I don't know about the other ones, but Luxembourg is probably under the same dynasty as OTL, since that's who they were placed under after OTL Vienna
Hail, Britannia: A New History
- Thread starter LeinadB93
- Start date
I take it by the title of the Serbian monarch that the first revolt succeeded? Even though Miloš was Vožd too somehow I feel this is being used to imply Karađorđe.
My guess is that the Turks sided with Napoleon and got shit on.
There was a large somewhat self governing Aromanian community in northeastern Epirus around Moscopole at the time.
It also fits with the first Serbian revolt succeeding and Serbia being awarded all this land.
- Is the Hcm Block similar to the German Confederation?
- Why did Prussia annex Franconia?
- Who rules Lombardy, Massa, Romagna and Ancona?
- What happened to Pontecorvo that caused it to not be around in 2024?
Interesting Map especially when comparing with the 2024 Total map, UE already exists in 1815, Hannover is split into two parts and isn’t in the UE and Spain still exists.
An explanation/post on the Act of Union which created the UE will be interesting aka why is Ireland and BNA but not Hannover a part of the Union.
Three other questions have come to mind following another review of the 2024 map,
1) the Driving side map doesn’t seem to match up to countries boarders, mostly noticeably in Africa and Asia does that mean some countries have both types of road systems?
2) Given the UE and Serbia (and by extension the Greater Asia Prosperity sphere) border across the Bering strait is there and tunnels and bridges in that area?
3)In addition are there any tunnels under Irish Sea or the English Channel?
An explanation/post on the Act of Union which created the UE will be interesting aka why is Ireland and BNA but not Hannover a part of the Union.
Three other questions have come to mind following another review of the 2024 map,
1) the Driving side map doesn’t seem to match up to countries boarders, mostly noticeably in Africa and Asia does that mean some countries have both types of road systems?
2) Given the UE and Serbia (and by extension the Greater Asia Prosperity sphere) border across the Bering strait is there and tunnels and bridges in that area?
3)In addition are there any tunnels under Irish Sea or the English Channel?
I'm not sure I understand some of these land transfers. The CoV, for all intents and purposes, was equalizing & rounding off the European polities through population (or more commonly referred to as souls in more primary sources) transfers -- ie, territorial swaps. That being said, a lot of the borders that came out from otl were indicative of the circumstances present at the time and the mood of the Congress. Ofc there are power politics involved, but there really was an earnest attempt at manufacturing a stable post-war Europe.
To better frame what I said earlier, let me point out Hanoverian East Frisia: the area before Tilsit had been a Prussian possession, and after the wars of liberation East Frisia had returned to Prussian administration. Prussia was obligated to help Hanover enlarge through the Reichenbach treaty but how exactly that would unfold was anyone's guess at the time. Subsequently, Denmark was dejure, the new owner of former Swedish Pomerania through the Treaty of Kiel; this was seen as compensation for the loss of Norway. To not go on a tangent on minute details of the events that played out, Prussia wanted former Swedish Pomerania, Britain wanted Hanover to receive East Frisia, Denmark wanted a continuous state (not practical with a non-bordering territory like Pomerania). It was agreed that Prussia would transfer East Frisia for Saxe-Lauenburg (which was a part of Hanover since 1689). Prussia would then immediately trade Saxe-Lauenburg for Swedish Pomerania. As far as the map you made shows, former Swedish Pomerania is not part of Prussia, which shatters the potential of this territorial swap, making it not possible--yet Hanover owns East Frisia and Denmark Saxe-Lauenburg respectfully still.
Looking at another area of questionability: Prussian Franconia. While the areas of Bayreuth & Ansbach had been taken over by the main-line Hohenzollerns in Prussia from 1792 til 1805, the area had been recognized as Bavarian since. Not that Prussia couldn't try to reclaim these areas, but Bavaria needs to be compensated for the loss of souls, which doesn't seem to have happened on your map. Furthermore, Wurzburg being included doesn't make much sense. Aside from the fact that the area was Catholic, it was an extension of dynastical Habsburg territory. The Treaty of Ried, which had recognized Bavaria's Napoleonic frontiers was something the Austrians, post-war, wanted to revise. So they traded Würzburg for Tyrol & Vorarlberg. Why this is Prussian now I do not know.
