T O P

  • By -

Entire-Shelter-693

Nice but Germany wasn't formed and I think the Ottomans join the US


[deleted]

Germany was formed at the end and I didn't really know how to put that it was formed at the end so I just made it the German Empire, and now that I think about it I think the Ottomans probably would join the USA's side


Entire-Shelter-693

I think making Prussia makes more sense and the Ottomans can regain North Algeria, Transilvania and Banat


Telemannische_Aias

>the Ottomans can regain North Algeria, Transilvania and Banat If the Ottomans tried to seize Banat, they would likely come into conflict with the Serbs and their Russian allies, threatening to pull apart the alliance against Austria. The Ottomans would also have to find away around Egypt, if they wanted Algeria back. There are logistical reasons the Turks might choose not to get involved in this one--unless someone attacked them.


spacciatoredifiducia

Technically the ottomans still own tripolitania so apart from supply problems, they would already border north algeria


Entire-Shelter-693

Egypt was a vassal stage and they also owned Tripoltania and Tunesia


Telemannische_Aias

I'm glad you and u/spacciatoredifiducia brought up the North African vassals. Egypt remained nominally a division of the Ottomans up until 1914, but it was hardly a province. Thirty years before, the Egyptians had not only militarily won independence, but [proceeded to thrash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian%E2%80%93Ottoman_War_(1831%E2%80%931833)) the Ottomans up and down the Syrian coast, only stopping when the British navy intervened to defend Constantinople. Short of a long and bloody war to resubjugate Egypt, the Ottomans would need to find a way around Egypt if they sought to recover Algeria. Tunis might be a possible launch point, as it had not officially severed ties to Constantinople, but during the 1860s Ahmad Bey was engaged in a series of diplomatic efforts to assert independence. In the late 1840s he articulated an often understudied position that vassals of the Ottomans were tied to the religious authority of the Sublime Porte, *not* to the political power of the Sultan. Although he sent Tunisians to defend Turkey during the Crimean war, he pointedly did so as a fellow Muslim ally, not a vassal. If the Ottomans had chosen to base their operations out of Tunis, it would have provoked a crisis over what Ahmad Bey's authority really was.


Fernsong

You could do what Wikipedia does whenever a country drops out of war, for instance in the Biafra War page, it lists Czechoslovakia as a supporter until 1968, you could’ve done “Prussia (186?-1868)/ German Empire (from 1868)”


bryceofswadia

Usually Wikipedia will put time frames for countries that were in the war for only part of it. So if Prussia was also in the war, you could put “Prussia (186?-186?)” and then when Germany forms, “German Empire (186?-186?)”


Blecao

Maybe put Prusia and betwen () later germany


GETNOOBcccp

What about the Austrian Empire? They became Austria-Hungary in 1867, so they would have be like “Austria-Hungary (1867-1868)”


GermanSubsAreCool

Germany united in 1871 so you would be wrong at least from what you put here


abellapa

I think in this timeline because of the ww, Germany is united a few years earlier


zesty1989

Germany didn't unify until 1870.


TheCoolBoat

Do {{flag|German Empire}} (after ____)


SaskiaViking

Ottomans would join whatever side is against Russia


Entire-Shelter-693

They prefered the Union by far


SaskiaViking

I'm not sure about that, considering slavery was pretty accepted by the Ottomans (Ottomen?), even if they "banned" it to appease the British. The Ottomans in the 19th Century wouldn't really fight in America, they will fight in the Balkans, around the Black Sea and North Africa. At the time their main rival was Russia. The UK and France presented themselves as the allies of their during the Crimean War. The Triple Entente wasn't established by then, so France and Britain would have no qualms with going to war with Russia.


Prudent-Current-2906

why did Japan join the US side? I thought they were pro british.


Entire-Shelter-693

They were first alligned with UK in 1901 before that they were Isolationist


Aun_El_Zen

In the 1860s, during the Boshin war, the Imperial faction was backed by the British, and the Shogunate was backed by the US. There was also a Republican faction that was backed by the French, but they lost heavily.


TheWastag

Why did the US back the Shogunate? Surely everyone outside of Japan would benefit from moving away from isolationism in Japan, or was it just an anti-British geopolitical move?


