[IW] Tsar

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Michele

Well, yes. I'm glad you like that... but do you also imply that it's unlikely? Do you think the CR should be higher, given the overall situation on Tsar? Thanks for any input.

3 sounds plausible to me.


Is there anything going on in Tsar that should cause a worldwide trend towards higher CRs?
I hadn't noticed.

Russia, sure, but why are the other empires the way they are?


What's going on with Spain and Portugal? Is there a long-term personal union? A confederation? Why is there slavery in the 'Iberian Empire', but not (it seems) in some other empires? Mind you, I'm not suggesting that the Iberian Empire you have proposed is impluaible (obvious real world example...) but I'd be curious to know more about it. Does it rule most of Latin America? What about the P.I.?

[combatmedic]

And whence all these 'dictators'?


Legitimate monarchs as a class are not properly 'dictators', although as indvidual men can certainly rule in a tyrannical fashion.


If the standard GURPS terminology is misleading...

[Michele]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

3 sounds plausible to me.

Thank you for the input.

Is there anything going on in Tsar that should cause a worldwide trend towards higher CRs?
I hadn't noticed.

Russia, sure, but why are the other empires the way they are?

First, the success of Russia sets an example.
Second, in actual history, theories like the divine right of kings did spread beyond borders and were understandably espoused locally by the local royal family.
Third, if the Ochrana gets rid of Marx after his first two or three books, that's going to have effects in other countries apart from Russia.

What's going on with Spain and Portugal? Is there a long-term personal union? A confederation? Why is there slavery in the 'Iberian Empire', but not (it seems) in some other empires? Mind you, I'm not suggesting that the Iberian Empire you have proposed is impluaible (obvious real world example...) but I'd be curious to know more about it. Does it rule most of Latin America? What about the P.I.?

Er... I don't know. It's not a world I have used with my group, although that's a possibility. I didn't detail it more than what you can read here. I would say that yes, most of South America is in Iberian hands, as much as local rebellions don't at least temporarily succeed. The USA was in no shape to fight against the Iberians, so the Philippines will also be under the Iberian crown - again, with Muslim guerrillas and a growing local nationalist movement. I suppose the Russians may have a naval base there and/or a concession.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

And whence all these 'dictators'?


Legitimate monarchs as a class are not properly 'dictators', although as indvidual men can certainly rule in a tyrannical fashion.


If the standard GURPS terminology is misleading...

Yes, I used it because it's the standard IW classification.
Note that a kingdom can be an oligarchy (as is Britain on this very world, see above) or even a representative democracy, it depends on where the actual power rests.

[smurf]

Originally Posted by Michele

Thank you for the input.
...Third, if the Ochrana gets rid of Marx after his first two or three books, that's going to have effects in other countries apart from Russia...

The material basis for Marx disappears.

1. No Paris Commune means Marx cannot adapt his views
2. Censorship in Russia means no great SD parties of Plekanov et al
3. No German unification means Marx is proven incorrect
4. Bakunin's anarchist ideas may come to the afore instead of Marx
5. Lenin would be a Narodnik and possibly killed in some activity
6. No Russian Revolution in 1905 nor 1917 means Marx fades as a funny 19th Century thinker
7. Trotsky would be a reformist and would be known as Bronshtein

The split in the First International could be between Anarcharists and Syndicalists with a helping of Social Democratic ideas. Marx's theory of revolution would be replaced by Anarchism and Syndicalism.

Without the real historical history Marx would be removed from prominence.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by smurf

Without the real historical history Marx would be removed from prominence.

As someone who's background is acedemic history, I would point out that Marx had a great influence on how historians look at history. If Marx got the Manifesto out, and had enough influence to shape what sorts of materials historian look at to write history, then the nationalists (the major progessive radicals in this timeline) might embrace certain aspects of Marx's take on history. This would be because histories of the nation, that trancend dynasties and aristocrats, would legitimate their stands.

If history is purely romantic, the Great Man Theory, then the Dynasties are the nations. However, ecconomic and social histories would show the nation preceding the dynasties and being independent of them. The kings need the nations to depend on monarchs not the monarchs dependent on the nations.

Marxist history is alway a threat to thrones.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by smurf

The material basis for Marx disappears.

1. No Paris Commune means Marx cannot adapt his views
2. Censorship in Russia means no great SD parties of Plekanov et al
3. No German unification means Marx is proven incorrect
4. Bakunin's anarchist ideas may come to the afore instead of Marx
5. Lenin would be a Narodnik and possibly killed in some activity
6. No Russian Revolution in 1905 nor 1917 means Marx fades as a funny 19th Century thinker
7. Trotsky would be a reformist and would be known as Bronshtein

The split in the First International could be between Anarcharists and Syndicalists with a helping of Social Democratic ideas. Marx's theory of revolution would be replaced by Anarchism and Syndicalism.

Without the real historical history Marx would be removed from prominence.

I suspect Karl Marx would be a footnote at best in this timeline, probably a failed journalist and obscure literary figure. Or maybe an informant for the secret police...

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

I'm also on the TL6 or late TL5 bandwagon. And I'd like to throw in a wild card, Teddy Roosevelt! Yes in our world TR dies in 1920. That's mainly because of a trip TR took in Brazil, it covered in a book called River of Doubt. In the Tsar timeline, Teddy never took the trip and is a vigorously healthy 59 year old. Who gained the US presidency in 1916!

Having Roosevelt, and a radicalised one too (Teddy's enthusiasm plus radicallism. Scary!) in charge is reviving the USA creates a source of transformations. Have Teddy allied with school reformers and those fighting to stengthen the federal government. If this USA, long a haven for progressives in Tsar, has most of the scientific radicals, maybe the rest of the world is late TL5 and the USA has just crossed into TL6.

