If we go that route there's also the "America goes for all of Mexico" TLs where you end up with a anglophone population ruling a massive hispanophone one
Too big to succeed? 'Rightsize' an overextended nation or empire
- Thread starter cincpac overboard
- Start date
Yes, it's very interesting. The problem is that after Nassau left, the next leader remade the government structure and this imploded the stability of the colony. As a whole, the blockade of brown and black people in the government already weakened the Dutch a lot, when the white Catholics were removed from the government the stability of the government also ended. Then a coalition of whites, blacks and browns expelled the Dutch even though they had half the Dutch troops and much worse weapons. Nassau has to stay in government and the Netherlands has to accept that it will take time to raise a lot of money.
Closely related is not the same thing as identical. Scots and English are closely related, or Norwegian and Danish.
I'm not sure why they'd be more similar before attempts to make France entirely French speaking than after it.
Or the opposite: Mexico controlling the current US West with an Anglophone majority on their borders. Or an independent California or Texas, being officially Spanish speaking while with an Anglophone majority.
Another one it's a French Louisiana, be it independent or linked to France, with a massive Anglophone population pouring from an alt US ending on Mississippi river. British Argentina-Uruguay fits the bill as well.
And of course we can go crazy, having all sorts of alternate colonial empires, with a good settler population, while changing from a power to another.
Last edited:
The Spanish-speaking-and-settled areas back in 1846 very roughly match where Hispanic blood and culture form majorities or pluralities today:
-Texas below the TX-Colorado River
-Oklahoma panhandle
-Kansas below the Arkansas River
-Colorado below the Arkansas River and its San Luis Valley inside the San Juan Mountains
-Las Vegas/Clark County, NV
-California below the 37th parallel/Kings River/Santa Cruz Mountains (San Francisco and north/eastward from it were Anglophone almost literally from founding)
As I always note, in 1804-1820s America wanted to purchase or annex Texas north of the TX-Colorado, then in 1827-1846 (and Texas too for independence's sake) willing to settle for the Nueces and Pecos in various entreaties... same for purchasing Mexico north of the 37th parallel west of the Rockies to secure San Francisco Bay and a land path to it, where said parallel would conveniently avoid Monterey in California. Since Texan negotiators pointed out the Tejanos in San Antonio and Goliad had joined their revolt when trying to secure independence, you can have the Hispanic-majority parts of the US southwest (the areas above) outside them remain Mexican or in independent republics while America annexes regions whose first "Europeans" are direct American settlers. Mix-and-match the exact borders you want from these various negotiations - do you take Texas north of the TX-Colorado or up to the Nueces/Pecos? Do you even annex anything Texas at all? Do you re-annex the part of the LA Purchase above the Red River and Sangre de Cristo Mountains? Crazy enough to just take the 37th parallel west of the Rockies? etc.
(I like the Nueces/Pecos and 37th parallel myself)
-Texas below the TX-Colorado River
-Oklahoma panhandle
-Kansas below the Arkansas River
-Colorado below the Arkansas River and its San Luis Valley inside the San Juan Mountains
-Las Vegas/Clark County, NV
-California below the 37th parallel/Kings River/Santa Cruz Mountains (San Francisco and north/eastward from it were Anglophone almost literally from founding)
As I always note, in 1804-1820s America wanted to purchase or annex Texas north of the TX-Colorado, then in 1827-1846 (and Texas too for independence's sake) willing to settle for the Nueces and Pecos in various entreaties... same for purchasing Mexico north of the 37th parallel west of the Rockies to secure San Francisco Bay and a land path to it, where said parallel would conveniently avoid Monterey in California. Since Texan negotiators pointed out the Tejanos in San Antonio and Goliad had joined their revolt when trying to secure independence, you can have the Hispanic-majority parts of the US southwest (the areas above) outside them remain Mexican or in independent republics while America annexes regions whose first "Europeans" are direct American settlers. Mix-and-match the exact borders you want from these various negotiations - do you take Texas north of the TX-Colorado or up to the Nueces/Pecos? Do you even annex anything Texas at all? Do you re-annex the part of the LA Purchase above the Red River and Sangre de Cristo Mountains? Crazy enough to just take the 37th parallel west of the Rockies? etc.
