Project Vespucci Suggestions/Commentary Thread

[unmerged(32548)]

I don't know what got me thinking about it, but yesterday I came to realize how cool it would be to do a weird little alternate-history mod in which the Americas have not been colonized. There are a few open areas, but it'd be pretty trivial to kill off all of the New World nations -- the important bit is moving pops around and creating new nations to represent the major ethnic groups existing in pre-Columbian America. What this would do to the rest of the world ca. 1836 is truly beyond me -- I haven't even managed to work out what'd happen to the Americas yet!

I know there are probably students of all kinds of history here, and Amerindian history isn't that obscure. I'll give you what I have so far (note that no files have been made of it yet except for a big text file and a bitmap -- both of which purely for personal reference), and I'd like to have any suggestions on areas which are empty, or even areas which are full! I'm not by any means an expert on this, I haven't had any sort of formal or informal education in the area, so this is likely to be pretty risible to someone who is.

BIG NEED: I don't know the first thing about major South American groups, or really about SA groups at all except the Incans and possibly the Amazonians. So any help at all in this area would be hugely appreciated -- making a colonial landgrab out of all of SA would make me feel sort of silly.


American countries to be removed and replaced, with replacement when applicable

Columbia (Washington) -> Chinook
Canada -> Iroquois
California -> Sioux
Deseret -> Pueblo
Texas -> Utes
Mexico -> Mexica
USA
CSA -> American Confederation
Cherokee Nation -> Cherokees
Quebec -> Inuit
Metis Nation -> Athapascan Dakota
Brazil -> Amazonians (?)
Piratini Republic
Colombia (South America)
Peru
Bolivia
Chile -> Incans
Cuba
Haiti
Dominican Republic
New England
USCA
Honduras
Guatemala -> Mayans
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Panama
Venezuela
Argentina -> Patagonians (?)
Uruguay
Paraguay

