-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Looks good. Both countries have a good starting position in their try to conquer Finland. Maybe stick in a revolution in there? With either swedish or russian support, a finnish puppet could be established. If Sweden would be loosing the war they could promise Finland independence, russian controlled lands + Karelia. Russia could get the decision at the beggining of the war, establish a finnish puppet with a few divs, and promise them swedish controlled Finland.
But I must come back to my topic. How about giving those two inland prussian provs to Poland? Prussia would keep the coast not angering them very much, and they would at the same time be weakened.
But I must come back to my topic. How about giving those two inland prussian provs to Poland? Prussia would keep the coast not angering them very much, and they would at the same time be weakened.
This is what I was thinking of:
France isn't the strongest nation on earth!
And you shouldn't give the provinces surrounding the Danzig corridor to Poland, it makes Prussia too weak.
And after Napoleon won, he would be sure to let all his former enemies keep their power. It's a no brainer, right? ..............
Why does Poland even own Danzig? Napoleon turned it into an independent city country (is that the english term?) not gave it to the poles
Why does Poland even own Danzig? Napoleon turned it into an independent city country (is that the english term?) not gave it to the poles
Yes but he did that after our divergence point (1805). So it might have gone differently. IMO, it is not unlikely he would have given it to the Poles sometime between 1805 and 1836, for their loyalty.
I'm not going to give any more provinces to poland at game start. They will have to conquer them themselves.
@NickFeyR: No, France is currently not the strongest nation on earth, but I haven't touched their military and industry yet, so this will change.
One more note:
I think province ownership is getting close to completion. Or does anyone have thoughts about parts of the world I haven't touched yet (Middle East, East Asia)?
See the world map (it's outdated, but since the making of this map I haven't changed the middle east).
As you can see, not much difference from vanilla.
What's the backstory in Egypt?? Wasn't Napoleon's campaign there pretty much a failure.
Yes, but after the war with Britain was won, it seems probable that he would return to finish what he started. After all, in the alt timeline, he would have almost nothing to do from 1805 onwards...
Would Egypt be worth it though?? Wouldn't it be easier for France to just support Muhammad Ali and help him become independent from the Ottomans??
Not necessarily. In fact, Muhammad Ali Pasha probably wouldn't be in Egypt during this alternate timeline. If Trafalgar isn't the disaster it has been in OTL, then the French can very well remain in control of Egypt. It was Trafalgar that allowed the British and Turks to eventually oust the French. Secondly, Muhammad Ali isn't an Egyptian. He's an Albanian, sent by the Turks to regain control of the area following the french defeat. Hence, no french defeat in Egypt, no Muhammad Ali Pasha in Egypt. Even assuming the French are still ousted out of Egypt, Napoleon would return after peace in Europe had settled. If only for the fact that Egypt was HIS conquest, one that brought him tremendous prestige, that had incredible value in terms of scientific and cultural gain, the grain of Egypt shipped back to France would have value too, not to mention that Napoleon foresaw Egypt as his door towards the Orient. He had his eyes set on Syria (the christian population there being seen as a natural support, and he would have liked to add King of Jerusalem to his list of titles probably) which he saw as a launching base from which to threaten British India - through Mesopotamia and Persia if necessary. Back when he was a general trying to conquer Egypt, he actually had dreams of recreating Alexander's Empire.
I am actually surprised that in this proposed alternate map, the French don't have control over the whole of Syria. In a scenario where the French defeated the Ottomans, Napoleon would have demanded not only Egypt, but also Syria. Alternatively, if the French don't have Syria, that means history went as normal - Napoleon conquered Egypt but was stopped at Acre by British and Ottoman forces, fled Egypt, and did not return. With Trafalgar not a total British victory, the French could have held onto Egypt and the Ottomans might have acknowledged their occupation of the area. But its probable that the British could not have landed in Syria, and Napoleon would have reduced Acre before going back to Europe smelling another European war - thus stopping his conquest short of his initial gambit - either marching to Constantinople from Acre, or to Bagdad. This is, incidentally, the scenario from which I think is more probable that Napoleon would not extend his conquest in the Ottoman Empire. If the French conquests in Egypt and Syria were acknowledged by the Sublime Porte, rather than taken back, and peace stabilised in the region, Napoleon would not see an automatic need to return to the area, especially with the British already destabilised. On the other hand, if the Ottomans had driven the French from the area, with peace in Europe, Napoleon would probably return, and this time he would not settle for just Egypt and Syria - he would bring the whole Ottoman Empire down and make it a puppet state. And he would succeed, because with the British out of the way, and with the Russians friendly, no one could hope to stop the French from doing what they want vs a decaying empire.
On another note, I also think, as has been proposed before, that assuming a British collapse in North America, Quebec would be a satellite of France and would probably have cores over Ontario and New Brunswick; especially since with British loyalist migration out of the area, french population would be a majority there.
