It’s sadly rare to find a timeline with a successful France in the 19th century, especially one focused on France itself! This is a fantastic one and I’m excited to see the future :)
*Grumbles in Orleanist*
It’s the bad luck that gets to me. Second son could have ruled Belgium. First son was popular but alas died right before dad listened to the idiot and ruined the French economy over a decade (dates are super rounded because I didn’t look them up lol). A slight twist in Austria and France and you get two liberal reforming monarchies before 1848. Or the conservative Dual Monarchy of France-Belgium!
 
Quite late but i'm pretty happy this TL it's back! The background on habsburg history is pretty useful and attracting enough even for someone like me who is (somewhat) familiar with habsburg history.

Now, since no one seemed to be interested yet, i will start the spoilering discussion
Turkish Delights
I mean, thinking about it right now, most probably you just butterflied the Serbian and Greek Revolutions ironically enough. You might not know about it, but IOTL after the First Serb Uprising was supressed by the Ottomans, there was another uprising in 1814 by Hadži-Prodan (which was supressed) but a good chunk of the serb leadership led by Obrenović didn't support it due to thinking that "it wasn't the right time" probably due to the lack of russian support available with the War of the Fourth Coalition, but with Napoleon getting trashed right at Leipzig, the entirety of the serb leadership probably supports the revolt from the get-go since the russians are now unoccupied, but they wouldn't support them (AFAIK they didn't even in the Second Uprising) and the revolt gets thrashed, with the leadership now in its entirety being dead you can't have a revolt so now Serbia is firmly in [pretty brutal, since the ottoman governor Süleyman was swift when it came to rebels] Ottoman hands, although after the region is firmly secured i believe he would easy the persecutions and (at least try) to rein on the janissaries that were clearly fucking everything up. And the Greek Revolution is most likely butterflied due to the Wallachian Uprising being the simple result of an abdication i 1818 and a wrong (in terms of efficieny) appointment by Mahmud II to the throne of Wallachia, or even if it occurs IOTL the greeks only succeeded early due to a 1,000 men victory against 10,000 ottomans delaying action in the Peloponnese, what can be easily butterflied.
 
There's also the issue of Britain, as George III who died in the 1830's was one of the last Kings to wield the full powers of his throne as a true executive and Constitutionally bound monarch. After him Parliament started to take more of the reigns over power until Victoria who became more of a figurehead. If things had gone differently, we could very much have seen an altogether different British monarchy. If say Victoria was assassinated in 1840 you could have seen a far more authoritative and reactionary Ernest Augustus take the throne. This would have changed the dynamics of German unification if not postponed into the 20th Century as Hannover would be joined to the British throne via a personal union, and there's no way Prussia would dare wage war with Britain.

I plan on major divergences with Queen Victoria and the character/nature of the British monarchy in the 19th Century.
I will take a guess and assume that Queen Victoria is going to have a different upbringing ITTL so that she is in many ways a different person from her OTL counterpart.
 
*Grumbles in Orleanist*
Lol though the Orleanists aren't even a thing yet. Though historically Louis-Phlippe did become a figure for the opposition. I have some plans for Louis-Phlippe which you might find quite humorous depending on the context.

In all seriousness great map and great last few updates.
Thanks! I'm glad you're enjoying it so far. I'm still doing some more research on the court and nature of Louis XVIII's style of rule because there will be some changes from otl because there was no Hundred Days campaign.

It’s sadly rare to find a timeline with a successful France in the 19th century, especially one focused on France itself!
Yeah that was one of the reasons why I decided to write it. In the US, aside from Napoleon, 19th Century France is barely a footnote. And when I was in school, my teachers simply glossed over the matter entirely or oversimplified it to the point of near historical inaccuracy. I didn't even know the Second Empire was a thing until I started playing Victoria II. I didn't even know the Orleanists were a thing either. I had to do a lot of research on my own. And then thanks to sites like AH I got to broaden my own historical understanding and knowledge.

Yeah. I plan on devoting more chapters to discuss the social changes and structural changes going on in France within this alternate French Empire. Let's just say things like the Constitution of otl's Second Empire will be different along with the political dynamics within the Empire as unlike Louis-Napoleon who was influenced by the more Bourgeoise Cabonari, the Eaglet was raised in Vienna under the watchful eye of his grandfather. In otl his mother basically ditched him for her new husband which led to Napoleon II having quite strained relations with her, and a bit of a lowered reputation of her.