Patagonians: Small nation rendering Patagonia claimable without disrupting flow-block; obvious annexation target. National value: order. (Argentina)
Amazonians: Large, poor, big annexation target. National value: order. (Brazil)
Incans: Most of Chile, parts of Bolivia and Peru -- possibly some coastal areas left open. Southern colonial power. National value: order. Government: Presidential dictatorship, single party/decree. (Chile)
Mayans: Sketchy. Northern USCA, Yucutan? National value: order. Government: Conservative monarchy, single party. (Guatemala)
Preliminary provinces owned by Mayans:
Merida
Campeche
Gueguelenango (Capital?)
Flores
Belize
Vera Paz
Atitlan
Guatemala
Mexica: BIG civilization -- want events for this one. Central Mexico, and perhaps parts of Texas for balance reasons -- and it is 1836, after all. Central-southern colonial power. National value: order. Government: Conservative monarchy, single-party. (Mexico)
Preliminary provinces owned by Mexica:
Hermosillo
Sonora
Jose del Parral
Chihuaua
Castanuela
El Orite
Nombre de Dios
Sombrerete
Zacatecas
San Luis Potosi
Charcas
Villa de Leon
San Juan del Rio
Mejico (Capital?)
Valladoid
Zacatula
Acapulco
Agualapa
Tlascala
Chiapareal
Oajaca
Tabasco
Pueblo: Southwest US amalgamate, maybe extending as far as Utah and Nevada and having a mooring in California. National value: equality. Government: Presidential dictatorship, multi-party/HMS Gov. (Deseret)
Preliminary provinces owned by Pueblo:
San Diego
Tucson
Phoenix
Tuba City
Santa Fe (Capital?)
Albuquerque
Roswell
Buena Vista
Grand Junction
Denver
Chinook: Washington, British Columbia. National value: order. Government: Presidential dictatorship, single-party/decree. (Columbia)
Preliminary provinces owned by Chinook:
Empire City
Baker City
Spokane
Seattle (Capital?)
Vernon
Donald
Nelson
Victoria
Prince Rupert
Hazelton
Sitka
Sioux: Great Plains. Strongly militarist, with some tech -- makes them a terror in the early era but in the late game they're none such. National value: order. Government: Presidential dictatorship, single-party/decree. (California)
Preliminary provinces owned by Sioux:
Minnesula
Rapid City
Sioux Falls
Aberdeen (US)
Grand Forks
Minot
Bismarck
Sioux City
Des Moines
Goodland
Wichita
Topeka
Muskogee
Fayetteville
Little Rock
Pueblo
Cheyenne
Buffalo (CO)
Hemingford
Omaha (Capital???)
Lincoln
Alameda
Cherokee: American southeast, possibly bordering Iroquois, perhaps not. Might also border Aztecs and/or Sioux along the Miss. National value: equality. Government: Presidential dictatorship, multi-party/HMS Gov. (Cherokee)
Preliminary provinces owned by Cherokee:
Baton Rouge
Vicksburg
Biloxi
Jackson
Mobile
Montgomery
Birmingham
Pensacola
Savannah
Macon (Capital?)
Atlanta
Chattanooga
Charlotte
Raleigh
Memphis
Knoxville
Nashville
Paducah
Iroquois: THE American power, with possible exception of Aztecs. Might have event turning them into CSA/American Confederation (prestige, HUGE clamant area, auto-civilize). Nothern NY, Pennsylvania, the Canadian heartland. Central-northern colonial power. National value: liberty. Government: Democracy, multi-party/HMS Government. (Canada)
Preliminary provinces owned by Iroquois:
Sherbrooke
Quebec
Montreal
Ottawa
Simcoe
Toronto
London (CA)
Kipawa
Watertown
New York
Rochester
Birminghamton
Buffalo (NY) (Capital?)
Philadelphia
Harrisburg
Pittsburgh
Fredrick
Wheeling
Staunton
Lynchburg
Bowling Green
Toledo
Columbus
Cleveland
Newark
Atlantic City
Utes: May or may not exist. If not, the Rockies will be open; if so, that's where they'll go. National value: order. Government: Presidential dictatorship, single-party/Decree. (Texas)
Preliminary provinces owned by Utes:
Carson City
Las Vegas
Elko (Capital)
Salt Lake City
Beaver (UT)
Moab
Green River
Pocatello
Murphy
Boise
Inuit: Northerners, hugging the edge of the map. Possibly Northern colonial power. National value: order. Government: Presidential Dictatorship, single-party/decree. (Quebec)
Preliminary provinces owned by Inuit:
Repulse Bay
Baffin Island (Capital)
Baker Lake
Echo Bay
Coville Lake
Ft McPherson
Arviat
Ft Albany
Fort George
Ft Chimo
Hopedale
Athapascan Dakota: Mostly there to prevent the areas the Sioux should occupy from being tremendous. National value: order. Government: Presidential dictatorship, single-party/decree. (Metis)
Preliminary provinces owned by Athapascan Dakota:
Missoula
Great Falls
Helena
Billings
Maple Creek
Regina
Yorkton
Prince Albert
Battleford
Rupert House
Dauphin
Brandon
Winnipeg
Osnaburgh
Fort William
Dryden
Martin Falls
Nipigon
Saulte Ste. Marie
Marquette
Green Bay
Milwaukee
Eau Claire
Minneapolis
Duluth
Roseau

Notes on government/values:
ORDER reflects either a cultural desire for order (Aztecs, Sioux) or being possessed of relatively little political theory to speak of. Equality reflects a civilized, tolerant society by European standards, and Liberty the unique mission and philosophical dominance of the Iroquois Confederation.
Presidential Dictatorship is clearly the default for these groups -- as there are, in most cases, no formally organized laws for succession of leadership. HMS-Government reflects a reasonably culturally unified government, or at least one capable of projecting itself, whereas Decree represents a lack of mutual concern between the people and the rulers.
In some cases, there is a conservative monarchy; this represents a clear line of Imperial succession by law, and these governments are almost always reactionary and bloody-minded.
Democratic -- again, the sole province of the Iroquois -- represents the advanced state of Iroquois government and political thought, having been a federal semi-representative republic for centuries at the outset of Victoria.

As you can see, there is plenty of room for more native countries -- but adding more would probably make existing ones weaker, so I'm not sure if it's preferable.

Which European powers will want to colonize where is still up in the air, but I'm hoping for a situation like VIP Africa -- the interior is sectioned off by uncivilized countries so a colonial rush isn't possible.