I'm not sure what the lore is on the Rhine, but I do know Britain is crying as a completely untenable polity in the Saar, a Frankenstein kingdom in the Rhine and a shafted Bavaria are the "watchmen" of Germany against any future French incursion.
I could talk about other stuff on the map but I think my post is already getting too long and I might be misreading your intent with your TL, so I apologize if I'm coming off too abrupt; I've read too many Congress of Vienna books and papers that I've become a tad too devoted to the topic.
As someone who doesn't know nearly as much about Vienna I'm not sure if these solutions would be any good, but regarding both the Pomerania-Frisia-Lauenburg and the Tirol for Wuerzburg trades, given the state of the map in modern day, I feel like the simplest solution could be that they simply don't happen at all in TTL. So, like, East Frisia stays Prussian, Saxe-Lauenburg remains Independent, and Swedish Pomerania stays Danish (which I think also makes its later independence more plausible). And meanwhile, Würzburg is returned to the Habsburgs in exchange for Bavaria getting to keep Tirol and Vorarlberg, since they own it in 2024 anyway. Not sure how the French border could be strengthened in any other way than giving Rhineland to Prussia though, unfortunately.I'm not sure I understand some of these land transfers. The CoV, for all intents and purposes, was equalizing & rounding off the European polities through population (or more commonly referred to as souls in more primary sources) transfers -- ie, territorial swaps. That being said, a lot of the borders that came out from otl were indicative of the circumstances present at the time and the mood of the Congress. Ofc there are power politics involved, but there really was an earnest attempt at manufacturing a stable post-war Europe.
To better frame what I said earlier, let me point out Hanoverian East Frisia: the area before Tilsit had been a Prussian possession, and after the wars of liberation East Frisia had returned to Prussian administration. Prussia was obligated to help Hanover enlarge through the Reichenbach treaty but how exactly that would unfold was anyone's guess at the time. Subsequently, Denmark was dejure, the new owner of former Swedish Pomerania through the Treaty of Kiel; this was seen as compensation for the loss of Norway. To not go on a tangent on minute details of the events that played out, Prussia wanted former Swedish Pomerania, Britain wanted Hanover to receive East Frisia, Denmark wanted a continuous state (not practical with a non-bordering territory like Pomerania). It was agreed that Prussia would transfer East Frisia for Saxe-Lauenburg (which was a part of Hanover since 1689). Prussia would then immediately trade Saxe-Lauenburg for Swedish Pomerania. As far as the map you made shows, former Swedish Pomerania is not part of Prussia, which shatters the potential of this territorial swap, making it not possible--yet Hanover owns East Frisia and Denmark Saxe-Lauenburg respectfully still.
Looking at another area of questionability: Prussian Franconia. While the areas of Bayreuth & Ansbach had been taken over by the main-line Hohenzollerns in Prussia from 1792 til 1805, the area had been recognized as Bavarian since. Not that Prussia couldn't try to reclaim these areas, but Bavaria needs to be compensated for the loss of souls, which doesn't seem to have happened on your map. Furthermore, Wurzburg being included doesn't make much sense. Aside from the fact that the area was Catholic, it was an extension of dynastical Habsburg territory. The Treaty of Ried, which had recognized Bavaria's Napoleonic frontiers was something the Austrians, post-war, wanted to revise. So they traded Würzburg for Tyrol & Vorarlberg. Why this is Prussian now I do not know.
I'm not sure what the lore is on the Rhine, but I do know Britain is crying as a completely untenable polity in the Saar, a Frankenstein kingdom in the Rhine and a shafted Bavaria are the "watchmen" of Germany against any future French incursion.
I could talk about other stuff on the map but I think my post is already getting too long and I might be misreading your intent with your TL, so I apologize if I'm coming off too abrupt; I've read too many Congress of Vienna books and papers that I've become a tad too devoted to the topic.