It’s the bad luck that gets to me. Second son could have ruled Belgium.
I mean if the July Revolution didn't occur we could have very well have seen the French and the Dutch partition Belgium as Charles X's government was in talks with London about this subject.

First son was popular but alas died right before dad listened to the idiot and ruined the French economy over a decade (dates are super rounded because I didn’t look them up lol).
This harmed the King's reputation and alienated a lot of the working class and more rural folk who only saw the Orleanists as representing the rich business interests. Then there was the Conservatives who saw Chambourd as the rightful King. Honestly Orleanist France was between a rock and a hard place politically. I feel like France would have been better off had say Louis--Phillpe kept Henri V on the throne and ruled as his regent. This would have kept the monarchists united and would have allowed France become more of a liberal but still Constitutional Monarchy where the King very much ruled as an executive. Though looking at the Charter of 1814, in some ways it improved the power of the King as opposed to the Pre-Revolutionary era where it was conflicting with nobles all the time. The Parliament was also pretty docile to the King and was almost a rubber stamp to him in terms of taxation which was the only major concession. Honestly the situation reminds me of Charles II and England after the Stuart Restoration. Despite Parliament killing Charles I, and briefly abolishing the monarchy, by the death of Charles II, the monarchy was absolute in all but name. Charles II's carefully crafter persona of the easy going "merry-King" worked wonders to improve his reputation. His brother crapped the bed when he refused to renounce his Catholicism over the throne. After all as Henri IV said, "Paris is worth a mass." Had Charles X been more tactful, he could have easily passed most of his objectives functionally making the Crown de-facto absolute with a veneer of Constitutionalism.

A slight twist in Austria and France and you get two liberal reforming monarchies before 1848.
Had Schwarzenberg not died, and FJ not been left in the wind, its likely that it would not have stumbled into the Italian wars diplomatically isolated against France. FJ's policy of Neo-Absolutism had a chance of working had the government been given more time to reform its institutions. Metternich in otl predicted this would happen and actually had a set of Bimarckian style reforms he wanted to pass. But because of the regency council of Kaiser Ferdinand, the government was paralyzed for 20 years without passing any major reforms which kicked the can down the road until it was too late.

Or the conservative Dual Monarchy of France-Belgium!
I doubt anyone in Europe would accept that is it would have made France too powerful, and likely would have triggered another war.

Quite late but i'm pretty happy this TL it's back! The background on habsburg history is pretty useful and attracting enough even for someone like me who is (somewhat) familiar with habsburg history.
Thanks! Glad you're enjoying it! There's a video on the early Habsburgs by Kings and Things if you're interested. Its a brief but very well researched video.

Now, since no one seemed to be interested yet, i will start the spoilering discussion
Wow that's pretty detailed. I'll have to respond to it tomorrow as I have to switch to mobile soon. Let's just say I have major divergences planned in terms of Greek nationalism.
Chad Romaoi vs virgin hellene

Nice map! The relief basemap is a good choice again.
Thanks!

Very minor nitpick: The island of Pantelleria (southwest of Sicily, east of Tunis) is actually part of the Kingdom of Sicily.
Oh ok. I'll upload a corrected version sometime tomorrow then when I get a chance. Thanks for pointing that out.

I will take a guess and assume that Queen Victoria is going to have a different upbringing ITTL so that she is in many ways a different person from her OTL counterpart.
The Victorian Age in Britain is gonna be quite different from otl's Victorian era. Honestly I see Napoleon II and Victora being two parallel monarchs with both being two consequential rulers whose reign has a massive impact on the culture and society of their respective nations.

Good map, it looks really good despite my preference for more detailed ones.
Thanks! I'm glad you like it.
Though by "more detailed ones" what do you mean? What sort of details are you looking for?
 
Lol though the Orleanists aren't even a thing yet. Though historically Louis-Phlippe did become a figure for the opposition. I have some plans for Louis-Phlippe which you might find quite humorous depending on the context.
Yeah I know I just don't find that many TL's that have the House of Orleans any more when I'm reading older TL's there are a few. I have nothing against the Bonaparte's in fact in my main TL I just had a Bonaparte restoration in a sense.
 