Also, if anyone could point me to a list of cultures -- specifically a list of American cultures -- I'd much appreciate it.

Any and all comments, questions, or help will be greatly appreciated. If this is the wrong forum for this, please let me know. Thanks!

Watch this post for a list of preliminary possessed/core provinces for individual groups...

 

[aprof]

I'm not a scholar of Native American history either, but I'd suggest these for the North American nations:

Columbia (Washington) -> Nez Perce
Canada -> Algonquin (east), Huron (west) Cree (northern prairie) Dakota (southern prairie) Inuit (arctic)
California -> Ute (east) Modoc (west)
Deseret -> Ute
Texas -> Comanche
Mexico -> Apache (north), Pueblo (north)
USA -> Iroquois (east), Illinois (midwest), Dakota (northern plains), Cheyenne (central plains)
CSA -> Cherokee (east) Creek (west)
Cherokee Nation -> Cherokee
Quebec -> Algonquin (south) Cree (north)
Metis Nation -> Dakota

 

[unmerged(32548)]

aprof: As per your suggestion, I'll be adding the Commanche as soon as I figure out which tag to use and what, exactly, their borders will be.

Until then, here's what I've got so far:

For those who have been paying less than perfect attention, or can't be bothered to read through the huge dump above:
Blue = Inuit;
Yellow = Chinook;
Brown = Utes;
Orange = Pueblo;
Red = Sioux Dakota;
Pink = Athapasca Dakota;
Teal = Cherokee;
White = Iroquois;
Green = Mexica / Aztecs.

It's meant to be a little splotchy. Also, note that I haven't done the extremely important work on pops, events, or nations yet, nor have I started work on South America.

Also, to balance things out, I'm going to shift arouind the states quite a bit by the time this thing is finished. Most native nations will have only 1 or 2 states, whereas unoccupied states will be very small, neighborhood of 1 to 3 provinces.

After I'm thoroughly done tweaking NA borders, I'm going to try and move on to alternate history: e.g. what would happen to Europe and Asia had America never been discovered?

Since there are four interests America served -- exploration, religion, business, and resettlement -- those must be taken care of elsewhere, or not at all -- to deleterious effect on the country which didn't take them.

Exploration likely would have gone the Henry the Navigator route -- Africa and Asia, mostly for economic reasons. Since all of the historical colonialists are now competing for slices of Asia, it's likely that:
1. the Chinese coast would have been carved up like a Christmas turkey earlier;
2. the colonization of Australia and New Zealand wouldn't have been the sole province of England, nor would it have waited for the turn of the 19th century;
3. the conquest of India would have been more extensive and more multinational;
4. The Russian dominion of Siberia couldn't have gone entirely unchallenged.

And Africa:
1. would have been settled far earlier;
2. would have been introduced to Western culture and religion far earlier;
3. would probably be half-claimed by foreign powers anyway.

In Europe, I'm thinking the worldbeaters would be Austria, France, Russia, and possibly Prussia. England's failure to export its least desirable element would have lead to horrible stability problems in the 18th century and probably economic torpor, causing her to fall behind and be threatened with nonentity status; Spain would likely be an Austrian satellite and Portugal quite possibly part of Spain.

This is all guesswork and not a lot of it is likely accurate, so I'd like to hear any opinions any of you might have on it. It's a really big historical schism, so it's likely to leave a very unfamiliar world.

(I'll probably try and release two scenarios in one: one with VIP-Grand-Campaign old world and Vespucci new, and one in more scenario form, with more events and conjecture and such.)

 

[unmerged(13520)]

Not exactly an expert on the subject, but I'll toss in some very general ideas about South America anyways....

Chibcha: Central Colombia (South America), eastern Panama and in the northwest corner of Venezuela.
Amazonian: Brazil, Southeastern Colombia, southern Venezuela, eastern Ecuador, northeastern Peru.
Guarani: Paraguay, Uruguay, southern Brazilian border areas and Piratini Republic, I would think.
Quito: Western Ecuador and a bit of southwestern Colombia (Pasto area).
Aymara : Incan vassals, they'd be in Peru (near the Bolivian border and Lake Titicaca), Bolivia (greatest concentration) and the Chilean highlands (south of the Bolivia-Peru border).
Maya: USCA and maybe western Panama.
Caribe: Caribbean islands / Antilles, most of northern venezuela and a bit of northeast Colombia (the Atlantic coast), Guyanas, northern Brazil.
Arawak: South western Venezuela (parallel to the Colombian border), a bit of eastern Colombia, part of northern Brazil as well.