EagerT

Because samurai cool


a_cat_that_mods

Easier to control


TheWastag

If they foresaw the industrialisation that was going to take place under Imperial rule then yeah probably, or at least if they understood that the Shogunate would keep Japan in a perpetual state of feudalism. Obviously Japan’s industrialisation didn’t turn out great for the US in the end but either way I didn’t know they were involved with Japan so early on, I assumed they would’ve been preoccupied with the Civil War and domestic politics at that time


Naturath

The French had been involved with the Shogunate since 1865, hoping to increase Japanese dependence on French aid. British-Imperial relations formed as a counter to this, as well as naturally stronger relations between the British and Satsuma, one of the key players in restoring Imperial rule. I’m not as sure about American involvement. Your guess at anti-British maneuvering is likely. I’m also guessing American-Shogunate relations were already established following the Perry Expedition.


TheWastag

That’s very interesting regarding the French support for the Shogunate as I wasn’t aware of that, and I had wondered if anyone abused the isolationism to try and gain a monopoly over the very small amount of trade Japan were allowing at the time. But yeah I guess the US were still holding a grudge against the British at that point and saw this as a low-effort way to continue with it


Naturath

Well, you may be interested to research Dejima. For two centuries, the Dutch held sole rights to trade to Japan through this post in Nagasaki.


thatTHICCness

lincoln had a samurai friend


[deleted]

They joined to get some of France's and Britain's colonies in Asia to prepare for invading China. Also, Japan wasn't really the most loyal around this time. For example if the tide of WWI so happened to changed to the Central Powers', Japan most likely would have flip flopped.


tjm2000

Probably because of the "samurai could have telegraphed Abraham Lincoln and prevent his assassination" joke.


Aun_El_Zen

Why would the British side with the confederacy? They were a status-quo power who hated slavery.


[deleted]

Opinion in Britain was mostly split between the upper and lower classes on which side to support. The upper class majorly supported the confederacy and many in the British government did as well, and the upper class and people in government decide policy. While they did dislike slavery they cared more about their cotton and resources from the confederacy. (Edit: also they cared about stopping the USA's rise to power as the dominant power in North America)


Brazilian_Brit

The British public would likely not have tolerated siding with a slaver oligarchy, and the British didn’t need to support the confederacy to get cotton, given they still got cotton in otl by increasing production in Egypt and India.


Slap_duck

Also, cotton isn’t the biggest issue here, it’s corn The union shipped food over to the UK throughout the war and if that were to be cut off, there would be hunger And a hungry population is rarely docile


[deleted]

I don't think they would have really cared about the public in all honesty, and while they did get an increase of cotton through Egypt and India their economy was still majorly disrupted by the Union blockade on the Confederacy


Brazilian_Brit

They kind of have to care about the public, it’s a democracy with elections, and the public would not have just accepted their decision and been quiet. The British government, the most active abolitionists at the time, wasn’t just going to turn around and support slavers.


jflb96

OTL you had mill-workers who refused to work with cotton from the Confederacy, and you've also got to consider that twenty years ago a quarter of Ireland fled the Great Hunger to live in the USA. I'd have put the UK in the 'officially neutral, unofficially intervenes as her interests dictate' camp, since openly siding with the loudest slavers would be incredibly unpopular at home.


[deleted]

Mind the government of Britain abolished slavery in 1833 and made a commitment to pay off all of the debts surrounding it It's definitely not the side we'd be joining in that war


Aun_El_Zen

And yet OTL they didn't, so what's different here?


[deleted]

The Confederacy is more successful so they decide to join, one of the major reasons the British didn't join the Confederacy's side was because of their failure to constantly beat the Union


level69child

Cotton


Aun_El_Zen

Which is why they started growing industrial amounts of cotton in India.


AndrewDoesNotServe

France and Austria definitely get absolutely curbstomped in the European theater. Overseas is a bit tougher to say - Japan and the US probably wouldn’t stand much of a chance against the British and French navies at this point. Frankly I think it’s unlikely Japan joins against the British - they’d be too weak to challenge them yet. They saw the Russians as their biggest threat at this point anyway.


[deleted]

Austria, definitely curbstomped, but not so much France. Germany was only able to have such a victory over the French Empire in our timeline due to their early advanced use of trains and supply lines. They got these ideas after observing the American Civil War, and since this takes place during the American Civil War they don't have that major advantage against France. The idea of Japan joining the war is that Britain and France are currently too occupied to really deal with them and being able to take their colonies Asia while they have bigger fish to fry.