Had Schwarzenberg not died, and FJ not been left in the wind, its likely that it would not have stumbled into the Italian wars diplomatically isolated against France. FJ's policy of Neo-Absolutism had a chance of working had the government been given more time to reform its institutions. Metternich in otl predicted this would happen and actually had a set of Bimarckian style reforms he wanted to pass. But because of the regency council of Kaiser Ferdinand, the government was paralyzed for 20 years without passing any major reforms which kicked the can down the road until it was too late.
I wonder what Neo-Absolutist Austria would have developed into had the Neo-Absolutist reforms succeeded in creating a "modern absolute monarchy", as it would certainly have been more efficient that the croaking and inefficient beast that was Tsarist Russia, not as crazy as Imperial Japan, and less dependent on resources that the Iran of the Shah or Saudi Arabia (I get the former was de jure a constitutional monarchy, but after Ajax, the Shah was a de facto absolute monarch).
 
Last edited:
Yeah I know I just don't find that many TL's that have the House of Orleans any more when I'm reading older TL's there are a few. I have nothing against the Bonaparte's in fact in my main TL I just had a Bonaparte restoration in a sense.
I feel the same way. While I personally don't dislike the Orleanists, I kinda prefer the Bourbons and the Bonapartes more. I guess its because I'm not really a fan of Louis-Philippe I guess as the break between the Orleanists and Legitimists was a major reason why the monarchists were never really a potent enough force in France as they were split in three different ways. As for the Bourbons of France, I have plans for them to become relevant again after the 1830's.

I wonder what Neo-Absolutist Austria would have developed into had the Neo-Absolutist reforms succeeded in creating a "modern absolute monarchy", as it would certainly have been more efficient that the croaking and inefficient beast that was Tsarist Russia, not as crazy as Imperial Japan, and less dependent on resources that the Iran of the Shah or Saudi Arabia (I get the former was de jure a constitutional monarchy, but after Ajax, the Shah was a de facto absolute monarch).
I can imagine that this alternate Austrian Empire would likely try early on to implement some sort of federalist policy/political restructuring out of self interest to gain an additional counterweight to the Hungarians. I could see Franz-Joseph cracking down hard on the Hungarian aristocracy who were in large part the main political faction clamoring for independence/autonomy from Habsburg rule. This land likely could be redistributed to the peasantry with other bits incorporated into the Habsburg crownlands, and given to those who remained loyal to the the Habsburgs. With this land reform the peasants would likely be more loyal to the Emperor as well. And although Hungary as it legally stands on paper, is preserved, it could see the Kingdom of Croatia, and maybe the Duchy of Transylvania spun off of it and ruled in personal union with the Crown of Hungary as part of the Crown of St. Stephen. This could also be spun as reviving one of the tiles of St. Stephen himself the first Christian King of Hungary.
 
Chad Romaoi vs virgin hellene
So less Pericles and more Alexios Komnenos? Interesting, though that said, part of what interested Western Europe in the Greek struggle for independence was the neoclassicism popular among the intelligentsia at the time - so you had folks like Lord Byron scurrying over to fight the Ottomans because Greece was the "birthplace of Western culture" or somesuch. And given that Gibbon's work is still around the Greeks taking more inspiration from the ERE, especially given the connotations of "Byzantine", probably means we won't have Western Europe fawning over the Greeks as much.
alternate Austrian Empire
His Imperial Majesty Francis, by the grace of God, Archduke of Austria, King of Bohemia, Apostolic King of Hungary, King of Croatia, King of Galicia and Lodomeria, King of Lombardy and Venetia, King of Jerusalem, Duke of Transylvania...
 
So less Pericles and more Alexios Komnenos?
I haven't really fleshed out all the details for this yet, but I was thinking something along the lines of Constantine XI and the legend of the Marble Emperor.

Interesting, though that said, part of what interested Western Europe in the Greek struggle for independence was the neoclassicism popular among the intelligentsia at the time - so you had folks like Lord Byron scurrying over to fight the Ottomans because Greece was the "birthplace of Western culture" or somesuch.
There were other schools of thought for Greek independence though. You could have some phil-Hellenic movements as well. Though I can see Napoleon II trying to reassert French cultural hegemony and academia over British ones later on. There could be other books like a refutation of Gibbon's works by a French historian as Gibbon tended to have more of an anti-Christian bias upholding the Classical era of Rome as the height of society and virtue while dismissing everything out of that as an era of stagnation and decay.

And given that Gibbon's work is still around the Greeks taking more inspiration from the ERE, especially given the connotations of "Byzantine", probably means we won't have Western Europe fawning over the Greeks as much.
You could very much have a Russian Byron come in and fight during the Greek struggle for independence.

