New Reality Seeds

[PTTG]

Lots of alternate histories seem to be about taking a major personality out of history. Perhaps this is because adding people who are both capable of shifting the course of history and are yet believable characters is quite difficult.

But let's try it. First we pick a blank spot in world history... hmm... (of course, nothing really is blank, so anything I pick is more an illustration of my ignorance, but...) let's say 1810, somewhere in Mexico, our new figure is born. He, like many great figures, will be a soldier, and by 1833 has already performed valorously under the newly-liberated Estados Unidos Mexicanos, and had attained a rank of approximately Sergeant Major, and likely would have remained there if not for his decisive action during the Tampico Expedition, an attempt by liberalizing Mexican loyalists, formerly exiled in Texas (which was majority pro-Mexican at the time), to take the strategic town of Tampico.

Our new figure showed unnoticed diplomatic skill and made peaceful contact with the invaders. After meeting with their leader, he made a crucial decision and agreed to support them. This is, of course, not a normal action for a loyal soldier, but our new buddy is a history-maker. He gets to do these things.

The result was a surprising success for the invading liberalizers, because New Guy had executive command over a battalion. The liberalizers took notice of his skill, diplomacy, and loyalty, and, basically, hired him.

Let's skip some time here. A number of improbable events happen, including many really successful battles. The Mexican Civil War continued for another several years- 17 in all (11 in OTL). At the end of it, New Guy is supreme commander of the United Mexican and Texan States armed forces, including its navy. Now seasoned yet still fairly young, he devotes much of his time to his education, particularly economics and the humanities. By the year 1845, he's developed a form of military doctrine revolving around negotiation-by-force, which relies on rapid communication. Like all doctrines, it is not so much a revolution as it is a progression. All armies have hoped to drive their enemies to surrender; negotiation-by-force is a combination of tactics both military and diplomatic that specialize on this.

The next several decades are consolidatory times for Mexico (plus Texas, which amicably declares independence in 1852 but remains a staunch ally). New Guy doesn't do much besides drive the adoption of new technologies in Mexico and lend his prodigious skill to uniting the country and destroying intransigent factions.

It's 1867, the Confederacy (which has been saber-rattling for years now) has finally separated from the North, bringing about an American Civil War. Both sides seek Mexico's assistance. The south chafes at New Guy and Pal's progressive leadership, and the North doesn't really respect them but sees them as potential allies. The South would have acted years earlier if they didn't think they'd have to worry about Mexican interference, but a flashpoint event - a slave uprising in Cuba that threatened to spread to the US - left them with little choice.

New Guy is 57, and he's been slowing down but not much. Following the death of beloved president Valentin Farias in '59, New Guy became President of Mexico, and it is now his third term in office. Though he still wears a military uniform, he's fully embraced his new calling as diplomat and politician. Future historians will consider him a serious contender for most talented diplomat of all time.

Mexico is struggling compared to the western nations, but it can be compared to them. It has several industrial cities, and while a little lawless in the hinterlands, commerce is safe enough. It also has expanded south and north into what is, in our timeline, the American Southwest, and controls most of California, although not the booming gold towns.

What will happen now? What does a united Mexico mean for the civil war and what comes after?

[patchwork]

You gloss over the important detail in this worldline - the Mexican-American War. This was the dress rehearsal for the American Civil War, in which all of the ACW Generals served as Majors and Colonels alongside each other.

If it started on time, the USA will not run into the same enemy it did historically. MNG will be serving in uniform and likely earn the distinction and pleasure of kicking Zachary Taylor's ass back across the Mississippi River. In a perfect world, MNG would actually sack New Orleans. If Scott ignored all that and went straight for Mexico City, he could still win a short victorious war - but that is not in Scott's nature, nor in the 1840s Congress'. He will be directed to relieve Taylor in the field and he will do so. The Whig elected in 1848 - it won't be defeated General Taylor, nor will Colonel Jefferson Davis ever rise higher than Senator from Mississippi after that performance - will negotiate a peace status quo ante bellum. And lots of personal politics have changed.

If that never happened, perhaps Texas' independence will fill the gap. Was it slavery? I bet it was slavery. Britain and France offer some debt forgiveness to Mexico in exchange for emancipation, the Mexicans are happy to take the deal, and Texas rebels. The USA supports Texas, but the fact that Europe is clearly with Mexico on this may be - problematic. If Texas won its independence but doesn't join with the USA - well, no matter how that shook out I see a lot of bad blood over it. If it lost Texas, perhaps Mexico cedes control of California's gold fields to Britain? It definitely won't be Americans controlling them. San Francisco leased like Hong Kong?

Either way, the point is that the Mexicans hate slavery but they also hate Americans at this juncture; where they land in this fight depends on MNG's personal convictions. Either way, it makes blockading the South very hard for the North; goods can sail into Galveston or even Tampico and reach Dixie by rail or wagon quickly, and nobody in the North is dumb enough to try and extend the blockade south.

If there was no war, or a very different war, then the ACW may kick off with the US Army having fought nothing but Indians since 1814. That...will have bad effects on early strategy and performance. If it lost a war to Mexico using its democratic volunteer model, on the other hand, it may have already expanded and deepened its standing army...