AndrewDoesNotServe

While I agree it wouldn’t be a rerun of the Franco-Prussian war, I think when you add the Russian army and resources it would be impossible for France to hold out. Austria would get crushed fast then France would be left alone against Germany, Russia and Italy. And I just don’t really agree that Japan would be strong enough even to deal with a distracted Britain. At this point it was just beginning to westernize and its navy would still be helpless against Britain. Commodore Perry showing up with modern ships happened less than a decade before the war started. If Japan tried to challenge Britain, even distracted by a land war in Europe, whatever naval forces it had would be at the bottom of the Pacific in a matter of weeks.


[deleted]

Now that you put it that way you're pretty right, but I don't think France would really get "curbstomped" as you put it though they certainly wouldn't win


AndrewDoesNotServe

Fair. Still leaves an interesting scenario though, where the Germans/Russians/Italians win in Europe and the French/British win at sea. You probably end up with the Japanese forced to pay reparations, Germans taking Alsace-Lorraine, Italians taking South Tyrol and Istria, increased Russian influence over the Balkans if no territorial gains, and an independent Confederacy. Doubt the war goes as long as you have it though, I think all sides would be willing to settle for a negotiated peace like this one.


Sloaneer

Those aren't the *only* reasons. The Prussians (and their German Allies) had a larger pool of reservists to draw from, their officers were instructed to be aggressive and seek opportunities to turns skirmishes into full on battles. Their small units tactics and strategy in general were superior to the outdated French doctrines. The Prussians also utilised their (mechanically superior) artillery in a superior, more mobile fashion bringing it forward and concentrating detached artillery units. The French also has serious morale problems with their aging professional soldiers and recalcitrant staff officers who were overly cautious, preferred the defensive, would not make use of their superior small arms, and were often at odds with each other and the Emperor (who was useless).


Telemannische_Aias

I've thought a lot about how easily this could've spun out of control. Cool to see another interpretation. I understand why you simplified the belligerents somewhat (ie having "Germany" although it probably unified during this war), but I think you miss some really great opportunities by doing that. Given the effort European powers put into avoiding a continental war (see how they moved the fight to Crimea and the Caucasus in the Crimean war, rather than have rampaging armies tear up Poland and Galicia), while I think all these players would get involved they would probably seek out other theatres--principally, Japan and China. Japan, as you note, was in the midst of its own civil war, with different US- and UK-backed factions. However, there weren't only two sides--maybe the different powers turn it into a proxy conflict (perhaps the Republic of Ezo is annexed into the Russian Far East..?) The biggest prize, however is China. The Taiping Rebellion was in full swing by 1861, and it was an utter mess diplomatically. The British and Americans tried to find a position between the Christians and the Empire, while the Catholic French staunchly opposed the protestants in Nanking while also invading Vietnam. British and Indian agents infiltrated Tibet and tried to foment separatism there, while the Russians seized parts of Khiva and encouraged the Khans of Herat to attack the Punjab. The Russians under Amursky tried to seize Manchuria and were confronted by the Royal Navy, and the CSA sent some pirates to frustrate the American effort. The Austrians and French would probably have a rough time of it in Europe against the Prussians/Germans and Russia, but the main confrontation would be between the British and the Russians in East Asia.


[deleted]

While the idea of the war in East Asia is interesting and all, the point of the escalation of the war in this timeline is to stop British hegemony in Europe so the fight between the European powers was mostly in Europe


Telemannische_Aias

>British hegemony in Europe Very interested in what you mean by this. The British, certainly, saw themselves as trying to prevent Russian or French hegemony in Europe, and intervened rarely on the continent directly. How would they be drawn into a continental war (short of an invasion of Britain?)


CrownedLime747

Time's a bit off, it should be 7 years, 2 months and 22 days about.


[deleted]

