[IW] Tsar

[Michele]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Presumably Russia acquired the Turkish Straits at this point? That's necessary for Cyprus to last as a Turkish base, because the supply line from the Baltic is just too long to be sustainable, and the British, French, Iberians and Italians are all in excellent positions to interfere with it.

But holding the straits requires holding Constantinople - the Bosphorus goes through the middle of the city - so the Ottomans have presumably lost it.

The Russians really want those straits and Constantinople. That applies everywhere and everywhen. The geography makes it inevitable.

I didn't want the Turks to virtually disappear. I think that with their next-to-last defeat, they were forced to sign a vexatious treaty granting the Russians free passage. Unfriendly neutrality followed until the Great War. With the separate peace, the Russians did not dare demand all of Constantinople, because after all they were still fighting a losing war with the rest of their enemies. They felt they could push the Ottomans only so far. Thus, they settled for booting them from the European side of the city, only.

Constantinople is a city divided by an international border as well as by the sea. Things that may happen. Unlikely? OK, but who would believe in the story of the Berlin Airlift if told today... on Reich-5?

Naturally, neither side is happy with this, today...

[adm]

I find write ups like this to be immensely interesting, and they help to spawn all sorts of interesting ideas.

[martinl]

Originally Posted by Michele

As to I., I think an industrial revolution is possible, obviously not in Russia first. I think I should explicitly state that Britain and the USA are more advanced technologically. Russia just plays catch-up, which has its own advantages even if you're behind. The R&D has already been paid for by the first-comers.
To answer the point about "grubby industrialists" made in another post, I think the actual historical set up would work here. The industrialist sets up a partnership with an idle nobleman. The former does all the work, and pays the nobleman to provide clout in court, patronage, protection from any hostile noblemen, the imperial bureaucracy, occasional thugs.

This works. I'm not saying "Inconceivable" as "That is counter to expectations, please explain."

As to II., maybe. In our WWI, the British did not defeat the last of the German generals holding out in Africa, and that was with the whole USA on their side and with Germany being a much smaller power than Russia on Tsar.
In any case, the Iberians siding with Russia is a good possibility.

I'm not saying the Russians will loose overseas territory, especially anything that extends significantly inland, just that they won't be able to project force worth a damn overseas. Among other effects, the CSA is not helped much at all by a Russian alliance.

However, given the POD, making Iberia a Russian ally and a naval power to curb the UK and France makes things more interesting, so I highly recommend it. Also, as a free bonus, you get a "Maginot on the Pyrenees," which might be quite a fun setting on it's own. Throw in neutral but terrorized by both sides Andorra for extra fun.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Michele

I think that with their next-to-last defeat, they were forced to sign a vexatious treaty granting the Russians free passage. Unfriendly neutrality followed until the Great War.

Given the ease with which tensions could rise - it just takes a collision in the Straits - Constantinople was probably a place that promising young Russian diplomats got sent, to see what they were really made of. Indeed, this may have done a lot for Russian diplomatic skills, given how readily the Turks can get upset. The treaty probably put restrictions on ships of other nations, given that was a way by which the Turks and Russian could jointly gain advantage.

Constantinople is a city divided by an international border as well as by the sea.

Definitely ticklish now. The new treaty presumably restricts the Turks' right to build artillery emplacements in range of the straits, and the Russians might have had to settle for some restrictions too. If the old treaty restricted passages by other nations, that will have been maintained in the new one.

Yes, this is a lot of detail. Those straits have been important to a lot of wars. This is a really interesting world!

[smurf]

What prevents the UK from becoming a democracy?

May have skipped a bit but was there a WW1?

IIRC the UK has one of the longest modern traditions of democracy, just depends on whose will they were willing to have represented.

Methinks the Tsar's had better censorship in IW than the real world in the 19th century?

If nationalist Russia was high were pogroms more likely?

[Michele]

Originally Posted by adm

I find write ups like this to be immensely interesting, and they help to spawn all sorts of interesting ideas.

Glad to hear that!

[Michele]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Definitely ticklish now. The new treaty presumably restricts the Turks' right to build artillery emplacements in range of the straits, and the Russians might have had to settle for some restrictions too. If the old treaty restricted passages by other nations, that will have been maintained in the new one.

Yes, this is a lot of detail. Those straits have been important to a lot of wars. This is a really interesting world!

Thanks for the input. I construe "ticklish" as a compliment!

[Michele]

Originally Posted by martinl

This works. I'm not saying "Inconceivable" as "That is counter to expectations, please explain."



I'm not saying the Russians will loose overseas territory, especially anything that extends significantly inland, just that they won't be able to project force worth a damn overseas. Among other effects, the CSA is not helped much at all by a Russian alliance.

However, given the POD, making Iberia a Russian ally and a naval power to curb the UK and France makes things more interesting, so I highly recommend it. Also, as a free bonus, you get a "Maginot on the Pyrenees," which might be quite a fun setting on it's own. Throw in neutral but terrorized by both sides Andorra for extra fun.

Thank you for the analysis and the additional ideas!

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by smurf

What prevents the UK from becoming a democracy?

It's listed as an oligarchy, which probably means that that nothing corresponding to the Reform Act of 1832 or its successors ever happened. That's in keeping with this bit from the original post:

Originally Posted by Michele

Liberty was conceived now as collective freedom of an ethnic group from foreign oppression. To date, what would sound like backward, if not rabid chauvinism on Homeline, is the fare of progressive, enlightened thinkers and national leaders on Tsar.

May have skipped a bit but was there a WW1?

The World War was 1877-1886, too early to have the same social effects as a conventional 1914-18 WWI, which was what made women's suffrage happen in the UK. Not that it could have happened without the nineteenth-century reforms.

IIRC the UK has one of the longest modern traditions of democracy, just depends on whose will they were willing to have represented.

Yes, that's the problem in Tsar's UK; the aristocracy are still in charge. Think of it as Jane Austen's England, with some technology upgrades, surviving another century.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by johndallman

It's listed as an oligarchy, which probably means that that nothing corresponding to the Reform Act of 1832 or its successors ever happened. That's in keeping with this bit from the original post:


The World War was 1877-1886, too early to have the same social effects as a conventional 1914-18 WWI, which was what made women's suffrage happen in the UK. Not that it could have happened without the nineteenth-century reforms.

Yes, that's the problem in Tsar's UK; the aristocracy are still in charge. Think of it as Jane Austen's England, with some technology upgrades, surviving another century.

Thanks for suggesting the specific details.

I actually and simply went by the following. I thought it "felt right":

Originally Posted by GURPS 4e Basic Set - Campaigns

Oligarchy: Regardless of the nominal
form of government, leadership is
in the hands of a small, self-perpetuating
clique.

I'd think there are some 300,000 wealthy, mature men who can vote, and they seldom can vote for anybody who isn't a member of some 300 (I'd say?) old rich families, who play games to shift real power only among themselves. I suppose the House of Lords is still very much the senior one. In case anything unseemly happens in the Commons, the Lords can veto it.
Yes, there are elections and representation; no, "democracy" is not the word I'd use. Since the game system does provide "oligarchy", I think I'm satisfied with that.
OTOH, not all is doom and gloom. I don't think women and other minorities can vote in the USA on Tsar, but that country does qualify as a democracy, nevertheless. Or so I'd guess.