The OP mentioned that the modern borders of Austria-Bohemia are the result of a war
Fair enough (although that would still technically be true here, since Austria originally lost Tirol to Bavaria because they lost a war – the War of the Fifth Coalition)
LeinadB93
Monthly Donor
Thanks all for your comments and questions - apologies for the delay in responding to them all. I think it is worth pointing out that whilst this series does not have one specific POD, there are enough minor adjustments throughout the 17th and 18th centuries that mean the Napoleonic Wars, although they result more or less in the same end, transpire with sufficient differences from OTL.
The Papal States were only partially reconstituted in order to create the states of Romagna and Ancona, and also because the Great Powers realised that the temporal power of the Papacy was becoming untenable.
The Rhine goes to the OTL Teschen branch of the Habsburgs. Luxembourg is in personal union with the Netherlands, and the Saar is under the House of Nassau-Weilburg before devolving to Nassau-Merenberg.
Lombardy is constituted as an independent kingdom under the OTL Habsburg rulers of Tuscany. So still within the Austrian sphere. This partly due to Austria taking Bosnia.
@Damian0358 will be able to answer more of this than I can, as much of this is based on their contributions to V1.
Suffice to say:
Indeed. Moscopole did not suffer the decline and abandonment of the OTL 18th century, and therefore acted as the core of an Aromanian state.
Thanks
Yep the United Empire was formed in 1807. Hanover has the same borders as its OTL counterpart. Spain hasn't been divided... yet.
Hanover was never considered to become part of the UE, a bit like how it was never considered to become part of the UK IOTL, especially as it didn't exist when the UE was formed.
Rhineland went to Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen.
Bulgaria went to a fictional son of Archduke Joseph of Austria and his first wife, Grand Duchess Alexandra Pavlovna of Russia, founding the House of Habsburg-Romanov.
Appreciate your input as you clearly have much greater knowledge than me.
As outlined above, there are enough minor adjustments throughout the 17th and 18th centuries to mean the Napoleonic Wars, although they result more or less in the same end, transpire with sufficient differences from OTL. Whilst I do not want to go into those details here, I believe they are sufficient to warrant this alternative Congress of Vienna.
A few points:
The Papal States were only partially reconstituted in order to create the states of Romagna and Ancona, and also because the Great Powers realised that the temporal power of the Papacy was becoming untenable.
The Rhine goes to the OTL Teschen branch of the Habsburgs. Luxembourg is in personal union with the Netherlands, and the Saar is under the House of Nassau-Weilburg before devolving to Nassau-Merenberg.
Lombardy is constituted as an independent kingdom under the OTL Habsburg rulers of Tuscany. So still within the Austrian sphere. This partly due to Austria taking Bosnia.
@Damian0358 will be able to answer more of this than I can, as much of this is based on their contributions to V1.
Suffice to say:
Indeed. Moscopole did not suffer the decline and abandonment of the OTL 18th century, and therefore acted as the core of an Aromanian state.
- No it's a loose block that sent delegates to the Congress, but largely ceased to function by the 1830s as its members were pulled into the spheres of influence of the Great Powers.
- Reclaiming the land of the principalitys of Bayreuth and Ansbach.
- Lombardy went to the OTL Tuscan branch of the Habsburgs, Massa was restored to the House of Este, Romagna was given to Eugene Beauharnais and Ancona was given to the sixth son of Leopold II - Anton Victor.
- It forms part of Italy.
Thanks
Yep the United Empire was formed in 1807. Hanover has the same borders as its OTL counterpart. Spain hasn't been divided... yet.
Hanover was never considered to become part of the UE, a bit like how it was never considered to become part of the UK IOTL, especially as it didn't exist when the UE was formed.
- I've double checked on the image and the original files and I can't see anything that doesn't match. There are some countries with both types of road systems, but they are generally in geographically distance parts of the country - for example Mainland Portugal and most of the islands use right-hand traffic, while Goa, East Timor and Macau use left-hand traffic.
- No tunnels or bridges over the Bering Strait - there just isn't the population or economic rationale for them.
- Yes to both.