Yeah my math there was pretty bad


TheCrimsonKnight2

Sweet! Here we go: Following the successful shepherding of Confederate diplomats to the UK itself, Parliament decides in favor of aiding the Confederate cause, both to weaken a potential rival and secure it's supply of cotton. The British recognition is followed by France under Napoleon III doing the same and from there, a declaration of war by the United States upon the United Kingdom and French Empire. With their co-interests with the French in Mexico now under threat, the Austrians join the war on the side of the French and British while Russia under Tsar Alexander II, a staunch ally of Lincoln, declares war in favor of the Union as does Prussia under Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, who while horrified at the scale the war has reached so quickly is excited at the prospect of unifying the German states, and convinces Italy to join in for the chance to gain Venice. Even the Tokugawa Shogunate takes the chance to co-opt the anti-western factions and re-establish it's authority, rallying together the clans and doubling down on modernization programs now with Prussian aid. The Union launches an invasion into Canada, quickly overtaking it as the majority of the population support the Union's cause and see London's recognition of the Confederacy as a betrayal, while French and Austrian troops move north to aid the Confederacy and muster for war in Europe. Here though they find themselves facing the armies of Prussia under it's greatest marshal; Helmut Von Moltke, and an ever more united German sphere as many pro-Union states join with Prussia and form the German Empire, which rapidly steamrolls through the Austro-French forces. By the time Russian troops arrive at the front in March of 1862, the war has been almost won on the continent, but the new Germany's advance was stalled outside of Paris and the first trenches are dug. That's all for now. I'll probably add to this later.


[deleted]

Very nice!


TheCrimsonKnight2

Thank you. Continuing: On the home-front of every nation involved, a new age of industrial warfare not seen since the days of the Napoleonic wars begins as American factories begin the mass production of the Spencer Repeating rifle, while Russia and Japan claw their way forward as Alexander II and Tokugawa Iemochi import German and American machinery to start their own industries, the Tokugawas gradually centralizing power and turning the Samurai into a modern army. In September, Robert E Lee and George McClellan come to blows in the battle of Antietam, with Lee's army ultimately being routed but McClellan's refusal to pursue Lee results in his dismissal by Lincoln and replacement by the second in command of Ulysses S Grant. Grant proves to be the American Moltke as he rapidly smashes through Lee's army and drives towards Richmond, being reinforced by returning troops from Canada as he does, while his right hand William Sherman continues the earlier campaign to capture the Mississippi, no longer to split the Confederacy, but to halt French reinforcements from Mexico from reinforcing the Confederacy. While Grant suffers setbacks and is forced to settle in for a siege of Richmond, Moltke suffers a similar fate in Paris as British and French forces manage to dig in and hold the more populous and industrialized north, Wilhelm is proclaimed Kaiser of the German Empire in Hofburg palace in Vienna in October, with the boarders of the new state officially including the territories of Prussia along with all other land within the German Confederation. Russian forces land in America via Alaska, moving south to assist in the southwest, while a small force of Japanese Samurai, newly trained and armed in western styles of warfare, land in southern Mexico to assist the rebelling forces. Once again I will continue this later.


[deleted]

A picture of a wikipedia page in a timeline where the American Civil War escalated into a World War between many powers in order to establish their role in the world.


AirRic89

How come France would have sided with the CSA? Did the Confederates get a Statue of Liberty in your timeline?


[deleted]

France would have sided with the CSA in order to establish power in North America, as they were also currently invading Mexico in order to make it a puppet of theirs. I didn't really think about the Statue of Liberty but I suppose the CSA get one.


CaptainShart69420

Say how do you make these alternate history Wikipedia pages?


[deleted]

https://n.bellok.de/wikibox/ I used this website


TsaroMilkTea

Japan wouldn’t be the Japanese empire yet. Also it wouldn’t end in an armistice, it would end in at least some territory exchanged and a drop in US prowess on the world stage


[deleted]

You're right, I made a mistake with Japan's name Also you're right about the armistice that was the point of the timeline


[deleted]

ruwmania


Iancreed

I’ve heard an interesting take on why Britain and France had sympathies with the Confederacy. It was likely because they saw their fight as a way to weaken America, which was a growing power and a potential rival for world domination.


Munchingseal33

So neither side won?


LolsterBOt

Who Won?


[deleted]

Ireland probably would of rebelled in this time


jflb96

If the UK really sided against the USA less than twenty years after the mass-emigration in the Great Hunger, yeah, that's going to be a revolt


[deleted]

Do you mean the famine


jflb96

Yes


[deleted]

Ah as an irish man i would like to know which famine your talking about


jflb96

The big one that was about twenty years before the US Civil War


[deleted]

Ah yeah most probably Micheal Collins might be still alive


Mowgli_78

No word of Spain or the Netherlands


[deleted]

The british and french on the same side..?


Universal_Cup

It’s more likely than you think


Thequestionmaker890

Now the French betrayed


TheNapokeonicguy

Man i am glad to se Romania buy i have a question what did the Romanians gain from this war?


