Hey Sikulu, will you go through and categorize your Washington Shot pages? I don't know what name you want to use (if not the full name of the alt-hist) but, would you? Thanks! Louisiannan/BoArthur
- 1 Netherlands War
- 2 Thanks
- 3 They are protected
- 4 Washington Shot at Murdering Town!
- 5 New Info and Pages
- 6 Categories
- 7 WSMT: Spanish Colonial Empire
- 8 120 Million BP
- 9 Sysop
- 10 Editing code
- 11 I have a plan
- 12 Messages
- 13 My Alternate History
- 14 About my "Our America"
- 15 VANDALISM
- 16 Many ATLs
- 17 Template VCH
- 18 questions
- 19 Washington shot - revived?
- 20 1812 Closure
- 21 Codename: Mnemosyne
- 22 trouble with User Roberto Boberto
- 23 1812 Closure
- 24 Deletions
- 25 Proposal
- 26 Thus spoke the Tsar
- 27 With All My Heart
First of all I think the term should be Dutch War... second what were you ideas about this? I as a Dutchman can maybe help you to get it someway believable.--H2O-s 15:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- The war is actually refering to the Austrian Netherlands, and the alliance of the Batavian Republic and France to capture and divide it between themselves. --Sikulu 15:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- How does the Batavian Republic came in to being with France as it's ally? when there hasn't been a French Revolution and with after that no Napoleonic wars the Dutch wouldn't have become a French-like Batavian Republic... mostlikely would have been as you stated a 'Patriot' (Dutch term for anti-Orangists) would become stadtholder and the Holy Roman Empire could years later try to get Orange-Nassau (as Prince of Nassau member of the HRE) back in the Netherlands... Then there could be diffrent situation thinkable...--H2O-s 15:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the not-quite-correct link on my page. :) Louisiannan
- You're welcome. --Sikulu 14:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
They are protected
- This one's using a Celtic language instead. --Sikulu 09:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Washington Shot at Murdering Town!
you left a message on my talk page about Washington shot at murdering town!, Id like to help out with stuff about the Balkans or Arabia. Balkans I like better. Also, the Chinese colonies should belong to Europeans, and besides, can you put Burma, Malaysia into Britain, the rest of Indonesia to the Dutch, Southern New Guinea to Britain, the Northern part to Germany, and most Pacific islands to Europeans too? Also, Louisiania should belong to France, not Spain.
--Ggw 15:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Response to your message
Could I work aorund with Illyria, and could you try to add other nations in the Balkans (ex: Montenegro, Bosnia, Albania?)
Response to your message
OK, Thanks for your message... firstly, could I take care of your Illyria nation page and could you create a page for Ionian Islands Protectorate?
I suggest you change the map of the world in Washington Shot at Murdering Town!with new borders of the world.
New Info and Pages
I added tons to the Illyria page, changed its flag, and created a page for the Ionian Islands... check them out, thanks!
Llywelyn, might I suggest that for the states in WSMT you do a [[Category:StateXYZ]]? This will let us see the US states in comparison across the timelines. Louisiannan
- Sounds like a good idea Dan. --Sikulu 13:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
WSMT: Spanish Colonial Empire
Can you give me a snapshot of what you had in mind for it? I'm trying to set up the history of Louisiana, and I'd rather know what you had in mind, than creating and having it ripped up later because I was wrong. :) Louisiannan 16:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
120 Million BP
I have removed this from Alt Hist. Requires a lot more work. Thx Donegal 19:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
For how much you partiicpate here, I figured you should be a Sysop. :) Louisiannan 19:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. --Sikulu 09:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
How come a lot of the code on pages cannot be edited? For example, adding to category: history: country (or something similar) adds to the top. How are new proposals for articles added to the bottom? Exp.Fl.Cmndr. Mitth'raw'nuruodo 05:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a plan
I speak polish , it is problem. You must write alternativ history cuntry Polish , Germany ETC.Wróbel 18:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Although I'm not new to wikis, I'm relatively new at creating new pages and especially communicating with others. I know that it says "1 message" when I get a new message on my talk page, but I don't know if you automatically know when I reply to you. Also, I checked the "Recent changes" page to see that you commented on my newest flag, but I didn't get any message. Do I have to "watch" every page of mine if I want to know when someone posts a comment? What is the best way to communicate on a wiki? Also, thanks for sorting my images into categories. I was gonna do that at some point, so you saved me the trouble. --Riction 12:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
My Alternate History
While I do appreciation your thoughts and I must state that I was given to believe that the Althistory wik wasn't necessarily about realism, but rather a place where one's ideas concerning certain event(s) in history could be written about as if it had happened another way.
