lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,368
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 1, 2023 5:00:16 GMT
This thread is for members who want to post questions about a timeline they want to construct which are minor and undeserving of their own thread, and a place to share ideas that people don't have time, skill or knowledge to write themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Feb 10, 2023 3:13:58 GMT
My first intake on this thread:
"PC: Russia loses all of Bessarabia and Congress Poland after a bigger Allied victory in the Crimean War"
Was Austria's intervention minor or a lot bigger during the Crimean War? I'm just wondering if it was possible if the Austrians were also active participants in the conflict as well. Moreover, were there any more possible participants that have a bone to pick with Russia that would allow them to join the Crimean War?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,368
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 10, 2023 12:32:52 GMT
'Germany Become Preeminent Naval Power Instead Of United Kingdom'.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 10, 2023 15:11:05 GMT
'Germany Become Preeminent Naval Power Instead Of United Kingdom'.
You would need Germany to win big in WWI and dominate most/all of the continent, with probably Britain occupied or forced to a subordinate role. In which case Germany then goes on to a 'final round' against the US who are likely to react strongly.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,368
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 10, 2023 15:14:02 GMT
'Germany Become Preeminent Naval Power Instead Of United Kingdom'. You would need Germany to win big in WWI and dominate most/all of the continent, with probably Britain occupied or forced to a subordinate role. In which case Germany then goes on to a 'final round' against the US who are likely to react strongly.
Could the not be a government in the United Kingdom, real ore not who thinks spending money on the navy is to much, thus allowing Germany to become a bigger naval power than the United Kingdom by 1914. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 10, 2023 23:09:48 GMT
You would need Germany to win big in WWI and dominate most/all of the continent, with probably Britain occupied or forced to a subordinate role. In which case Germany then goes on to a 'final round' against the US who are likely to react strongly.
Could the not be a government in the United Kingdom, real ore not who thinks spending money on the navy is to much, thus allowing Germany to become a bigger naval power than the United Kingdom by 1914.
Not really because the navy and the maritime trade it protects is so vital to Britain's survival and also the strength of the RN is also seen as an important symbol for Britain of its power and identity. Germany has relatively little actual need for a massive navy in comparison.
|
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,976
Likes: 5,840
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 11, 2023 3:34:51 GMT
Absolutely not by 1914 with a rational government. Consult the sources I just put up in the Historical Naval Data thread as to the British shipbuilding infrastructure of 1914.
Britain has the following dreadnought capable yards
Armstrong-Whitworth, Elswick
Vickers, Barrow
John Brown
Harland & Wolff
Fairfields
Swan Hunter
Beardmores
Cammell-Laird
Hawthorn-Leslie
Palmers
Thames Ironworks
Scotts, Greenock
Portsmouth RND: 1
Devonport RND: 1
(Chatham could not accomodate their construction without a mooted expansion of up to four 800ft long dry docks; Rosyth was preferred as a new yard. One could even postulate having Rosyth as a building yard if they had to)
Compare that to Germany, which had the following yards capable of building a dreadnought or battlecruiser:
AG Vulcan, Hamburg
Germaniawerft, Kiel
Schichau-Werke, Danzig
Howaldtwerke, Kiel
Blohm & Voss, Hamburg
AG Weser, Bremen
Kaiserliche Werft, Wilhelmshaven
Kaiserliche Werft, Kiel
Britain just has more space. You can't magic up more coast for Germany.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,368
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 11, 2023 10:08:44 GMT
Absolutely not by 1914 with a rational government. Consult the sources I just put up in the Historical Naval Data thread as to the British shipbuilding infrastructure of 1914. Britain has the following dreadnought capable yards Armstrong-Whitworth, Elswick Vickers, Barrow John Brown Harland & Wolff Fairfields Swan Hunter Beardmores Cammell-Laird Hawthorn-Leslie Palmers Thames Ironworks Scotts, Greenock Portsmouth RND: 1 Devonport RND: 1 (Chatham could not accomodate their construction without a mooted expansion of up to four 800ft long dry docks; Rosyth was preferred as a new yard. One could even postulate having Rosyth as a building yard if they had to) Compare that to Germany, which had the following yards capable of building a dreadnought or battlecruiser: AG Vulcan, Hamburg Germaniawerft, Kiel Schichau-Werke, Danzig Howaldtwerke, Kiel Blohm & Voss, Hamburg AG Weser, Bremen Kaiserliche Werft, Wilhelmshaven Kaiserliche Werft, Kiel Britain just has more space. You can't magic up more coast for Germany. And that is why this thread is created. |
|
bytor
Chief petty officer
I'm baaaack.