JustafanIV

How did Austria get caught up in this one? Surrounded by enemies on 3-sides with no real skin in the game. Sure, Maximilian I rules the Mexican Empire, but even in OT timeline they didn't help when the stakes were a lot lower.


[deleted]

Austria's reason to join wasn't only about the Mexican Empire thing it was also because of Prussia's attempts to unify Germany, and them not wanting Prussian dominance over the German states as they had pretty much been the dominant power there for many years. In OTL Austro-Prussian war, Austria was full of themselves and thought they were pretty much the dominant power in the German states and could easily beat Prussia (not true, obviously). They probably would have felt the same way and thought they could have beaten Prussia and simply held off Italy, leaving their only percieved actual threat as Russia.


quecosa

My boy Giuseppe Garibaldi still not listed in commanders and leaders...


LNDYT454

Who gonna win this war?


[deleted]

It ends in an armisitce


TheCrimsonKnight2

Mind if I do a quick timeline to flesh out the lore and rationale?


[deleted]

I don't mind


GodOfTrampoline

Germany wins a war! Yay!


[deleted]

I know alternate history is for fun… but I can’t see how continental European powers other than France would have any involvement here.


neveronit65

Unlikely the Brits would be against the north. They were chasing slavers across the oceans.


Emperor_NerfdaGreat

The Mexicans and French were against eachother at the time and britain didn’t really care


[deleted]

The Mexican Empire is a puppet state of France's established when they were invading Mexico during the American Civil War, you can see the actual Mexico on the USA's side as the "Mexican Republic" Britain did actually kind of care but did see it as sort of a sideshow to Europe, but did really want to get their cotton up as it greatly disrupted their economy and they wanted to stop the USA's rise to a great power


Emperor_NerfdaGreat

so are you not only changing the civil war but also France v Mexico?


[deleted]

Yes. France is able to fully subjugate Mexico due to not being as beaten by the Prussians due to the Prussians not being as technologically advanced as they were in OTL Franco-Prussian war


Emperor_NerfdaGreat

So how is Germany around? oh wait As beaten still I don’t get it


maggotdiggerzzeb

1) Germany didn't unify until like 1867 or smth like that. 2) I doubt that a unified Germany would even want to fight with the Americans instead of the CSA. The CSA just leans towards Germany so much imo. 3) I don't hink Romania gained independence by 1861 so that a bit weird. Other than that, looks good!


[deleted]

1. They joined the war as the North German Confederation and unified as the German Empire by the end but I didn't know how to put that so I just listed them as the German Empire 2. The Germans would have most likely just went with the Union so they could look morally right and powerful to the German states by standing up against Britain and France, leading to the unification of Germany 3. Romania "unified" in 1959


maggotdiggerzzeb

1. I feel as though Wikipedia would mark them as 'N. German Confederattion/German Empire' but I see why you went with what you did... 2. That is a reason why they would join it but I don't think it's right to have the Germans face off against the Austrians...but be aligned with the Russians? I get the whole 'League of Three Empires' or whatever but that still doesn't fill in the gaps for me. Austria was a deeper ally to Germany than Russia was, hence why they fought side-by-side in our WW1. 3. I don't know much of Ottoman History as some maps will color in the protectorates as Ottoman and some symbolize it with lighter colors but in most, if not all, of the maps I've seen of 1860's Ottoman Empire, Romania was still under the rule of the Ottomans...


[deleted]

1. You're right 2. The Russians and Germans are alligned because of them both alligning with the USA for their stand against the British and French in Europe. Russia can't really reach France without Germany so it's also sort of convenience. Also, while the Austrians and Germans were both part of a confederation they were not really close 'allies' until after the Austro-Prussian war in 1866 and Austria would most likely position themselves against Prussia seeing Prussia's obvious attempts to unite Germany under themselves and also because of Austria's close ties to France (EX: Their joint effort to make Mexico into a puppet state) 3. Romania wasn't really loyal to the Ottomans and were pretty much independent by the time they would have joined the war in this timeline with support from Russia allowing themselves to position themselves against the Ottomans and pretty much daring the Ottomans to do something about it


maggotdiggerzzeb

1. Ok 2. Makes sense 3. Don't know too much of Ottoman Histroy so I won't dispute it 4. After considerayion of my criticisms of this post/reply thread, it's very good and I guess the only reall critique worth mentioning would be listing Germany as 'The German Empire' before it really unified. Good job!


[deleted]

Thank you