I am actually surprised that in this proposed alternate map, the French don't have control over the whole of Syria. In a scenario where the French defeated the Ottomans, Napoleon would have demanded not only Egypt, but also Syria. Alternatively, if the French don't have Syria, that means history went as normal - Napoleon conquered Egypt but was stopped at Acre by British and Ottoman forces, fled Egypt, and did not return. With Trafalgar not a total British victory, the French could have held onto Egypt and the Ottomans might have acknowledged their occupation of the area. But its probable that the British could not have landed in Syria, and Napoleon would have reduced Acre before going back to Europe smelling another European war - thus stopping his conquest short of his initial gambit - either marching to Constantinople from Acre, or to Bagdad. This is, incidentally, the scenario from which I think is more probable that Napoleon would not extend his conquest in the Ottoman Empire. If the French conquests in Egypt and Syria were acknowledged by the Sublime Porte, rather than taken back, and peace stabilised in the region, Napoleon would not see an automatic need to return to the area, especially with the British already destabilised. On the other hand, if the Ottomans had driven the French from the area, with peace in Europe, Napoleon would probably return, and this time he would not settle for just Egypt and Syria - he would bring the whole Ottoman Empire down and make it a puppet state. And he would succeed, because with the British out of the way, and with the Russians friendly, no one could hope to stop the French from doing what they want vs a decaying empire.
On another note, I also think, as has been proposed before, that assuming a British collapse in North America, Quebec would be a satellite of France and would probably have cores over Ontario and New Brunswick; especially since with British loyalist migration out of the area, french population would be a majority there.
Last edited:
To be honest, I somehow doubt the Poles would be all that keen on having an exclave filled with illoyal, German-speaking people. Now, had they gotten a corridor to Danzig, it'd be different, but as it, I wonder how well the Poles would be able to control Danzig. Prussia hardly is going to help the Poles put down a German nationalist revolt in Danzig, after all.
They would be keen. Danzig was basicaly stolen by the germans from original owners - poles. (Poles stole them from the pagans, but shhhh!)
The thing is, Poland didn't had enough people to colonise so they let the germans colonize the lands for them. That's why Danzig had a german majority and that's why Prussia (and Germany) had claimed it. (Same goes for Silesia.)
So Poles want it cause it was originaly theirs, and the Germans want it cause it's got Germans living in it.
So I think the king of DoW/Poland would want to keep Danzig to increase his standing with the Poles while the city would be ruled by it's own rights mostly. Polonization would, of course, occur.
The thing is, Poland didn't had enough people to colonise so they let the germans colonize the lands for them. That's why Danzig had a german majority and that's why Prussia (and Germany) had claimed it. (Same goes for Silesia.)
So Poles want it cause it was originaly theirs, and the Germans want it cause it's got Germans living in it.
So I think the king of DoW/Poland would want to keep Danzig to increase his standing with the Poles while the city would be ruled by it's own rights mostly. Polonization would, of course, occur.
Exclave. They are dependent upon Prussia to allow them to control Danzig at the start of the game. Otherwise, they would be keen, but given that too much polonization (as in, any active move in that direction) would be liable to make Prussia add complications to Poland's rule over the city (''Border control''). Now, as I said, if they had a corridor to Danzig... but without that, other traditionally Polish areas would be a higher priority, standing-wise and gain-wise, simply because any sane king would realise that relying upon people with a grudge against you is not the cleverest thing.
Still skeptic about Egypt. I know Muhammed Ali was Albanian and worked for the Ottomans at first, but I just don't see the Middle East butterflies. Egypt wasn't exactly a glorious campaign, and would Nappy really return and risk another Great Conflict (even though Britain, Prussia, Austria was defeated, they'd still jump at any chance of defeating Nappy, and Nappy attacking the Ottomans and their agents would probably be considered a casus belli). And if French meddle everywhere too much, Russia would not be friendly anymore. There are other ways for the French to influence the Middle East, than disastrous military campaigns.
But what do you suggest we do with Egypt? Annex it to the OE?
About Poland & Danzig: maybe a Danzig exclave is not a good idea indeed. What about independence but satellite? With the possibility to annex by event if the Danzig corridor is conquered?
1. We could have Egypt ingulfed in some civil strife between a pro- Ottoman and a pro- Mameluk faction.
2. We could have a pretty OTL Egypt with Muhammed Ali as semi independent, waiting for his chance to break with Constantinople, but with a twist. France backs Ali, while Russia backs the Ottomans.
2. We could have a pretty OTL Egypt with Muhammed Ali as semi independent, waiting for his chance to break with Constantinople, but with a twist. France backs Ali, while Russia backs the Ottomans.
I was thinking, since the UK isn't in a position to boss anyone around post-Napoleonic conquests, and due to British masonic influence on the Argentine revolutionaries, that two things should be considered:
1) Argentina should control or at least have claims on Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia (all of these part of the Vicekingdom of the Rio de la Plata, which were let go after the more mercantilist and oligarchic faction of the revolutionaries won the power struggle in Buenos Aires)
and 2) Argentina should have tense relations with Brazil, over Uruguay, which they attempted to invade OTL anyways.
1) Argentina should control or at least have claims on Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia (all of these part of the Vicekingdom of the Rio de la Plata, which were let go after the more mercantilist and oligarchic faction of the revolutionaries won the power struggle in Buenos Aires)
and 2) Argentina should have tense relations with Brazil, over Uruguay, which they attempted to invade OTL anyways.