As for specific tags, how about...

Amazonian = Brazil
Guarani = Paraguay
Chibcha = Colombia
Quito = Ecuador
Aymara = Bolivia
Arawak = Venezuela
Caribe = Cuba / caribbean minors
Maya = USCA
Inca = Peru

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

Shouldn´t the Incas be a proletarian dictatorship? Their structure of society was very close to communism...

 

[unmerged(13520)]

Shouldn´t the Incas be a proletarian dictatorship? Their structure of society was very close to communism...

I'd say that's open to interpretation...I don't think it can be fully equated with communism, myself....while they did have highly communal working structures, they also had distinct classes, such as the minor and upper nobility and so on...so make of that what you will, I guess.

 

[unmerged(32548)]

Actually, proto-communist structures were very common in North and South America, and I'm probably going to have most of the political parties as socialist/planned economy to represent this.

HOWEVER, the idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat is not one I like to represent such structures -- it represents ideological communism rather than intuitive communism, with a Stalinist bent to boot. I guess I could have an event once Marx starts writing to change any remaining presidential dictatorships in the Americas to prole dictatorships.

 

[KINGBEN]

I'd suggest that Scotland could be independent because one of the reasons England and Scotland united was because Scotland want access to English colonial markets.
Would the Ottoman Empire be stronger because Spain wouldn't have had the precious metals from the America's?
Will there be events that kill off lots of the pops of the American countries to simulate diseases when the come into contact with Europeans.

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

I think that much of Europe would be a lot different then what it was historically, many events depended upon the discovery of America, Spain would definately not bee rich enough...

(And what about resources, the Incas should mostly produce prescious metal...)

 

[unmerged(17042)]

changes in Europe

The Low countries should definetly be different: the Netherlands gained their independence by being the industrial powerhouse of Spain, taking their money, and then using it to finance their own revolution. Without Spanish gold, Holland and Belgium would be much less wealthy and industrialised, and have either remained Spanish, or eventually been granted independence anyway... in the latter case, I would assume that they were part of the German federation system....

 

[unmerged(18885)]

el presidense, do you mean the Americas havent been colonized, or discovered? If theyve just not been colonized, perhaps some nations would have tried to ally themselves with European powers, and certainly there would have been trade. So, say Iroquios, they may have had the benefit of years of trade with Europeans and thus have access to modern weapons and strategy. But simply because of contact they would have suffered from disease. So maybe they should get higher tech, but less manpower?

I like the idea though, definitely different.

 

[unmerged(32548)]

The idea behind Project Vespucci is basically no contact until the 19th century. This means large areas of America are up to colonization by European powers (representing tribes too small / disorganized / universally hostile for the major native tribes to care much about), and there are several new nations of varying power.

The project, along with both of my AARs, is alive, just a little quiet right now...

Anyone know how to change the name of a state when you define a custom one in an .inc file? For instance, I defined the Athapasca Dakota's entire territory as one state, and it seems to operate fine -- except it gets called Montana. This is, obviously, less than preferable and if I can change it I'd like to.

On top of which, after I've got all the nations ironed out well (expect the dropping of South American nations into place through this weekend), I'm going to go to work on the stuff that will make this a respectable scenario/mod... specifically, fiddling with POPs with no previous modding experience, to say nothing of the neat stuff like game balance, flags and graphics, that sort of thing. (If anyone could point me to somewhere there just so happen to be flags for native organizations, that'd be great -- so far all I've got is the Cherokee, the Iroquois, and the Inuit in that regard.)

Any suggestions on which way to tilt population, what ethnic groups to use (in case I feel like redefining ethnicities), and what areas would be most populous in a non-Columbian America?
Thanks for all the interest so far, guys! I can't wait to get this thing finished...