(I like the Nueces/Pecos and 37th parallel myself)
Because in Medieval times not that much time passed since French and Occitan split from Latin, so they both were presumably more similar to original form.
That is common sense + unrelated to that, but in a previous post you pointed out that people spoke Breton in kingdom of France, but Brittany was very autonomous and Bretons were considered sort-of-foreign and vice versa - Breton estates were strongly against integrating with French further.
It's not common sense that the consequences of imposing a standard language on France would not have a greater impact on the Occitan language.
As far as Brittany - autonomous, sure. I never said it wasn't to a large degree autonomous - just that "they spoke French" is not true in every part of 13th century France, because "France" was not defined around who spoke the langues d'oïl as a precise, 1-1 thing.
Plenty of complications on what was autonomous, what was de jure part of France but ignored the King of France when it suited them, and so on that would be a tangent on a tangent on a tangent.
Last edited:
you do know half of the balkans spoke latin correct? he did not make the changes because latin speakers were gone like people try to claim with heraclius, also In 397 the emperors Arcadius and Honorius had allowed provincial governors to issue their judgments in Greek.
Honorious ruled the west and he still made it so that greek could be used in a place were latin was the majority not in minor every day events but provincial governors.
Last edited:
It would but it's common sense that Occitan in 1200s, 300 yrs less from divergence would be more similar to French than Occitan in 1500s, 300 yrs later and without undergoing standardization yes.
Well, in 13th century there was at least understanding that French is Romance language, derived from Latin and spoken in what was once Gaul.
Yes, but what's the point? And Honorius had large Greek-speaking minority under himself as well, south of Italy had much Greeks.
he had no reason to that western chunk of sicily and parts of southern italy compared to much of the balkans beeing latin yet the western emperor so again the point is some people did belive to be roman was to know latin many others did not think the same
Roman laws were valid across the entire Empire, no matter which Emperor originally promulgated them. The 397 ruling wouldn't have been very relevant in the West, because nobody there spoke Greek.
Doesn't that mean either Alexander II lives longer or there is a different successor or a combination of both?
First thing is to make a list of areas affected: Finland, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Armenia and Georgia presumably, with Crimea a potential extra one given the markedly different demographics pre-Stalin. I don't think given how they see the core relationship between Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians, the latter two would be included there. You'd also have to decide what format this will take - how much autonomy is included, presumably that means two or three official languages in each of the designated territories, Russian and the local main one or two, say Russian, Estonian and German in Estonia. Then you have to decide who to put in-charge, whether you use it as an excuse to give jobs to the slightly more capable Grand Dukes and expect them to take it seriously, much in the way that the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn (Queen Victoria's son), Prince Arthur of Connaught (QV's grandson), the future Duke of Argyll (QV's son-in-law) and the Earl of Athlone (QV's grandson-in-law) took their Governor General roles in Canada and South Africa. Then you need to know how you are going to shut it down and what the consequences of that are if the locals start getting ideas about becoming actual sovereign states. You also need to be able to manage relationships with other groups, say between Congress Poland and the German and Austrian-held Polish lands in-case ideas about unification which might put the Empire into a position where you are fighting a war over something the Congress government overseen by a cousin said or did without thinking things through. There are presumably reasons beyond the access to trade issue that prevented them from doing this irl.
Regardless, it would be interesting to know what Tsarevich Nicholas Alexandrovich (Alexander III's elder brother) would have done here, whether he would have jealously guarded power the way his younger brother did or developed a different vision of his role. Dagmar of Denmark was also supposed to marry him and by all accounts was intelligent and capable, was described as charming and likable and learned Russian culture and language quickly, but had the advantage of a life outside. She might have proved useful to him in a way that she wouldn't with the autocratic Alexander III.