I have setup my CSA history (Our America) the way I have to present a continuous line as though a person were reading it in the Wikpedia, meaning the is a history before the CSA. Even the nation page Confederate States of America (Our America) is setup to resemble an actual nation page from the Wikpedia.
The information I present is intended to convey a measure of realism as though it were being read in the Wikpedia.
- It's not only set up to resemble a Wikipedia page, it's practically the "United States" Wikipedia page word for word, but with references to the US changed to the CS. Not that that's bad, as long as Wikipedia is cited. But that brings up a good question. I wonder how we cite Wikipedia even if we change a few parts of it... In other news, I'll be gone for the next 10 days or so, so I won't be updating my webpage or even checking this discussion for a while.--Riction 13:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
About my "Our America"
I understand where you're coming from and I really do appreciate your thoughts, suggestions and advice in this matter. I want to do what I can to make my timeline as believable as possible. The information that I have placed thus far is intended to serve as something to work with - further development/adjustment is needed. The history that precedes the POD will be skewed to fit in with a Confederates perception of history. My intent for the timeline Our America is to present as much detailed information as though the CSA were a real country; that even includes detailed information and history about government, politics, military, etc.
Now I do have an idea for the feasibility of the CSA's conquest of the USA, but it does involve Britain and France more so than what I already elude to in the draft history. I'll develop this more tonight if I can. I expect that it will involve considerable revision of the applicable parts in history.
Again I do appreciate your courteous advice. --Avazina
- "Despite what you mentioned about Britain and France entering the ACW on the side of the Confederacy, the best the CSA could hope for is independence from the US. And, at any rate, its likely that Hawai`i (and probably Alaska) would become British. It may be possible that the CSA might go to war with Spain over Cuba and Puerto Rico, however."--Sikulu 09:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Southern U.S. history was my concentration in College and I disagree. There is reason to believe that Britain (but not so much France) would have done more to help the Confederacy if it weren't for slavery. Also, Britain had commercial interests in the South due to the fact that Britain received a considerable amount of its cotton from the South. Further more Britain didn't do more to help the Confederacy because it didn't want to be seen as helping support an institution it had long since abolished. If the Confederacy had the foresight to institute gradual emancipation, then the North's reason for invading the South (that is it's reason as it became after the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863) would have been null and void. In fact after Gettysburg (July, 1863), when the South showed no signs of collapsing, Britain was considering offering to mediate an end to the war. Britain wasn't poised to do more than that, again, because of the South's institution of Slavery. My contention is this:--If the Confederacy had introduced gradual emancipation, then Britain could have possibly aided the South in ways that would have helped it become victorious over the Union. --Avazina
A couple other areas that I intend to expound on in my timeline are: 1) The fact that the United States removed two Confederate Commissioners (de facto Ambassadors) from a British ship in international waters. This action prompted Britain to threaten war if the commissioners weren't released and allowed to continue on to Britain, Lincoln caved in to their demands; but what if he hadn't, what if he called their bluff? 2) Raids by American Indians on the Great Plains had been a problem for settlers as they expanded across the continent. What if the Confederacy extended their alliance with American Indians to include more of them and not just the ones in the "Indian territory" (Oklahoma today) by providing them with more weapons and training? --Avazina
- "In regards to your latest post, point #1 still wouldn't have prompted Britain to help the CS conquer the Union (after all, why destroy a potential trading partner?). Point #2 would be interesting, but wouldn't have affected the outcome of the ACW. If anything, that would just make things worse for them following the end of the ACW. There is no reason whatsoever for the CSA to conquer the Union, even if it where able to (which it couldn't). It's even possible that the CSA and the USA might become friends later on. The CSA might form a South Africa-like apartheid reigime as a concession to Britian and France, however."--Sikulu 09:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Again I have to disagree with you. While today it would be unthinkable for two nations to go to war over what to us appears to be trivial matters, but not so long ago nations would do exactly that. In 1812, the US and Britain went to war primarily over the British practice of stopping American Merchant ships, seizing American Merchant Sailors and impressing them to serve in the British Navy. Then in 1914 Europe was caught up in a war over the assassination of Austria-Hungary's Archduke Francis Ferdinand, by a rouge Serbian ethnic within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Today, such instances could be handled differently short of going to war (i.e secret covert ops, sanctions, embargoes, etc).