Rhineland went to Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen.
Bulgaria went to a fictional son of Archduke Joseph of Austria and his first wife, Grand Duchess Alexandra Pavlovna of Russia, founding the House of Habsburg-Romanov.
I'm not sure I understand some of these land transfers. The CoV, for all intents and purposes, was equalizing & rounding off the European polities through population (or more commonly referred to as souls in more primary sources) transfers -- ie, territorial swaps. That being said, a lot of the borders that came out from otl were indicative of the circumstances present at the time and the mood of the Congress. Ofc there are power politics involved, but there really was an earnest attempt at manufacturing a stable post-war Europe.
To better frame what I said earlier, let me point out Hanoverian East Frisia: the area before Tilsit had been a Prussian possession, and after the wars of liberation East Frisia had returned to Prussian administration. Prussia was obligated to help Hanover enlarge through the Reichenbach treaty but how exactly that would unfold was anyone's guess at the time. Subsequently, Denmark was dejure, the new owner of former Swedish Pomerania through the Treaty of Kiel; this was seen as compensation for the loss of Norway. To not go on a tangent on minute details of the events that played out, Prussia wanted former Swedish Pomerania, Britain wanted Hanover to receive East Frisia, Denmark wanted a continuous state (not practical with a non-bordering territory like Pomerania). It was agreed that Prussia would transfer East Frisia for Saxe-Lauenburg (which was a part of Hanover since 1689). Prussia would then immediately trade Saxe-Lauenburg for Swedish Pomerania. As far as the map you made shows, former Swedish Pomerania is not part of Prussia, which shatters the potential of this territorial swap, making it not possible--yet Hanover owns East Frisia and Denmark Saxe-Lauenburg respectfully still.
Looking at another area of questionability: Prussian Franconia. While the areas of Bayreuth & Ansbach had been taken over by the main-line Hohenzollerns in Prussia from 1792 til 1805, the area had been recognized as Bavarian since. Not that Prussia couldn't try to reclaim these areas, but Bavaria needs to be compensated for the loss of souls, which doesn't seem to have happened on your map. Furthermore, Wurzburg being included doesn't make much sense. Aside from the fact that the area was Catholic, it was an extension of dynastical Habsburg territory. The Treaty of Ried, which had recognized Bavaria's Napoleonic frontiers was something the Austrians, post-war, wanted to revise. So they traded Würzburg for Tyrol & Vorarlberg. Why this is Prussian now I do not know.
I'm not sure what the lore is on the Rhine, but I do know Britain is crying as a completely untenable polity in the Saar, a Frankenstein kingdom in the Rhine and a shafted Bavaria are the "watchmen" of Germany against any future French incursion.
I could talk about other stuff on the map but I think my post is already getting too long and I might be misreading your intent with your TL, so I apologize if I'm coming off too abrupt; I've read too many Congress of Vienna books and papers that I've become a tad too devoted to the topic.
Appreciate your input as you clearly have much greater knowledge than me.
As outlined above, there are enough minor adjustments throughout the 17th and 18th centuries to mean the Napoleonic Wars, although they result more or less in the same end, transpire with sufficient differences from OTL. Whilst I do not want to go into those details here, I believe they are sufficient to warrant this alternative Congress of Vienna.
A few points:
- There was a secondary theatre in North America between Britain and France over Louisiana - so this will play a part. In addition, Britain has, since the 1760s been influenced by Americans serving in government - and this will undoubtedly play an influence in foreign policy.
- Prussia is seen less favourable because it aligned with Napoleon, the same for Bavaria, hence while the former does gain some territory, it is not to the same extent as OTL.
- The independence of much of the Balkans from Ottoman rule is also a major player within post-war politics. With Austria getting Bosnia, this can be ofset by fewer territorial gains elsewhere. There is also the issue of dividing up the Balkan states amongst the Great Powers in terms of influence.
Last edited:
Did you meant that the OTL Tuscan Habsburgs received Lombardy and not the Teschens?
Also, if Mass is ruled by the House of Este, does Francis IV still become Duke of Modena?