 

[sanmartin]

Well, the territories of the Guaranis were hugely populated. BTW, the Patacones only had south Argentina, and Tierra del Fuego as shared by the Ona and some other tribe. The main tribes of Argentina all had Incan influence for the most part. I'll try to dig up my school books and scan the maps, but until then I suggest ALOT of Incan sattelite nations (and I do mean alot).

 

[unmerged(28406)]

What about Europe ?

 

[unmerged(32548)]

Project Vespucci: Not dead, just sleeping very, very deeply. Some might even say... comatose?

I've decided to play around with all of the European nations worth talking about, based on what happened / didn't happen in this timeline.

I'm going roughly from west to east to make my life easier.

Portugal: Major gain. Portugal was the premier African colonizing power, and indeed this entire alternate timeline could well have occurred through the loss of the Canaries by Spain in the early stages for colonization. Their neighbors never gained the absurd amount of strength they did from Aztec and Inca gold. They got to all of the ports in Africa, India, and China first, so when the imperial rush started (let's say, oh, mid-1500s), they knew what they were doing and got the best areas for trade. Portugal might even be seen as a replacement England in this scenario.

Spain: Major loss. On one hand, the gold of the Americas made Spain into a superpower... on the other hand, it crushed their economy though inflation. If we're assuming that Spain lost the Canaries for good before the age of exploration began, they may well have given up on exploration altogether... which would have made them an exceedingly easy target for French territorial ambitions. In addition, they'd never have been able to gain the prestige and sense of identity necessary to separate fully from Austria. They'd probably start the game missing most of Catalonia (in French hands) and as an Austrian satellite; essentially, a country with no particular past or future, with their only real use being to separate France and Portugal.

France: Minor gain. The French ultimately got little from their colonial empires save a thriving merchant class -- whose machinations would help plunge France into anarchy for the last decades of the 18th century. France would likely control a swath of the Rhineland and most of Belgium, in addition to the afore-mentioned Catalonia and the occasional colonial holding in Africa, India, and Asia.

Belgium: Oblivion. If they revolted in this timeline, they'd face both the Bourbons and Habsburgs at dynastic highwaters. No chance of survival, let alone success.

The Netherlands: Unsure. The Netherlands would have had a much easier time revolting against Spain in this timeline, but pissing off the Habsburgs would mean that independence would have a much harder time sticking. England's only particularly meaningful act in this timeline may well have been to support a Dutch free state for the sole purpose of flipping France a metaphorical bird; this means that the Dutch are likely to have various colonial holdings, but will probably be smaller in Europe and largely diplomatically dependent on an unreliable England for survival (dominion or satellite status, maybe).

England: Massive loss. Not only would England have no colonies of which to speak, she wouldn't even have the momentum to become the United Kingdom (Scotland and Ireland fully independent). Colonial power limited to a few isolated outposts.

Denmark: No change. While this country loses nothing in particular from this scenario, neither do any of her neighbors or feasible victims; any change would be fourth-hand (massively stronger Austria = significantly weaker Russia = slightly stronger Sweden -> Denmark) and thereby unnoticeable.

Germany: Unsure. A powerful Austria and France could change the face of Germany to some significant degree, but none of the German states participated in the colonial race and so it is a relative non-factor.

Austria: Massive gain. Austria has Spain as a satellite and would likely have large holdings in the Low Countries and Italy, and some holdings in Germany proper. Also, probably has some significant part of Russia in tow, and perhaps even an outpost in India or something of the sort.

Italy: Major loss. The Italians, between a stronger Austria and a stronger France, are entirely hosed.

Sweden, Norway: Major gain, oblivion. With a weaker Russia to deal with, the Swedes would likely own Norway and Finland to begin with. Swedish colonial energies were not an overpowering or particularly useful factor in our timeline, but it's enough to net them a couple of unuseful colonies (perhaps even Australia).

Russia: Massive loss. Russia would have the Austrians to contend with as a major threat; this means dealing with the Ottomans would be more difficult; thereby, dealing with the Swedes would be more difficult; because Russia is now particularly weaker, dealing with the Chinese would be more difficult; thereby, establishing a power base in Asia would be more difficult, thereby, dealing with the Khanates would be more difficult... and so on. Ideally, it should take the entire game for a Russian player to achieve the position he would normally have in 1836.