As for the CSA conquering all of the US I have since re-thought the necessity for such action so soon. The idea I have is for it to have occurred, but as a matter fact due to the results of troop movements. With the end of what I'm calling the 2nd American Revolution, the US would grant to the CSA several territorial concessions, such as allowing the States of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware (Western counties of Virginia were occupied by the CS before the war's end) to join the Confederacy and granting the CSA control over several midwestern and Rocky Mtn territories. Eventually the US and CS will go to war again, but over control of the Mississippi River, since that river was vital to the interior of the US before the war. During the ensuing years after the 2nd American Revolution, Britain and the Confederacy developed a closer relationship and became strong trading partners. In the late 1870's the US attempts to claim the Mississippi Valley and blockade the CS to cut off its trade with Britain. However, ever since the US lost the South, which was the richest part of the US, contributing a significant portion of the US' GDP before 1861, the US has suffered from a prolonged economic depression. The US saw its way out of this impending economic chaos by seizing the Mississippi River, which would open up the US interior to foreign trade once more. US troops make it as far South as Vicksburg, MS, but then they are turn defeated by a joint force of British and Confederate troops. The CS pushes in to the US and captures the capital (have decided a name yet), and reaches deep into New England and seizes the Trans-continental railway when the midwest (that was left from the previous war) was captured. This war effectively split the US. At any rate that's what I've thought of so far.--Avazina
- "In regards to your latest post, I am fully aware of countries going to war over trivial matters (I am British after all, and we were at war with either France or Spain (or both) dozens of times). As for the War of 1812, Britain could have subjugated the US, but they didn't. They simply stopped the US of gaining their goal of annexing southern Ontario.
- As for WWI, there was a complex series of alliances all over Europe at the time, and the assasination of Franz Ferdinand was simply the spark that lit the (very large) powder ceg.
- The problem of the CS conquering the US is a matter of:
- a) internal intent - the CSA only wanted independence.
- b) industrial capability - which was concentrated in New England and the Mid Atlantic states (the South was (and still is, though not to the same extent) largely agricultural (also, see here).
- c) Manpower - the CS simply didn't have the manpower to efectively occupy the (still very large) territory of the Union.
- d) allied intent - Britain and France simply wouldn't have had a reason to conquer the US (even if they could), nor would they have any reason to help the CS to do it (even if the Confederancy wanted to, which it didn't). The US is simply too large, too populous and too powerful. Britain and France may have liked to take them down a peg or two, but not destroy it entirely.
- a) internal intent - the CSA only wanted independence.
- You don't necceceraly have to win a war, you just have to not loose (they are not the same thing)." --Sikulu 11:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to chase a rabbit here. The idea that the US in 1812 could conquer Canada ranks right there among the dumbest ideas, if not the dumbest. To this day our Political Historians still can't figure out what the hell they were thinking.
As for the CS conquering the US, while not conceivable during the War between the States, afterwards it as a matter necessity for national peace and security. There are somethings I do know about my country and that is the Mississippi River system was (and still is) vital to commerce in the interior, without it the economy would've be wrecked. There is little hope that the US could've easily recovered from loosing control such a vital transportation route. As for conquering the whole of the US, 1) Much of the US was, in fact, sparsely populated, such in the Midwest, Rockies and Pacific coast areas. Much of the population was concentrated in New England, Pennsylvania and to some extent around the Great Lakes States. 2) conquering the US would essentially taking the industrial Northeast and holding it as well as taking the coal rich regions of western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio. Without these regions the US would be hard pressed to support its troops. With American Indians as CS allies they could keep nibbling away at the US with their persistent raids, which the US wouldn't be able to efficiently quell due to CS occupation of their coal and industrial regions. --Avazina
I regularly check the recent changes and I've noticed that in the short time I've been active on this site there have been several vandalism related changes and actions. I'm curious, is vandalism a big problem here? --Avazina
- No. This is the first vandalism in a long while. Louisiannan 21:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's good that you are one of the most prolific creators on this site. I always look forward to reading the updates you make. However, I also wanted to say that I liked a lot of your previous ATLs, but got the idea that you sort of just moved onto something new. Like most recently from "They Are Protected" to "13 Fallen Stars" to now "Three Golden Lilies". My fear is that you'll just create so many timelines that you'll forget about the previous ones. (It seems, for example, that "They Are Protected" doesn't get updated anymore.) That would be ashame, because I was looking forward to you filling out your previous ATLs, too. Anyway, keep up the good work. --Riction 01:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so you're right that it's more helpful now. :) Louisiannan 20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I didn't write those timelines. --Sikulu 07:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- but who wrote those timelines?--126.96.36.199 13:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the POD of Terra ex Machina?--TEAKAY 12:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Washington shot - revived?
