wiki en la cual un príncipe escapa a Hispanoamérica durante las invasiones napoleónicas como lo que pasó en Brasil. Luego, declara la independencia de las colonias hispánicas como un solo país (el Imperio de América? el Imperio Colombiano? Suena muy grandilocuente, no? xD) a la Brasil. Saqué la idea (hasta cierto punto) de 1822: Brazil Split. Que te parece? Fed (talk) 23:52, October 30, 2011 (UTC) Sí, lo entendí, gracias xD. Fed (talk) 00:14, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
Casi se me olvida, jeje... sí, las Indias Occidentales suena mas "real", no? Creo que haré que el título del emperador sea "Emperador de América", pero el país sea las Indias Occidentales. Que te parece? Fed (talk) 00:21, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
Ah, y otra cosa (perdón por saturar tu página...); quería preguntarte si el tema que estaba planeando es tan recurrente en la wiki alternativa como he visto... La mía es la única en la cual toda hispánoamerica fue separada pacíficamente, pero hay varias en las cuales hay una confederación en la región hasta cierto punto... --Fed (talk) 01:07, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
Ah, listo, gracias. :D Sobre las Indias: si, averigué eso hace unos pocos días, jeje, pero el problema es que Hispanoamérica no tiene el toque "real" que Indias Occidentales tiene... :P Aunque, si creo que por un tiempo se le designó "Indias Occidentales" a todo el continente, aunque no estoy seguro... :| De todas formas, gracias. Saludos. Fed (talk) 02:37, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
Chile No Socialista
First of all: congrats on 4000 edits!
Anyway, back to your question: if you want to have Ted Kennedy elected in 1980, be prepared to possibly move him out of the White House in 1984, or have no possibility of a Democrat after him in 1988. I say this because, even if Kennedy does manage to win, the rise of the Neo-Liberalism movement (Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher, Canadian PM Brian Mulroney), and the backlash against the Rooseveltean "New Deal" and Civil Rights Democrats, will only be delayed, but not averted. The need to stand up to the Soviet Union, and put a stop to the so-called "socialist" agenda of the Democrats of the 1970's and 1980's will eventually lead the Republicans to victory by the end of the decade. Though not much may be done to wind back these changes, and a Democrat resurgence will take place after, you have to keep in mind that the conservative ideology of the 1980's is just to strong to ignore, but they will in turn be turned out for Clinton era Liberalism (like Tony Blair in the UK and Jean Chretien in Canada after Thatcher and Mulroney, respectively).
The thing to remember for American politics (and Canadian, as well as even British to an extension) is that the right wing party will eventually take over for the left wing party, but they will in turn be turned out for a new, re-branded right wing, and so on and so forth. Like in recent years: George W. Bush Neo-Conservative movement replaced Clinton's "Third Way", which in turn was replaced by Obama and his "Change We Can Believe In," and has been under siege by the uber-right wing Tea Party Movement. As you can see, American politics is a back and forth game, only with each side re-branding itself and attacking the other side to get into the White House and Congress by any means necessary. Lieut. Tbguy1992: Profile; Talk 04:42, October 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, British Politics is a fickle thing, to be honest. The parliamentary system they have makes it really easy for governments to change in just a couple months, even days (the Queen can just up and ask the Loyal Opposition to form the new government if they have the confidence of the House of Commons, and their is no set election dates). However, I think that Margret Thatcher would most likely not stay in power as long as she did: without a successful war to "defend the crumbs of the Empire", the economic situation in England would eclipse her and throw her out of power by about 1987 anyway, maybe allowing the Labor Party and Tony Blair to come to power sooner. Lieut. Tbguy1992: Profile; Talk 15:19, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
Can I get your opinion?
How have you been? I have been doing a lot of work for my Colombia in the Russian America timeline. I know you have taken an interest in the idea, and even suggested dividing Bolivia. Well, I believe I am getting close to what I want for this Gran Colombia. You can see what I have done here. I have made a few more states, made New Granada and Venezuela smaller, and even thought of a flag based on historic records.