Analysis: There are two obvious superpowers: Portugal and Austria. After that, the major powers in Europe are France, Prussia/Germany, and the Ottomans; after that, the semi-major powers include Sweden, Russia, England; and the rest seem to be more or less minors.

I'll probably get around to this again next year; on the docket for and up until then is how we divvy up Africa, India, Indochina, and China.

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

Sweden should then own Petrograd, Narva, estonia, Northern Latvia and Riga.

Also territoriesin Germany. perhaps even more baltic coastline?

 

[Golden_Deliciou]

The idea behind Project Vespucci is basically no contact until the 19th century.

This is a massive stretch of the imagination. Tiny little islands in the Pacific thousands of miles from anywhere had been discovered back in the 18th century- it would be impossible to miss the Americas altogether.

What I suggest is that you hypothesise that the Native Americans already have a resistance to smallpox etc. and as such their populations are not ravaged by it nor are their societies destroyed by it. In this vein, it's important to boost the population of the Americas somewhat. More to the point, it needs to be established to what extent the power of the nomadic Indian tribes (Sioux and Commanche and so on) was a consequence of the collapse of more agrarian tribes in the wake of smallpox. Some tribes which are virtually unknown to Europeans would control large swathes of territory.

Figure in this reality the coastal areas of the Americas would be quite heavily settled, and up the Mississippi, but the inland areas would still be under native rule. Those natives which were immediately adjacent to European colonies would be much more organised and a good deal more sophisticated than those further inland. The Aztec Empire probably wouldn't exist I think as it was hugely unpopular with its neighbours and its extreme culture and religion would not have survived the impact of gunpowder weapons.

You're right that Australia and so on would be more seriously colonised due to population pressure, but the desert areas would still be empty. Figure though the place isn't discovered any earlier, just it receives Dutch settlers right off the mark.

Whatever you go with, having the Inuit as a state in Victoria terms is absurd. They just weren't seriously organised above the level of individual families.

 

[Golden_Deliciou]

Portugal: Major gain. Portugal was the premier African colonizing power, and indeed this entire alternate timeline could well have occurred through the loss of the Canaries by Spain in the early stages for colonization. Their neighbors never gained the absurd amount of strength they did from Aztec and Inca gold. They got to all of the ports in Africa, India, and China first, so when the imperial rush started (let's say, oh, mid-1500s), they knew what they were doing and got the best areas for trade. Portugal might even be seen as a replacement England in this scenario.

I doubt that. The agricultural and industrial revolutions were made possible by isolation from the constant wars of continental Europe.

Portugal generally had had her power broken before colonisation of the Americas really took off- and I think absent the Americas that Spain would have directed her energies at her neighbours instead. Portugal gets annexed in the early 16th century.

Spain: Major loss. On one hand, the gold of the Americas made Spain into a superpower... on the other hand, it crushed their economy though inflation. If we're assuming that Spain lost the Canaries for good before the age of exploration began, they may well have given up on exploration altogether... which would have made them an exceedingly easy target for French territorial ambitions.

Why?

I figure Spain is more sophisticated in this alternate timeline than in regular Victoria, but not much more powerful.

In addition, they'd never have been able to gain the prestige and sense of identity necessary to separate fully from Austria.

The seperation occured because it was painfully obvious that one man could not possibly rule both the Holy Roman Empire and Spain at the same time. Happens anyway.

France: Minor gain. The French ultimately got little from their colonial empires save a thriving merchant class -- whose machinations would help plunge France into anarchy for the last decades of the 18th century. France would likely control a swath of the Rhineland and most of Belgium, in addition to the afore-mentioned Catalonia and the occasional colonial holding in Africa, India, and Asia.

Without colonialism France doesn't amass the enormous debts she did historically (this assuming you reject my above ideas) and the Revolution doesn't happen- at least not in the way it did. Certainly Republican ideas have less credibility without the USA. Figure France has her "natural frontiers"

England: Massive loss. Not only would England have no colonies of which to speak, she wouldn't even have the momentum to become the United Kingdom (Scotland and Ireland fully independent). Colonial power limited to a few isolated outposts.