King of Lombardy and Venetia
Napoleon II: Roi de Rome intensifies
 
I can imagine that this alternate Austrian Empire would likely try early on to implement some sort of federalist policy/political restructuring out of self interest to gain an additional counterweight to the Hungarians. I could see Franz-Joseph cracking down hard on the Hungarian aristocracy who were in large part the main political faction clamoring for independence/autonomy from Habsburg rule. This land likely could be redistributed to the peasantry with other bits incorporated into the Habsburg crownlands, and given to those who remained loyal to the the Habsburgs. With this land reform the peasants would likely be more loyal to the Emperor as well. And although Hungary as it legally stands on paper, is preserved, it could see the Kingdom of Croatia, and maybe the Duchy of Transylvania spun off of it and ruled in personal union with the Crown of Hungary as part of the Crown of St. Stephen. This could also be spun as reviving one of the tiles of St. Stephen himself the first Christian King of Hungary.
How do you imagine the central government to function in this scenario of "Neo-Absolutist Austria", I may ask?
 
If you feel like getting a little steampunk, the boost France could get from combining existing punch card looms with Semyon Korsakov‘s ideas about punch card information… it isn’t Difference Engine good, but still incredibly useful.

Edit: as discussed on the board somewhere lol, punch card looms could be applied to lathes. Thus you can have numerical control lathes, with corresponding boosts in steam engine and gun barrel manufacturing and so in. Plus since Napoléon was on board with the punch card looms, it’s an obvious area for Napoléon II to look at.
 
Last edited:
So less Pericles and more Alexios Komnenos? Interesting, though that said, part of what interested Western Europe in the Greek struggle for independence was the neoclassicism popular among the intelligentsia at the time - so you had folks like Lord Byron scurrying over to fight the Ottomans because Greece was the "birthplace of Western culture" or somesuch. And given that Gibbon's work is still around the Greeks taking more inspiration from the ERE, especially given the connotations of "Byzantine", probably means we won't have Western Europe fawning over the Greeks as much.
independence though. You could have some phil-Hellenic movements as well. Though I can see Napoleon II trying to reassert French cultural hegemony and academia over British ones later on. There could be other books like a refutation of Gibbon's works by a French historian as Gibbon tended to have more of an anti-Christian bias upholding the Classical era of Rome as the height of society and virtue while dismissing everything out of that as an era of stagnation and decay.
I mean, in this case i think the revolt might be more troubled from the start than IOTL independently of the possible butterflies that i mentioned before, because at first it was really a peasant revolt commanded by a revolutionary intelligentsia (what already did some friction because the peasant leaders found the revolutionary ideals a bit odd), so i think that a peasant revolt with a imperial-leaning intelligentsia might get even worse friction, or might not have a revolt at all, the thing is that the revolt was 100% planned by the Filiki Eteria and if you want to emphasize at least partially some byzantine legacy on the revolt you might have to just throw away the Filiki Eteria entirely.

About the phihellenes, i think that at the very least a good chunk of them wouldn't be as ready to help once the byzantine legacy is emphasized by the rebels. But then i think that to reach the roman legacy as a way of greek proudness, it isn't about having the greeks succeeding in a revolt with these ideals (as i said before, for that you might not have the revolt in the first place), you most likely would get it by having the OTL revolt failing (but with failing i'm saying immediate supression level of failing, but with butterflies it isn't hard at all, the start of the revolt IOTL was a series of close-runs where the ottomans had very bad luck), and subsequently Filiki Eteria's ideals suddenly lost all respect and you probably would have a move towards continuing rhomioi identity (which IOTL just ended due to the revolution succeeding) and ottoman loyalism (which was a common thing between greeks even after the revolution, Greece was one of the more loyalist regions of the Ottoman Empire), with the revolutionary intelligentsia probably going abroad (FE was founded in Odessa so...).

I mean, i think that if what i said applies, Napoleon II certainly would patronize one or more historians in order to debunk Gibbon (if only for the prestige of having a french doing it), and at least partially he might just do everything in his power to promote french art and academia in order to surpass the british in these terms :p
 
I feel like I'm the only one here who wants the Ottomans to reform and survive. And then thrive... :'(

Though if the House of Osman gets deposed by Muhammad Ali or the Girays but still retains imperial and territorial contiguity, I shall be sated.
 