Posts: 132
Likes: 68
|
Post by bytor on Feb 27, 2023 20:40:43 GMT
Imagine a timeline where William Seward became president instead of Lincoln. The CSA still forms because Seward is just as much of pro-abolitionist in a very pro-abolitionist new Republican Party, but because Seward was the dove to Lincoln's hawk there is no American Civil War. The USA doesn't like that the states seceded but they don't really have a choice.
So given how loose a confederation the Confederate States of America was, which state do you think would have been the first to leave the CSA because of either CSA-internal disagreements or pressure from outside (like economic from the U.K. or France to end slavery)?
And what are the specific problems that make them leave the CSA?
Who is the second one to leave, or the third, and why?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 28, 2023 13:25:06 GMT
Imagine a timeline where William Seward became president instead of Lincoln. The CSA still forms because Seward is just as much of pro-abolitionist in a very pro-abolitionist new Republican Party, but because Seward was the dove to Lincoln's hawk there is no American Civil War. The USA doesn't like that the states seceded but they don't really have a choice. So given how loose a confederation the Confederate States of America was, which state do you think would have been the first to leave the CSA because of either CSA-internal disagreements or pressure from outside (like economic from the U.K. or France to end slavery)? And what are the specific problems that make them leave the CSA? Who is the second one to leave, or the third, and why?
The most commonly cited option would be Texas because it is geographically pretty isolated and also in terms of much of its economy and also that it had about a decade of actual independence prior to joining the US. On the other hand, on a USCW site I do recall a Texan poster arguing that - for a few decades at least - this is extremely unlikely because Texas would be too weak and exposed. According to him it was struggling to stop Indian raids in its very thinly populated western territories, on the defensive against them rather than the offensive. Also of course a Texas that had split from the US - and is unlikely to return while slavery is an issue - and then from the CSA is also potentially very exposed to a Mexico that got its act together.
In the proposed scenario one other point to remember is that this CSA would be significantly smaller than OTL. States like Virginia and quite possibly Tennessee and N Carolina won't join the break away. Of course a lot depends on what happens in the core US? With remaining slave states now significantly outnumbered does the federal government seek to end slavery? If so does that prompt further secession attempts which might or might not be opposed by Washington? Especially if say in response to the initial secession wave the US has sought to clearly ban the rights of a state to secede - which could be the trigger for such a 2nd wave of exits.
|
|
bytor
Chief petty officer
I'm baaaack.
Posts: 132
Likes: 68
|
Post by bytor on Mar 1, 2023 1:08:02 GMT
In the proposed scenario one other point to remember is that this CSA would be significantly smaller than OTL. States like Virginia and quite possibly Tennessee and N Carolina won't join the break away. It seems here like you're talking about states that would join the CSA on or after it formed on February 8, 186, but then break away from the CSA before North Caroline seceeded & joined on May 20/21 or before Tennessee on June 8/July 2? Sorry if I was unclear, but I mean that the CSA completely forms with all the states in it was we know from OTL and that it operates together for a period years, perhaps decades, before one o them would want to break away from the CSA. |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Mar 1, 2023 2:23:42 GMT
Saw it on AH.com, but because it interests me: ‘No French Revolution. How Does Western Culture and Politics Develop?’.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Mar 1, 2023 17:38:57 GMT
In the proposed scenario one other point to remember is that this CSA would be significantly smaller than OTL. States like Virginia and quite possibly Tennessee and N Carolina won't join the break away. It seems here like you're talking about states that would join the CSA on or after it formed on February 8, 186, but then break away from the CSA before North Caroline seceeded & joined on May 20/21 or before Tennessee on June 8/July 2? Sorry if I was unclear, but I mean that the CSA completely forms with all the states in it was we know from OTL and that it operates together for a period years, perhaps decades, before one o them would want to break away from the CSA.
I was working on the basis that a number of states only joined the break-away because Lincoln decided to use force to bring the initial seceding states back into the union. If Steward was elected instead and as you argue would allow those initial states to leave the thing that prompted a number of other states such as Virginia, N Carolina and Tennessee wouldn't be present. As such your saying that there is some other factor that prompts them to leave and join the initial CSA states. This wasn't clear from your OP and the details of how those states decide to leave the union and join the CSA here could affect a lot of things. It could be as I said possibly the now overwhelmingly free soil/anti-slavery union seeks to move against the institution of slavery or to block any new secession occurring.
I was not assuming that any states would leave the CSA until some years after the event. Definitely not before a 2nd wave of states leave the union.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Mar 1, 2023 18:09:11 GMT
‘ATL US Presidential Election: Grover Cleveland Vs. William McKinley’.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Mar 5, 2023 17:27:11 GMT
‘Rome And Carthage Remain On Friendly Terms’.
In other words, no Punic Wars or other flashpoints that embroil them in large-scale conflicts. In fact, while I doubt they’d be BFFs like the US and UK are, avoiding even Cold War or Great Game-style tensions that don’t mushroom into outright warfare would certainly be preferable.
|
|