I can't seem to find an author, but you seem to be the one who's done the most work on Washington Shot. Is that timeline dead (or dying)? I ask because it seems very interesting, and I'd love to work on the Scandinavian part (being a Dane, I have the language requisites). I just don't want to waste my time if I'm the only one keeping the project alive. --dllu 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining. The SU doesn't seem to be mentioned at all in the timeline, so it's hard to know what the thoughts behind it were.
- If you like, I can also have a look at the German names in the Holy Roman Empire. --dllu 13:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- IF you are anywhere out there I would sincerely want you to know of my interest in becoming care taker for the "Washington Shot at Murdering Town". I have also contacted the original creator, as you were the largest caretaker I find it nesscerey to contact you as well
- Stepintime (talk) 06:30, December 3, 2016 (UTC)
I haven't realy given much thought regarding europe so I don't mind at all any suggestion.--Marcpasquin 03:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- so, any ideas ?--Marcpasquin 12:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well if WWI is inevitable and the US is demoralised, everyone alway seems to say that without america the allies are toast. I think that the war may have dragged on a bit longer and eventually the losses may have been enough to convince them to give up fighting eachother before lightning war technologies developed. Also, having some heavily populated and industrialised american regions back under direct British control and contributing to the Canadian regiments couldn't have hurt the war effort.
- If Europe fights itself to exhaustion, I don't know, maybe once the war is over and the economy slumps, it suffers a brain drain. future nuclear researchers go to america which may be recovering economically by then (or they go to Canada :)), and with a weaker Europe perhaps the USSR (if it still forms) had an easier time of capturing eastern Europe (but then this starts sounding too much like Red Napoleon), if Hitler was still born and survived being in WWI (or if some equivalent did, maybe in the former(?) Austria-Hungary or somewhere else even) AND he gets in control, I guess he may fight a war only with the USSR while the allies are weak enough to deal with later. Maybe with Britain's expanded North American holdings they recover faster (or maybe when WWI ended the U.S had already gotten beligerant and tried to take over while Britain was weakened). If British superiority survives WWI and the U.S. is cowed into isolationism, then Britain may have to act in the position of OTL U.S. IF the coldwar still developes. If the Hitler-type guy in Germany or Austria-Hungary is victorious against the USSR, then of course his nation would probably play the opposite side of the Cold War if he doesn't make the mistake of taking on all of Europe all at once. I don't know, could it work?--TEAKAY 17:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Your "Codename: Mnemosyne" timeline has been nominated for deletion because it doesn't contain any actual content, if you are still interested in writing this AltHist you are given two weeks time to let us know and to start writing on, otherwise it will be deleted. --Karsten vK (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
trouble with User Roberto Boberto
seems we have trouble with User Roberto Boberto. He posts highly offtopic content on his user page (deleted by me) and randomly vandalizes pages.
PS: If you give me mod powers, I could stop such users earlier in future if I see them. I have quite some experience as a forum moderator on www.alternatehistory.com--Max Sinister 00:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thx Sikulu!--Max Sinister 16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I'm not sure there would much more involvement in North America tho, the POD is simply a victory during the war. If you meant more involvement later on (i.e. sending more troops to hold its gains), maybe but as far as I know, the companies used their own troops.
If you disagree or if you have more suggestions, feel free to give them of course.--Marcpasquin 07:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've highlighted a whole bunch of my timelines for deletion. I'm leaving this message for a few of the mods - if nobody's beaten you to it, I'd appreciate it if you could delete the pages I've flagged. That's unless someone wants to take them over.
Cprhodesact 05:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thus spoke the Tsar
Your "Thus spoke the Tsar" timeline has been nominated for deletion because it hardly contains any actual content, if you are still interested in writing this AltHist you are given four weeks time to let us know and to start writing on, otherwise it will be deleted.--Max Sinister 15:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
With All My Heart
I like TLs about Carthage very much, but don't you think it hasn't exactly a lot of content?--Max Sinister 10:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)