I feel like I'm the only one here who wants the Ottomans to reform and survive. And then thrive... :'(

Though if the House of Osman gets deposed by Muhammad Ali or the Girays but still retains imperial and territorial contiguity, I shall be sated.
I mean, i'm literally trying to convince @Basileus_Komnenos into butterflying the serb and greek revolutions :p, even though if it goes that way i at least expect the ottomans to don't go full tanzimat at all, probably there would be only more technical reforms instead of the OTL whole cultural overhaul (and i still think that the Tanzimat going wrong was a severe divine punishment for artificially changing culture without it being necessary :biggrin:), otherwise i think that the Ottomans wouldn't be deposed at all, the Girays lost their last chance in 1808 and if Muhammad Ali would want to minimize his range of opposition he would only maintain a puppet-emperor instead of outright deposing, and even then he could very well be opposed by certain men in the Balkans, i'm personally fond of Ali Pasha of Ioannina not being deposed and managing to build for himself a powerbase in Greece (Khedivate/Pashalik/Emirate of Hellas has a great name for it) while any serbian revolution suppresser is a potential autonomous pasha if smart enough to play the cards right.
 
and subsequently Filiki Eteria's ideals suddenly lost all respect and you probably would have a move towards continuing rhomioi identity (which IOTL just ended due to the revolution succeeding) and ottoman loyalism (which was a common thing between greeks even after the revolution, Greece was one of the more loyalist regions of the Ottoman Empire), with the revolutionary intelligentsia probably going abroad (FE was founded in Odessa so...).
That ship has sailed by this time. Whether the Greeks (or any ethnic or religious group) was really and actively 'loyal' to the Ottomans rather than merely acquiescent to their rule is a big topic for discussion. Even after the Revolution IOTL, that 'loyalism' by Greeks living in Ottoman domains was due to the desire to not antagonize the Ottoman authorities, rather than any deep conviction. Probably the only Greek institution that was 'loyalist' was the Patriarchate, which saw its own power and influence diminished, but even there, by the end of the 19th century, it had come to accept that the Greek 'national centre' was clearly Athens, not Constantinople.

As for the Revolution itself, the positions of the British government and the American colonists were far closer in 1776 than the positions of the Ottoman government and the rebelling Greeks, leaving aside the complete and utter unwillingness of the Ottomans to treat their Christian subjects as anything other than dhimmi, which made any real reconciliation impossible and even unthinkable to the Porte. Greek nationalism was also not simply a matter of an 'intelligentsia', it was widespread among wide sections of Greek society and had been spreading for decades, going hand-in-hand with increased educational efforts across the Greek world. It is telling that the founders of the FE were middling merchants, and not even prominent figures like Kapodistrias or Korais: it is the commercial middle class and the klephts who birthed the Greek War of Independence. You can defeat and kill them (although by this time the Ottoman army was a shambles), but there will simply be another revolt down the line in twenty years. There had been a revolt in 1770 that was brutally suppressed, and only served to fan the flames of the nascent Greek nationalism. As elsewhere in Europe, nationalism is a genie that cannot be put back in the bottle by this point.
 
That ship has sailed by this time. Whether the Greeks (or any ethnic or religious group) was really and actively 'loyal' to the Ottomans rather than merely acquiescent to their rule is a big topic for discussion. Even after the Revolution IOTL, that 'loyalism' by Greeks living in Ottoman domains was due to the desire to not antagonize the Ottoman authorities, rather than any deep conviction. Probably the only Greek institution that was 'loyalist' was the Patriarchate, which saw its own power and influence diminished, but even there, by the end of the 19th century, it had come to accept that the Greek 'national centre' was clearly Athens, not Constantinople.
I mean, after the revolution any and all loyalism towards the Ottoman Empire is up for debate (i actually agree with you in the sense that it was in order to not antagonize the ottoman authorities), with "loyalism" i meant that it would drive the greeks towards non-antagonization, as they were before the revolution IOTL, although i think that the Patriarchate of Constantinople independently of greek independence would eventually lose its grip on the orthodox populations of the Empire.
As for the Revolution itself, the positions of the British government and the American colonists were far closer in 1776 than the positions of the Ottoman government and the rebelling Greeks, leaving aside the complete and utter unwillingness of the Ottomans to treat their Christian subjects as anything other than dhimmi, which made any real reconciliation impossible and even unthinkable to the Porte. Greek nationalism was also not simply a matter of an 'intelligentsia', it was widespread among wide sections of Greek society and had been spreading for decades, going hand-in-hand with increased educational efforts across the Greek world. It is telling that the founders of the FE were middling merchants, and not even prominent figures like Kapodistrias or Korais: it is the commercial middle class and the klephts who birthed the Greek War of Independence. You can defeat and kill them (although by this time the Ottoman army was a shambles), but there will simply be another revolt down the line in twenty years. There had been a revolt in 1770 that was brutally suppressed, and only served to fan the flames of the nascent Greek nationalism. As elsewhere in Europe, nationalism is a genie that cannot be put back in the bottle by this point.
To say that the Porte was completely unwilling to compromise with any other beyond dhimmi it's pretty ignorant that they actually compromised with the serbs 20 years before the Greek Revolution (but well, the janissaries actually fucked up the compromise afterwards, that's the whole premise of the conflict actually) and that dhimmi status wasn't really the main problem moving greeks towards antagonization of the OE, and exactly because of that i put that it was a peasant revolt, the reason being the fact that for the last 150 years rural life in the OE was increasingly sucking more due to at first war exhaustion and coin devaluation resulting in timari peasants being tax-abused, at second the institution of tax-farming resulting in the tax-farmers extorting the peasants as well, at third the chronic banditry problem resulting from the first and second points, and at last the fact that even after many official requests of relief to the ottoman central government they simply did nothing about it (maybe because by the 1750s there was literally recruiting of bandits into the bureaucratic system).