- Thank you so much. Glad that you like the idea. Do you think there should be any more states? As for the definition of "confederation", my answer is... si y no (did I say it right?). Traditionally, a confederation describes an entity in which the subdivisions have much more sovereignties than the federal government. But in this case, it's just a name. I decided to call the nation Confederacion Colombiana out of the regions history, as well as describing this Colombia. The primary nations I used as references were the Granadine Confederation (New Granada as a confederation) and the Peru-Bolivian Confederation. For this timeline, Colombia would be a federation. The use of the word "confederation" would be used to give a sense of regional sovereignty to the states. But as communication and technology would progress, Colombia would act more and more like a single nation. Like Switzerland (which is officially called the Swiss Confederation) or Canada (which united as the Canadian Confederation). I hope that answers your question. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 02:12, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Really? Which timelines? Either way, I am honored, glad I could inspire you. Now I am tempted to go do some writing on the Russian site. As for the timeline, I have another idea that I would love to get your opinion on. With the Chilean-Confederation War not happening (or the war would go in favor of the Confederation of Peru-Bolivia), the north being no place for expansion, and with Colombia and Brazil becoming the dominant nations on the continent, could there be any possibility of an Argentine-Chilean unification? From what I have already been thinking for the timeline, the Argentine civil war would end up moving in favor of the Argentine Confederation, allowing Chile the opportunity to gain all of Patagonia. With a smaller Argentina to begin with, and several of Argentina's provinces (Cuyo), why not have either Chile annex the rest of Argentina, or (even better idea), have the two nations unite under a new, federal government. I don't have much more detail than this, and this is probably a stupid idea. Since you're the Chilean expert, I would love to get your opinion on this idea. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:36, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
Of course! Feel free. Thank you for noticing. :)
KingSweden 06:30, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
1983: Doomsday Question
Hi Kath, I have a question for you: what do you think the possibility of the South American Confederation in 1983:DD possibly mounting an expedition to look for the RMS Titanic in the near future would be? I sorta went through a discussion with Lordganon about this on the Talk page, and he said to talk to you about it, to see if the SAC would have any interest in it.
I don't want to have to go through the entire discussion again, so I'll just link you what I had so far there.
- Well, personally, the way I would work it is run like a random number generator, with like a 1 in 100 chance, and if it its 1, it means they actually succeed. For each day the "mission" continues, the number drops to like 1 in 99, 1 in 98, etc., to show that the mission, the longer it caries on, has a better chance of succeeding. The thing about looking for something like the Titanic which, frankly is like looking for a needle in a haystack, is slightly different than that: the different expeditions had a set area they would "mow the lawn" with, going back and forth until they see something. And, if they look for a debris field (objects that spilled from a ship as it sinks) that is many, many times the size of the ship, they have a good chance of eventually narrowing the search area to find it. These expeditions usually last about a month (maybe more if the first ship is replaced by a second later),
- I would like to give this expedition in 2012 a chance to succeed, because dumb luck also plays a role in searches like this. It might be highly improbable, but I would still give it a minor chance of succeeding. The mission would most likely not be started until next late spring (April/May) anyway, due to the fact that winter is really bad time to travel on the North Atlantic, much less find a ship wreck. Lieut. Tbguy1992: Profile; Talk 07:12, October 26, 2011 (UTC)
- (PS, I did I trial with the random number generator: it would have taken 72 days of continuous searching, using the rules from up above, to find the ship. When I do it for real, It will most likely be different.)