Why is Ireland independent? They were largely under the English thumb since the mid-17th century. Scotland's ultimate union with Britain was the immediate consequence of Scotland's disastrous attempt to become a colonial power (see the Darien expedition), so that's fair enough.

This being said, Britain's power in 1836 rests on a number of things which I don't see as likely to change:
a) England is an island state. This means:
i) She doesn't have to raise massive armies to fight off her neighbours. The Scots were never much of a problem in this regard. The nobles are thus free to do other things- such as begin the agricultural revolution.
ii) She is a major maritime and trading power. The absence of markets will hurt, but not a huge amount.
b) England controls large swathes of India. Without America, this will be an even more attractive destination for English entrepeneurs.

Germany: Unsure. A powerful Austria and France could change the face of Germany to some significant degree, but none of the German states participated in the colonial race and so it is a relative non-factor.

Figure a France more focused on Europe means a Germany more focused on dealing with foriegn powers rather than squabbling over internal concerns. However the presumed absence of Napoleon means that Germany will be at best no less divided than she was in 1836. Prussia may well not possess Westphalia.

Italy: Major loss. The Italians, between a stronger Austria and a stronger France, are entirely hosed.

With colonialism, Venice retains her position as pre-emminent naval power in the Mediterranean through to the 18th Century. She's not annexed by France in the 1790s so is certainly around.

Sweden, Norway: Major gain, oblivion. With a weaker Russia to deal with, the Swedes would likely own Norway and Finland to begin with. Swedish colonial energies were not an overpowering or particularly useful factor in our timeline, but it's enough to net them a couple of unuseful colonies (perhaps even Australia).

Christ. Just think about this. Swedes in Australia. Does that sound right?

Russia: Massive loss. Russia would have the Austrians to contend with as a major threat;

Not until the 1790s. Until Poland is destroyed, Russia and Austria don't even have a border. Figure Russia just sticks with her policy of devouring her neighbours through to 1836. Very little change. Russian explorers mysteriously manage to miss Alaska completely for 100 years.

The trouble is, if things had gone differently, who would have predicted Napoleon? So much of what we see in the Victoria GC is a consequence of his wars, and yet he's not something that can be predicted. Who's to say some other titanic series of events engulfs Europe in the late 18th century? Really, such a hypothetical (with 350 years of history to fill in) is nearly impossible to pin down.

 

[unmerged(32548)]

I'll admit my European history is actually rather specious, and you make several good points. I'll respond as best I can, since generally it's good to be able to answer holes in your own alternate history.

I doubt that. The agricultural and industrial revolutions were made possible by isolation from the constant wars of continental Europe.

Portugal generally had had her power broken before colonisation of the Americas really took off- and I think absent the Americas that Spain would have directed her energies at her neighbours instead. Portugal gets annexed in the early 16th century.

Yes, but the problem with that is that it's sorta catch-22ish: the Spaniards became such a threat as to make Iberian struggles precisely because of colonialism. The Portuguese might have lost some Iberian land, but I'd still think that being the first to get their foot in the door of what was, in this timeline, the New World would help them a lot.

Then again, it's not as if it helped Spain in the long run, either. I'll give this some serious thought.

Why?

I figure Spain is more sophisticated in this alternate timeline than in regular Victoria, but not much more powerful.

Why? Probably because, again, French energies aren't going anywhere except Europe, colonization was (I think) a safety-valve factor for Spain, which had recently unified. Certainly, I don't think being on a massive, all-encompassing, and incredibly profitable mission from God for a century hurt them at all.

The seperation occured because it was painfully obvious that one man could not possibly rule both the Holy Roman Empire and Spain at the same time. Happens anyway.

Maybe. But I still say the power of Spain would be a factor; in this timeline, Spain would probably be much more divided in national terms; so it would be an issue not of ruling SPAIN and THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE in the capital, bold letters which we associate with both countries, but more Castille, Aragon, Navarra, Grenada and THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE.
You make a good point and I'll really think on this one, but I still think that an Austria-Spain vassalage by 1836 would be feasible. Plus it'd be decaying like nobody's business, which makes the early game more interesting.