And well, at least in the way i see it, the merchant middle class was the greek intelligentsia, so i think it aligns with what i said (if i expressed myself inadequately sorry), but to say that the 1770 revolt was due to nationalism is grossly misleading (especially because the greek enlightenment and greek nationalism are two different things with different times, the latter one was inexistent until the early 1800s), the reasons for the revolt were surprisingly enough the same reasons for the greek revolution's start, an ottoman official in the Morea even worked on a document explaining the (rather poor) situation of peasants in the region, and sent it to the central government (who again did nothing), the only thing the Orlov revolt was actually to strengthen the klephts because the albanian irregulars used by the ottomans immediately teamed up with local bandits to increase even more banditry, and that's actually some of the big thing going for the greeks during the revolt, the Porte literally condemned all bandits to death (probably trying to copy Ali Pasha's efficient method of sentencing bandits to alive burning, which actually worked on the territories he controlled and was a big part of his local popularity, i mean banditry being gone changes everything for a regular peasant).

So going directly to the point, i don't think once the revolt is supressed it's inevitable for other to come in later, determinism (especially nationalistic-related ones) isn't really right, it depends heavily on how the ottomans behave post-revolt, and actually how the ottomans supress the revolt itself, as i mentioned, IMO in order to get the aforementioned "drive towards loyalism" you can't have the greeks taste the independence (which is why i think that the "Muhammad Ali supresses greek revolution" scenarios are quite unchanging long-term unless the egyptian goes really light at the greeks, by then the greeks already were seeing that the ottomans are weak enough to defeat, plus the fact that at least in Egypt Ali was far from being popular with the peasantry, so the chances for him to gain popularity with the greek peasantry is on doubt at best), immediate supression of the revolt (quite like what happened in 1770) PLUS the ottomans actually doing things in order to improve the local situation, with "things" i'm saying: explode banditry plus end tax-farming and the çiftliks, with just that and not being overly brutal during supression (and that's why time is important, more time of revolt = more likely chance of brutal supression) can take it far better than otherwise (and well, Hurshid Pasha, the governor of the Morea, was a pretty good administrator so i think it isn't very hard for him to do that, otherwise as i said previously Ali Pasha taking control of Morea would probably be fine as well).

Edit: Just adding that even in the middle of the independence war, greek national identity wasn't really that defined, there was a sense of panhellenism but many times regional affiliation took precedent and as i said before, there were many frictions between the mainline rebels and the Filiki Eteria, enough that there was two civil wars especially over the dominance of the roumeliotes (people from central greece) and islanders over the original morean insurgents, what clearly emphasizes the primarily socioeconomic background of the revolt, which is peasants tired of being abused trying to get out by throwing the "responsible" for the abuses out. A good inlook into this is Society, Regionalism and National Identity during the Greek War of Independence.
 
Last edited:
Does Maria Leopoldina still marries Pedro I of Brazil in this timeline? If not, it's a hell of a butterfly down here! If yes, than congratulations, Napoleon II just got a very friendly Brazil. Napoleon II was Dona Leopoldina's favourite nephew, she was extremely protective of him, to the point of liking and judging people through the lens of how much they accepted or liked her sister and nephew. It is all in her letters to see. Young Pedro I was a liberal and idolized Napoleon, being a sister-in-law, an aunt and sister and a friend of Napoleon's wife here, counted as plus for her in the beginning of their marriage.


.
 
Top