Vicuña of the East
Hola! (Y no me olvidé, voy a completar tu traducción este fin de semana) Yo miré tus cambios en mis articulos. Estoy muy agradecido por tener otro colaborador. Pero quería saber ¿qué sea tu razón fundamental para añadir links a la Francia, al Japón, al Perú, a la Anglaterra, al Reino de Dinamarca y Noruega, y a Prusia? ¿También, tienes ideas en particular para el resultado de la guerra, especialmente en Europa? Actualmente estoy enfocandome en el futuro del Este de Asia, y a ese aspecto no le he dado mucho atención. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 03:09, October 26, 2011 (UTC)
Ah, sí veo. Pero sepa que la línea de tiempo solamente se consiste de los huesos. Eventualmente pienso en crecerla y no habría dead-end pages. Creo que todavía no hay suficiente información en la línea para concluir bastante, solo creí que tuviste ideas jeje. Sin embargo, muchas gracias para la ayuda! Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:36, October 26, 2011 (UTC)
Desculpe si te he causado problemas, a lo sucesivo te hablo en tu página. Sobre la unión Franco-española, piensas que hubiera sido temporal o permanente? Y para mí es dificil determinar como afectaría las guerras Napoleónicas y la Revolución Francés. En ATL alguien equivalente a Napoleón no hubiera nacido, y para añadirle varidad a este línea de tiempo, piensas que es igualmente posible que dado el éxito económico de la unión Franco-española, un movemiento similar hubiera aparecido en la Alemania en el siglo XVIII? Gracias por tu ayuda. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:34, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
Oh that's alright, I just now spotted it. I'll just move Perez into that spot like I had before since he was a conservative (Christian Democrat) and Restrepo seems more like he would have been in teh Social Party anyways. No worries!
KingSweden 06:06, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
I started the game and I added a new rule.
DeanSims 21:18, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
South America in FTBW
Well, for the time period you are talking about, I would say no. Due to the repressive movements of France in the late 1970's, I would say that a Sorelist leaning government in a free, democratic election will not win. Maybe after Brazil becomes Sorelist, but not before.
- I can't remember for certain, but hadn't we decided that Chile was an American ally? Or did we say that they became allies after the fall of the Brazilian Bloc? I can't quite remember. But, if they were always allies, then the Americans will do everything in their power to make sure that a Sorelist Government does not come to power, sort of how the US treated Communist expansion during the Cold War: if one nation became communist, then a domino effect would mean that then another country, then another, then another would also become red, which would mean that the US would loose valuable allies and more and more Communist nations would strengthen the USSR. Lieut. Tbguy1992: Profile; Talk 14:00, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
Re: Algorithm help
ok, first off, ignore the headings, what you need to do is jot down any points that you are gaining or loosing for each reason on different lines. the headings were purely to orgonize the algorithm into sections so people roughly know what are the factors. Ajudiciations can only be used by Mods, butnyou can put down ones that are already there, like home island nation, no trade, etc... If that's not clear then I guess I'll make you some sort of template but I think you can figure it out. It's a bit confusing when you write strength like : 9 + 8 + 3-3 or something becasue nobody knows what they are for, so write down the participation in the war by nation like: Russia/China/Hindustan: 9. THis is so that people can change things as wars and momentums in wars do change. Is that clear enough?