Did MNG rise through the cavalry, infantry or artillery? He's an individual, but it makes a difference ragarding military and racial policy, among other things.

[joppeknol]

Originally Posted by PTTG

Lots of alternate histories seem to be about taking a major personality out of history. Perhaps this is because adding people who are both capable of shifting the course of history and are yet believable characters is quite difficult.

Actually, a very fun way to create a parallel for a new campaign.

'On this earth, Joppeknol settled down early, has a mediocre job and his greatest accomplishment seems to be that he can GM gurps games for some of his friends. However, in this timeline .....'

It's also possible to take a grandfather if you want an earlier change.

[Flyndaran]

It is easier to know important turning points for family.
I'm sure my life would have been radically different if certain initially tiny incidents happened differently.
Early diagnosis of my anxiety and social phobia along with a more effective medication could have allowed me to blossom into something amazing... or at least more functional.

[Astromancer]

Good one PTTG.

But then great talent isn't always needed to change history. Many a monarch might have been much more important if they had lived longer. Take a minor Roman Emperor who lived for a few years and died in his mid-40s and give him a lifespan and reign that lasts until his mid-70's. The simple stability near the center of power would have major effects.

Another track is to take an idea we know many people had, and have someone with power take up the idea. Picture if someone had convinced Lincoln that schooling and medical care needed to be seen as rights not privilages. And, because of the influence of this acquaintance, Lincoln wrote a tighly reasoned and beautifully crafted essay in support of these ideas.

The USA's educational system would doubtless have benifited, and we'd have had socialised medicine generations earlier. Improve the education and health care of millions and the knock-on effects are vast.

[Astromancer]

Continuing to Read a history of Anglo-American relationships. I have a couple of interesting change points to toss out.

1) In the 1880's Britain was closer to Germany, Austria, and Italy, than to Russia and France. The latter two were both seen as traditional foes. If there was no diplomatic revolution in the early 20th century, WWI, which was pushed by the Russians would have been vastly harder on France. And Anglo-German allience would have owned Western Europe.

2) The Venezuelan Crisis of 1895 seems to have come durring a large number of crises falling at once. The possibility of the UK getting into a war against most of the major powers at the same time was a real possibility. There were no likely allies for Britain either. The USA was hostile and suspicious, and all of the continental powers were hostile and bitter. The UK and by extention the British Empire could have fallen hard.

In both cases, what kind of world does this group see coming out of either change.

[Astromancer]

It seems to me that removal of Sir Cyril Burt would create an interesting alternate world. Burt, whatever you say about the man's honesty or lack thereof, championed a theory of intelligence and education that has been very bad for Britain. If you remove Sir Cyril from history and replace him with a highly charismatic champion of educational reforms, let's make him or her a close relative to the British Royals, who promotes widespread education and seeks to mine the untapped potential of the nation, Britain's history changes.

Britain laged behind Europe and America in access to education well into the 1990's. A Britain that proudly sought to educate all of it's people and saw birth as no reason to limit access to a college education would have adapted to ecconomic and techological changes in the 20th century far better. The knock-on effects would be vast.

Place a world were this happened on Q6 and watch Centurm and Homeline duke it out for control.

[patchwork]

Venezuela flashpoint looks interesting; what happens, France refuses to host, or demands a non-ceremonial seat on the tribunal, which then hands down an anti-British decision? Britain rejects the arbitration deal, occupies the disputed territory, USA invades Canada in retaliation and gets France on board with the promise of Quebec? (the French don't really want Quebec, and for the USA to offer it would be such hypocrisy it may be impossible, but it's as good as anything). Perhaps British Guiana will be split between French and Venezuela...but that seems too small a reward.

In any case, to really take Britain down a peg, we need France on board. They're the only ones with global force projection available. If it's just the USA vs Britain, then Britain destroys the US Navy and merchant fleet, the USA rolls over Canada and sits on it, and the two sides glower at each other until sanity erupts. To have any chance of liberating Canada by force, Britain would have to field many, many Indians against a white, English-speaking opponent - winning that way and then demobbing the troops back to India is a poison pill the British are perfectly aware of, and I honestly think they'd abandon Canada before doing it in this era.

so: 1) Britain defeats the USA by shooting itself in the foot, creating an Indian force able to evict them from the subcontinent; or 2) Britain abandons Canada to the USA, permanently poisoning relations between the two and probably making WWI go the other way; or 3) France is somehow dragooned into the fight, and the British Empire really comes apart at the seams - fostering rebellion in Ireland for starters...

[Astromancer]

Frankly I think the states would play a minor role in an 1895 Great War. Canada would know that they couldn't take the USA (although there was a British plan to take the USA with three divisions), so Canada would prepare defences and wait for Britain.

The main action would be in British home waters. If a Franco-German alliance (stranger things have happened) attacked Britain in this period, the UK would be in great danger. Such and alliance could come about from several nations dogpiling onto a vunerable UK.

[patchwork]

What's the book you're reading for this? Because I want it to work, it's more original and interesting than Fashoda, but it sounds very much like every world leader has been replaced with a 14-year-old Risk player, which is to say, flying pig country.