Editor’s Comments

Incidentally, naming no names, could certain people PLEASE run their submissions through a spellchecker first!! I understand a mistake with ‘Mohammed’, but not with ‘their’ or ‘government’.

I’ve enjoyed reading this Alternate History, but I rate it as not particularly plausible. The POD and some of the developments are valid and interesting, but I disagree with the main points and the Alternate world, which seems to be practically identical to OTL, just different players.

I tend to disbelieve that any king could lope off half the kingdom, even the practically worthless (or so people believed at the time) American colonies and grant them practical independence. Its not a kingly act and I can’t think of any comparable act that did happen in OTL. Even if the king did want it to happen, the people might not go along with the idea; it would be like Britain pushing Sussex out of the UK. That said, I see nothing wrong with the establishment of an American Parliament, which would give the Americans some autonomy, while maintaining free imperial trade, mutual defence and a common ground.

I’m not sure if you mentioned it, but is Canada part of the American kingdom? If so, there will be problems with the French population. They were concerned about becoming part of the OTL USA, while the Americans wanted the Canadian lands for reasons that frankly escape me. If the king does anything equivalent to the Quebec Act, the population will be seriously unhappy, while I can’t see an American parliament passing the act.

In circumstances where America did develop an astrocraticy, the slave trade would be harder to stamp out. Remember that the US was unable to stop slavery without a civil war, while Britain could only stop it with great difficulty. An alliance of the American and British aristocrats would mean that many of the people who held money and slaves would be making the decisions. If they hold out for compensation, it would have a serious effect on the economy, while angering people who don’t own slaves, but are already worried about competition from newly freed slaves.

Incidentally, in any timeline where Britain is a close ally of the United States, the CSA doesn’t stand a chance. Instead of the hope of British recognition, the British navy would make the blockade even tighter, while preventing France or Germany from interfering in Mexico. The war would probably last no more than a year. Of course, if France is not occupied in Mexico, they might notice the Prussians sooner…..

In the 1800’s, Britain rarely gave back territories or made them independent. Yes, there were places where such a solution would have been very effective, but they did not do that.

The First World War would not last four years if America was in the war from the start. If we assume the British and American navies to be the same as their OTL equivalents, they’ll be more than capable of destroying the German navy or even risking one of the harebrained schemes that Churchill came up with, such as the naval attack on Denmark, or a close blockade. The American manpower could provide a vital boost to the BEF, while American industries might well develop tanks before OTL. The joint forces could also sweep Germany’s colonies up before Japan or China could become involved.

No king of Britain could order the use of Nazi-type polices. They could suggest them, such as Victoria suggested polices, but they could not order them. Nor could the parliament force the king out merely for liking the foe – King George of OTL, who was delighted that the French were no longer in the war, was not forced out.

Something that did interest me from this AH was the possibility of a global British monarchy. I have tinkered with such an idea, but you’ve given me a better one. Let’s say that the Parliament of America is set up like Britain’s, but has the heir to the throne as viceroy. Someone to serve as a focus for public loyalty, while being unbribeable and a distraction from the business of government. This idea could also allow the British to absorb monarchies from India when they take over there, which would involve Indians in the highest levels right from the start.

A Continent Divided

This is a genuinely interesting idea. I don’t see why the four nations did not unite, but the United Kingdom did not become united until the pressure to do so was overwhelming and there was STILL opposition to the union, although very uncoordinated. That said, there would be lots of cross-border trade, which would be very difficult to stamp out, so the pressure for union might increase constantly.

There have been definite attempts in Britain, from which Australia was born, to accommodate the needs of ethnic minorities with language signs. Unless there was a strong current of anti-German feeling, I don’t see why the request to have a two-language nation was denied. If such a current did exist, we might expect South Australia to follow the Japanese path and be openly hostile or neutral in the World War Two equivalent.