For change the formula is basicaly this: edits/time*pi. we take the hundredths digit. so, if you declare war(or post the algoritm) at 10:59 UTC then you time variable would be 1*5*9=45. 0s count as one. the edits are said user's editcount at the time of war(everything after that doesnt count) on all wikia's articles. so, if you editcount is 5555 and you say did 53 edits after you declared war then you editount for the formula would be 5502. so, then, the formula would be 5502(edits)/45(time)*pi = 384.1120. Since we take the hundredths digit from the formula, thus, your chanec is the underlined bold 1: 384.1120. is that too complicated or do you get it now? for any further questions on it, I'll just say its based on the principia moderni chance, just without the percentage, so Detectivekenny would be pretty knowledgable about this. You can look how principia moderni did chance, its basicaly the same thing, except we dont percent. so far, actaly, decent job with the war, except I'm pretty sure the defender usualy gets life or death but sometimes not...and sometimes both are "defending sovreignty". so, ya pretty good job overall! -Lx (leave me a message) 16:30, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
Re: South American Theatre
Thank you Katholico, your fanfare is much appreciated, its great to have an international perspective on this website. I will soon continue the building of the Byzantine Glory timeline, and the ideas that I will soon see further I hope will recieve equal recognition by my fellow althistory nerds. Ownerzmcown 04:53, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
No, ya no pienso jugarlo, me perdí mucho al principio y croe que ahora lo haría más. ¿Por qué, necesitás ayuda o algo? --Galaguerra1 23:16, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
Perdón, pero no; Tal vez yo sea causa de la implausibilidad a veces pero ese juego se volvió un "ESTADOS UNIDOS DOMINA TODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!", jeje. También, me recordaste de Chile No Socialista.... Me parece una idea bastante interesante (ahora mismo no he leído lo suficiente para darte algo mas influencial [xD]). Fed (talk) 01:58, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
Sure thing! I know where Brazil had expanded to, but I couldn't find where Chile expanded in. Would you mind just writing down any OTL territories you've annexed/conquered? Thanks. ChrisL123 04:09, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixing. Wouldn't notice myself that I wrote Amercia instead of America ;D Doctor261 15:41, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
RE: Chile (Nationalist china)
Yeah, I didn't know what to put for under the Chile section of my timeline. Do you have any ideas?Enclavehunter 04:51, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
I knew it had to be 2010, but I didn't trust myself, LOL. Cuba became democractic after an series of long and violent events.Enclavehunter 05:38, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah.Enclavehunter 06:11, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
I'm no expert in politics or South America, but I agree with you. Enclavehunter 06:47, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. It's an mistake.Enclavehunter 05:15, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
Napoleon's World College Football Pick'em
It's that time of year again! Time for the annual Napoleon's World college footbal bowl picks. For each game, pick which team you want to win and the results will be used to determine the winner of each bowl in January!
National Championship (Rose Bowl): 2 Cuba Spaniards (13-0) vs. 1 Pacifica Orcas (13-0)
Texas Bowl: (6) Alabama Crimson Tide (11-1) vs. (5) Iowa Hawkeyes (12-1)
Orange Bowl: (17) Peninsula Raptors (10-2) vs. (7) Florida State Seminoles (11-1)
Silver Bowl: (11) Washington Huskies (10-2) vs. (4) Sequoyah Braves (12-1)
Sugar Bowl: (14) Eastern New York Flying Dutchmen (10-2) vs. (3) Mississippi Falcons (12-1)
Peach Bowl: (16) Virginia Cavaliers (10-3) vs. (10) LSU Tigers (11-2)
Chicago Bowl: (12) Louisiana Pelicans (10-2) vs. (13) Michigan State Spartans (11-2)
Manhattan Bowl: (20) Notre Dame Fighting Irish (9-3) vs. (8) Massachusetts Minutemen (10-2)
Paradise Bowl: (9) San Diego Tritons (12-1) vs. (18) Northern Colorado Billy Goats (11-1)
Citrus Bowl: (15) Montana State (11-2) vs. (16) Nova Scotia (10-2)
KingSweden 22:21, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
Very soon :) Do you have a preference as to a permanent site? BrianD 03:05, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
Hola, y perdón por no responderte antes (no había visto tu mensaje, jeje). Sobre Doomsday, gracias, pero no creo que lo vaya a empezar hasta dentro de un tiempo (voy a tratar de hacer algún tipo de convención de la SAC en mayo de 2012 o algo, no lo he definido todavía xD). También voy a hacer una versión de Imperator Totius Hispaniae en la wikia española y voy a empezar a trabajar en mi idea del imperio latinoamericano si te interesa. Saludos! Fed (talk) 18:52, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Katholico, I'm great how are you?
ChrisL123 20:25, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll try my hardest. I'll ask you the country names when I've gotten far enough with the map. ChrisL123 21:31, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Just a quick question. Are the Central American nations united like this, are they joined with Mexico, or are they all independent? Also, are the Mexican, American and Canadian border the same as they are today (in OTL)?
- P.S., thanks for nominating my map for the Stirling Awards, that made my day. ^^ ChrisL123 18:50, January 3, 2012 (UTC)