Though a more Scandinavian approach in Finland and the Baltics might have helped secure territory under Romanov Grand Dukes, the real issue is how do you balance the interests of the local population who generally don't want to be Russian and do identify with whatever the local culture is or with Germany and the geopolitical interests of Russia with its capital in St Petersburg and its desperate need for warm water ports. Yes, developing the Trans-Siberian Railway and Pacific ports can help a little, once we account for the vast expense of their development and then the extra expence incurred in shipping goods across vast distances, but ultimately, Russia wants its ports and nothing is going to be allowed to get in the way of that. Grand Duke Viceroys and semi-autonomous regimes might help in the short-term, but realistically giving an inch undermines the Romanov goal from their point of view.
Just had to point it out even though the Empire was separate it didn't see it as two separate empires so yes the usage of Greek as that was empire wide law
Two United States - one that is based on New York, Pennslyvania, New Jersey, Delaware and New England which is very industrial, very commercial and outward looking and a more rural US covering the more outright Democratic-Republican parts of the country starting from the Left Bank of the Chesapeake and the northern Appalachias and heading south down to Florida.
If you think about it, these were very different places in a lot of different ways, demographically, financially, culturally and politically. Some of the states were less explicitly or ambiguously Patriot prior to the Revolution. If a different approach to the relationship was attempted, lets say the Westminster Government made the decision to offer meaningful concessions and been a bit more flexible in its views, if they had chosen to negotiate separately with each colony and offer different packages of concessions depending on what colony it was and how Loyal it was perceived to be, say offering much to the South but less to the North, different outcomes might have happened. Its also possible that the compromises made creating the Constitution from the husk of the Articles of Confederation failed and two states were created instead of one United States.
This means that we could explore some of the issues inherent in the US's 18th and 19th century development, without the ickiness of having to deal with the Confederacy and Union loss or draw during the Civil War. It's still VERY icky, given the presence of slavery regardless, but it means that we don't have to construct a timeline where the Confederacy actually win despite the odds. The South would at least theoretically be more exposed to British anti-slavery measures due to their relatively weaker position to resist, with significant economic and social consequences there. For example, the issue of freeing slaves and free soil politics might become more important in a predominantly rural state far more quickly, especially one that is keen for cheap agricultural labour and concerned with its borders. This also opens up issues around the job market and Freemen and poor White Southerners competing and whether Sharecropping becomes the Southern model far sooner potentially or whether they clamp down ever harder and find making trade deals more difficult as the British move into enforcing the end of slavery, potentially sooner given these issues are likely to be highlighted simply by the increased political and diplomatic engagement with a Southern US due to a divided state.
I would be unsurprised if the constitutional frameworks of the two new Americas are markedly different, given the compromises that go into making the US Constitution to support the different interests of what would be here two different sets of newly minted states would be changed. I do wonder whether the South might take on a system far closer to the British one than the very Classically influenced version, no matter what state Madison, Monroe and Jefferson came from. If the other lot of, what they might like to see as jumped up, money-loving Yankees are trying something, they might not want to do the same thing, or vice versa. Mostly rural nations tend to be a little less radical as a whole. Where the capitals of the two nations would be is also up for discussion, would the North end up in New York and see a consolidation of economic and political power on one city? Where would the South choose to site their capital? Somewhere in North Carolina is roughly in the middle of the proposed nation, but would Richmond grab all the glory as the dominant state or would Virginian leaders think the better of it for strategic reasons?
It's also possible that with a different Revolution where let's say there is a case by case basis negotiation going on, less colonies rebel and less Loyalists leave for what becomes Canada, which changes their temperament a lot too, potentially ending the development of Canada as a loyal Dominion given the geography and unpredictability of Quebec, separating the Maritime and Atlantic provinces as it does from the rest of Canada.
If you think about it, these were very different places in a lot of different ways, demographically, financially, culturally and politically. Some of the states were less explicitly or ambiguously Patriot prior to the Revolution. If a different approach to the relationship was attempted, lets say the Westminster Government made the decision to offer meaningful concessions and been a bit more flexible in its views, if they had chosen to negotiate separately with each colony and offer different packages of concessions depending on what colony it was and how Loyal it was perceived to be, say offering much to the South but less to the North, different outcomes might have happened. Its also possible that the compromises made creating the Constitution from the husk of the Articles of Confederation failed and two states were created instead of one United States.