If the Tsar of Russia notices this, then you could have a major war in the Rockies as the Russian invade to crush the abomination of America one and for all. Teddy verus cossacks, with Teddy getting help from the Dine' (Apaches).

Tell me that woulded be fun.

Not my cuppa.

We already live in the 'America, heck yeah!' timeline.

The timline is not called "Progressive wet dream', it's called 'Tsar.'
;)

[tshiggins]

I spoke about this alternate history to a friend of mine at work, during lunch today.

He had an neat suggestion for my "Northwestern River War" notion.

Everything goes pretty much as I laid it out. However, once MacArthur successfully takes the Colorado River line, the Russians realize the pickle they're in.

During the ongoing negotiations with England about colony exchanges, the Russian Foreign Minister comes up with a startling suggestion. The tsar will put on the table those parts of Russian America south of a line running from the peak of Mt. St. Elias to the point of Cape St. Elias. Essentially, the British will take control of the entire Pacific Northwest, down to Iberian Territory in California, in exchange for a sweetheart deal in the African colonies on the Indian Ocean.

After careful consideration, the British make a few niggling changes (just as a matter of form, really) and take the deal.

For the British, who already have a strong hold in Canada, the acquisition of uncontested control of the Pacific Northwest secures their ability to complete a transcontinental railroad line, across southern Canada.

For the Russians, they get rid of a problematic colony at the outer edge of their command-and-control range, they set up the British as a buffer between them and the dangerously radical (and increasingly competent) United States, and they force the queen of England to deal with the mess created by her incompetent predecessor, George III. In exchange, they get control of colonies full of much more malleable natives, that they can more easily support.

So, the Russians and the British sign the 1920 Treaty of Zanzibar, and begin to make careful arrangements for the necessary transitions of the various administrations. After all, they don't want the Americans taking advantage of the confusion to push into the northwest.

The thing is, the Americans have no interest in the northwest, just yet. As part of the transition, Russian pressure on Wyoming drops to nothing, and MacArthur goes back to Washington for a meeting with the president. Within a month of his arrival, the president opens up a dialogue with the British government about "stabilizing the situation in the Pacific Northwest," and as a gesture of goodwill, the U.S. begins to slowly decrease the number of troops deployed between Denver and Helena, Montana.

However, the troops don't go very far. Most of them wind up redeployed to the Colorado River line. A year later, as Washington and London are deep in what appear to be promising negotiations, a series of "provocations" by the new viceroy of Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico causes the U.S. Congress to authorize a series of "reprisals" against that viceroyalty, only, but without declaring a general war against the Iberia, as a whole.

Already prepped and briefed, in the early spring of 1921, the Americans strike like lightning. The main thrust goes south out of Pueblo, toward the Rio Grande. However, this main thrust is supported by a series of strong cavalry raids east from the Colorado River line, along the Rio San Juan and the Little Colorado River. At the same time, a series of uprisings amongst nationalist groups in Central and South America ties up Iberian troops and divides the attention of the throne.

Within a year, the Americans have sliced deeply into Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico. The city of Santa Fe is completely cut off and under siege, the Americans have pushed south along the Rio Grande deeply into Texican territory, and U.S. cavalry raids at will throughout Arizona and into Nevada.

Faced with the military disaster to the north, and increasingly violent nationalist movements to the south, Madrid decides to cut its losses. The peace treaty grants to the United States the territory that, on Homeline, comprises the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada. The Americans still don't have a foothold on the Pacific Coast, but in the space of less than three years, have managed to increase the size of the United States by more than a third.

The British find this situation distressing, but since it's a fait accompli, they can't really do much. They also know the U.S. has a real problem that will take it at least a decade to handle -- if they can manage it, at all. The country must find a way to integrate a large population of Spanish-speakers, with no history of liberty and a completely different set of cultural assumptions, into the population of the United States. It will be an ordeal, and it will sufficiently distract the U.S. from any northern adventurism.

The big loser is Iberia, naturally, but the Russians face an existential philosophical crisis of their own. The decision to trade away their territory on the Pacific coast created the opportunity for the American radicalism to vastly expand at the expense of a fellow monarchy and long-time ally.

Iberia now faces the worse crisis to confront a throne since the French Revolution, and all of the Western Hemisphere, save Canada, now threatens to follow the U.S. pattern of radical revolution based on Enlightenment-era Liberalism. And Tsar Alexei I knows he bears a share of the responsibility for that.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

I suspect Karl Marx would be a footnote at best in this timeline, probably a failed journalist and obscure literary figure. Or maybe an informant for the secret police...

I mentioned Marx just an example of people the Ochrana would pre-emptively act against. It's nothing that agents of conservative governments did not try in our actual history; only, on Tsar the Russian agency is more powerful, pervasive and effective. It also follows the long-established policy of operating everywhere in the world.

As to what Marx would be, I think it's an established principle on some of the Infinite Worlds that some figures do appear. It would be perfectly conceivable that a change taking place in the early 1600s causes so much cascading differences that one individual family, not to mention one individual, simply does not exist centuries later. But it makes for a more recognizable setting for players, and for an easier work for the GM, if some key characters (or key moments in history) do appear - even if they can be reasonably changed due to the differences in the timeline.

So your take of Marx could well be the correct one, and he just fades into obscurity. Or, he might be a relatively unknown thinker, yes, but whose ideas and early pamphlets happen to make him show up on the Ochrana's radars...