Without colonialism France doesn't amass the enormous debts she did historically (this assuming you reject my above ideas) and the Revolution doesn't happen- at least not in the way it did. Certainly Republican ideas have less credibility without the USA. Figure France has her "natural frontiers"
I agree entirely; I was saying that the colonial empire shifted power from the aristocracy to the merchant class, which, in turn, would lead to revolution. That never happened, so no French Revolution and no spread of unlimited democracy. If a republican revolt sprang up anywhere, it'd almost certainly be Portugal or Venice (thanks, by the way -- I completely overlooked them) or one of the other colonial powers.

Why is Ireland independent? They were largely under the English thumb since the mid-17th century. Scotland's ultimate union with Britain was the immediate consequence of Scotland's disastrous attempt to become a colonial power (see the Darien expedition), so that's fair enough.
Ireland is independent because, hmm. I'm going with the old tried-and-true safety-valve answer (it feels more like a handwave every time); radical elements remain in England, more pressure from the Puritans leads to a weaker Crown, less money reaches the Crown and its backers (the English monarchy was never that bad at keeping the local capitalists on their side), a weaker Crown leads to more opportunities for Ireland, and, well... so it goes. If anyone felt like supporting Ireland to get at England (maybe France), they could easily do it, and it's not like there wouldn't be an opening.

This being said, Britain's power in 1836 rests on a number of things which I don't see as likely to change:
a) England is an island state. This means:
i) She doesn't have to raise massive armies to fight off her neighbours. The Scots were never much of a problem in this regard. The nobles are thus free to do other things- such as begin the agricultural revolution.
ii) She is a major maritime and trading power. The absence of markets will hurt, but not a huge amount.
b) England controls large swathes of India. Without America, this will be an even more attractive destination for English entrepeneurs.
Without America, it'll be the Holy Grail of the era. England didn't monopolize India until after Napoleon, which suggests the other colonial powers would put up a reasonable showing.
Again, look at the factors above: the undesirable element isn't at rights to get the hell out, there's a lot less money coming in from the colonies, the vielle-riche remain influential, and so on. In OTL, and I might well be wrong on this, Cromwell kicked England in the stones pretty hard. In this timeline, a mostly successful attempt to throw out the aristocratic order would leave England weak as a kitten for decades.

Figure a France more focused on Europe means a Germany more focused on dealing with foriegn powers rather than squabbling over internal concerns. However the presumed absence of Napoleon means that Germany will be at best no less divided than she was in 1836. Prussia may well not possess Westphalia.
Good point; thank you.

With colonialism, Venice retains her position as pre-emminent naval power in the Mediterranean through to the 18th Century. She's not annexed by France in the 1790s so is certainly around.
I completely forgot Venice! I'll have to weedle them in.


Christ. Just think about this. Swedes in Australia. Does that sound right?
Little-known fact: Sweden, in the earliest days of American colonization, established several settlements and forts in what is now Delaware; the area was called New Sweden. This settlement introduced log cabins into the Americas, although they didn't have a chance to do much else before the Dutch colonists up north stole New Sweden from them by main force in response to the Swedes attacking an undersupplied force for the sole purpose of pissing off Stuyvesant.

Moral of story: Never underestimate the capacity of Sweden to do things that make even the most serious scholars of history stare in disbelief and say 'What the hell? But they're Swedes! They're not supposed to do that!'

Not until the 1790s. Until Poland is destroyed, Russia and Austria don't even have a border. Figure Russia just sticks with her policy of devouring her neighbours through to 1836. Very little change. Russian explorers mysteriously manage to miss Alaska completely for 100 years.

We can assume Vitus Bering died in a brawl or something, can't we?

The trouble is, if things had gone differently, who would have predicted Napoleon? So much of what we see in the Victoria GC is a consequence of his wars, and yet he's not something that can be predicted. Who's to say some other titanic series of events engulfs Europe in the late 18th century? Really, such a hypothetical (with 350 years of history to fill in) is nearly impossible to pin down.

True, very true. I figure it's safest to take the same approach you take in econ: bandy about 'all other things being equal' a lot and hope for the best. Maybe we could add a Napoleon; if we're assuming a strong Venice and Portugal which may well be subject to democratic turmoil, it's perfectly possible he came from one of those and could even rise to power during the Vicky GC.