I’m not convinced that the four nations would not form some kind of constant defence force, regardless of their differences. If Japan or China managed to overwhelm or suborn one of the nations, the others would be in serious trouble. This would also have the advantage of making it difficult for the nations to fight each other, while sharing the costs of weapons. The existence of one of the states holding nukes and the others not strikes me as odd. If England and Scotland were separate after WW2, I would expect us Scots to be very leery of English nukes within easy range, even given a history of friendship. A joint nuclear force is a much more logical option.

I liked the idea of the formation of Sud Australia. I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of the Planetary Graphic Novels, but one of them had the hero discovering a similar conspiracy by some of the most famous characters of the era, Holmes, Dracula and Wells among them. A summery of the issue is available here: http://home.earthlink.net/~rkkman/frames/summaries/S13.htm.

Texas über Alles

Glad I provided the inspiration for this timeline. I was surprised to discover that this had really come close to happening, but history is funny sometimes.

I do think that British support would not have mattered as much as you suggest. The British would have had awesome difficulty in supplying an army in Texas; they might well have only meant to keep the US busy.

The Germans would have been wiser to free the blacks and allow them to live as citizens. This would not only encourage more blacks to settle, work and pay taxes, but keep the US north and South at loggerheads over the issue. The North was historically unwilling to allow the south to add more slave states, so they might not support a war to recover those slaves. Furthermore, if the blacks had a real chance at freedom, I would expect them to become very loyal servants of the German King.

If the USCW occurs in this timeline, I would expect that the Germans help out the confederacy, or, failing that, at least supplied them with weapons and volunteers. That said, less CSA states means that they’ll have less manpower to draw on for the war. I don’t think that the civil war would have happened with a predatory state in the south and perhaps in the north. Incidentally, it would be easier for thousands of blacks to move to Texas after the war finished.

I did have one other POD coming from this idea. What might have happened if the Germans had launched their coup – and then the US invaded, overthrew the coup-plotters and annexed Texas? There were in OTL hints of a growing German-American agonistism, here, Germany would have a very good reason to hate the US. This might well mean that the US would be forced to ally with Britain in 1914, assuming that it happens. Republics don’t bear grudges, but empires do.

``So You think you've got Troubles?’’

I would like to think that British troops would try to separate Catholics and Protestants, but they would be very temped to just let them kill each other. I can’t see any Irish leader deciding to try to retake the north anyway; it would be suicide against the more powerful Britain. Worst Case: Britain crushes the Irish and takes over again.

In this situation, I could see the British demanding that the Irish renounce their claim to the Whole Island – never mind ‘asking’.

The Glory that was Macedon

The problem with this part of history is that I don’t know enough to make really intelligent comment. I could make lots of unintelligent comment if you want, but I think that’s not particularly helpful. What are do have are general observations.

First: my compliments on not keeping your empire around till the present day. That is a problem in Alternate History, so well done for avoiding it.

I would expect an empire to have a succession crisis in such a situation. The son would have to fight off any contenders, rebellious viceroys, even members of his own family. The limited communication in that era would make it tricky to respond to a revolt before it had really taken root. Look at the problems the British had in 1777.

Rereading, it’s apparent that you’ve noted that fact. A mercenary revolt was a constant threat. The Spanish and French had problems with the Swiss, while Carthage had just made peace with Rome and then was threatened by a mercenary revolt.

I can’t, offhand, remember an OTL time in which the qualities that you’ve ascribed to Dionysius, “bigoted instead of tolerant, philistine instead of cultured...and a brilliant and determined general instead of an ineffectual and irresolute commander” were really part of an emperor. Hitler, to whom he may be compared, was definitely not a brilliant general, although he embodied the other traits. Worse, from this era, a really disliked king would face revolts across the empire. If Dionysius was a conqueror, its unlikely that he would have stopped and offered Egypt autonomy.

(Rethinking this, the French Victor Huages, who ran the French west Indies during the French revolution, did embody the traits you describe.)

Incidentally, I would expect Dionysius’s son to be ineffective. Dionysius came to power by overthrowing his father, he must be aware that it could happen to him. The son will be either weak or have a hero-worship complex about his dad.

PS, is there any chance of maps?