This means that we could explore some of the issues inherent in the US's 18th and 19th century development, without the ickiness of having to deal with the Confederacy and Union loss or draw during the Civil War. It's still VERY icky, given the presence of slavery regardless, but it means that we don't have to construct a timeline where the Confederacy actually win despite the odds. The South would at least theoretically be more exposed to British anti-slavery measures due to their relatively weaker position to resist, with significant economic and social consequences there. For example, the issue of freeing slaves and free soil politics might become more important in a predominantly rural state far more quickly, especially one that is keen for cheap agricultural labour and concerned with its borders. This also opens up issues around the job market and Freemen and poor White Southerners competing and whether Sharecropping becomes the Southern model far sooner potentially or whether they clamp down ever harder and find making trade deals more difficult as the British move into enforcing the end of slavery, potentially sooner given these issues are likely to be highlighted simply by the increased political and diplomatic engagement with a Southern US due to a divided state.
I would be unsurprised if the constitutional frameworks of the two new Americas are markedly different, given the compromises that go into making the US Constitution to support the different interests of what would be here two different sets of newly minted states would be changed. I do wonder whether the South might take on a system far closer to the British one than the very Classically influenced version, no matter what state Madison, Monroe and Jefferson came from. If the other lot of, what they might like to see as jumped up, money-loving Yankees are trying something, they might not want to do the same thing, or vice versa. Mostly rural nations tend to be a little less radical as a whole. Where the capitals of the two nations would be is also up for discussion, would the North end up in New York and see a consolidation of economic and political power on one city? Where would the South choose to site their capital? Somewhere in North Carolina is roughly in the middle of the proposed nation, but would Richmond grab all the glory as the dominant state or would Virginian leaders think the better of it for strategic reasons?
It's also possible that with a different Revolution where let's say there is a case by case basis negotiation going on, less colonies rebel and less Loyalists leave for what becomes Canada, which changes their temperament a lot too, potentially ending the development of Canada as a loyal Dominion given the geography and unpredictability of Quebec, separating the Maritime and Atlantic provinces as it does from the rest of Canada.
Well but belief that knowing Latin =Roman was important at the peak of Roman culture, so those who clinged to that belief are more of heirs to Augustus or Cato the Elder than those who didn't.
I support it but I object that Italy caused more problems than it was worth and ultimately losing it didn't mean such a big bankruptcy for Spain so it would also cut it.
For me Napoleon should have stopped at the Peace of Amiens borders for France, with the Sister Republics (Batavian, Italian, Helvetic) remaining nominally indenpendent (and would have become fully independent once France would have faced unavoidable political instability in the XIXth century).
Who cares if the British occupy Malta and don't reinstate the Knights of St John? "Natural" defensible borders are achieved and the countries beyond them are friendly/dependent. Saint-Domingue (Haiti) is unified once the deal with Spain for Etruria is done, and instead of wasting a full army on trying to conquer it, make a deal with Louverture giving him a dominion-like status on the island.
Instead of the Continental system trying and failing to blockade Britain from the continent, make it a proto-Zollverein with a common external tarriff and free trade objective between the members: France, Spain, Denmark-Norway, Sister Republics and friendly German states like Bavaria and Saxony.
If Britain still supports a coalition, beat it to a pulp like IRL but instead of expanding further, create more friendly and "liberal" countries like the Westphalian republic.
Who cares if the British occupy Malta and don't reinstate the Knights of St John? "Natural" defensible borders are achieved and the countries beyond them are friendly/dependent. Saint-Domingue (Haiti) is unified once the deal with Spain for Etruria is done, and instead of wasting a full army on trying to conquer it, make a deal with Louverture giving him a dominion-like status on the island.
Instead of the Continental system trying and failing to blockade Britain from the continent, make it a proto-Zollverein with a common external tarriff and free trade objective between the members: France, Spain, Denmark-Norway, Sister Republics and friendly German states like Bavaria and Saxony.
If Britain still supports a coalition, beat it to a pulp like IRL but instead of expanding further, create more friendly and "liberal" countries like the Westphalian republic.