Wrapped in Flames: The Great American War and Beyond

I have some plans for Central America, and the efforts of Europe to influence it are at the top of the "potential problems" list for the last half of the 19th Century and the dawn of the 20th century!

As an aside for readers of the excellent Cinco De Mayo, you can indeed expect something different from how it goes there 😉

(Except when it comes to canals, the canals will always be a problem...)

I don't know if the topic has been raised, but I'm curious about where you will go with Cuba, too.

Maybe it's too easy to crib from Turtledove here, but it's certainly the case that with a friendly French-allied project in place in Mexico, any Confederate hopes for expansion (to the extent that they exist), would have to be directed further east in the Caribbean and Central America. And since they have a slave-based economy, and a planter class increasingly unhappy in this respect with Spanish rule... But perhaps the Confederate leadership of the 1870's and 1880's might be content with a fellow independent slavocratic republic in close friendship off its shore, especially if Britain blocks anything starchier. And the USA is unlikely to look on with disinterest... Well, no doubt you have already given this some thought.

It's hard to see either the USA or CSA being in a position to pursue a Central American canal now, and I have to think that means Britain is most likely to take up the task. But there are lots of butterflies flocking, so I will read with great interest how you play this out.
 
The dude who built the Suez did try to build the Panama Canal originally, but he tried to build the same kind of canal and the terrain was just not suited for that kind of canal, add in malaria decimating his workforce constantly, constant flooding and other factors and the project was abandoned.

Depending on how things play out you could see France actually follow through with their plans for a Nicaraguan Canal.
 
The dude who built the Suez did try to build the Panama Canal originally, but he tried to build the same kind of canal and the terrain was just not suited for that kind of canal, add in malaria decimating his workforce constantly, constant flooding and other factors and the project was abandoned.

Depending on how things play out you could see France actually follow through with their plans for a Nicaraguan Canal.

Yeah, Ferdinand de Lesseps.

But in OTL, interest of Third Republic governments in a canal was quite limited, beyond the corruption of certain ministers who ran legal interference for him.

Of course, we do not know if EnglishCanuck plans to have a Third Republic in France, or if he does, if it will look like the one of OTL.

It's a huge undertaking, much bigger than Suez.
 
Last edited:
The fact that among those alternate histories those which mention russia all treat it as either a respectable rival or a potential reliable ally is mind-boggling. Something very strange is going to happen somewhere down this timeline, I'm thinking.

Let's just say nobody's gonna be singing "back in the USSR" which means that perceptions of Russia in the latter half of the 20th century are going to be very, very different. Indeed, there's a strange sense of political belonging to the United States and Russia despite vastly different political systems that was commented on by many in the 19th century. Absent the Soviet Colossus and, to be clear, WWII and WWI as we know it, there's more these two nations might agree on versus disagree on.

It's extremely hard to imagine that the UK, France, and the Confederacy could actually defeat Germany, Russia, and the United States in a total war. If OTL took four years to defeat Germany alone, what about defeating three highly militarized Powers whose industrial power combined overcomes the Entente at least five or six times? Even then, the country is so big they can't simply enforce any harsh peace treaty/occupation.

The Achilles Heel of all three nations is commerce. For Germany in WWI it was the simply brutal British blockade that wore them down and helped rot the German economy from the inside out. For Russia, it was a combination of Britain and France locking the Baltic and Black Sea (and to an extent the Pacific) down so that Russia could not take advantage of international trade and, more devastatingly, the abrupt loss of access to loans and foreign banking provided by Britain and France. Ditto for the US in the Wrapped in Flames scenario where a shut down commerce and lack of access to foreign loans and a suddenly massively dislocated internal market ground the economy to the nub.

But could Britain and France and other hangers on inflict the same to a combination of Russia and America, let alone the third wildcard of Germany*? No.

Some of that calculation is based on OTL's lead up to WWI and all sides adopting similar measures. However, it does stand to reason that such alliances wouldn't work out. For the most part.

I think calling them "these United States" could probably refer to a civil war that transpired or a complete reformulation of the government structure.

Whose to say ;)

Though I want to note that prior to the Civil War OTL it was still common to think of the United States as a collection of states bound up in one nation, while everyone was American they still had identities that coupled with their states, and the state governments felt they had powers and priviledges that were outside the Federal government's purview (a problem that absent the Federal Government being willing to disabuse the states of that notion means they can do some rather gross stuff). In the aftermath if a successful rebellion by a collection of states to such an end, its an open question how the US grapples with that in the aftermath.

Hard to imagine that the USA would make the same mistake twice and not have a gigantic army/navy built during the pre-war period to fight against its enemies. Even harder to imagine the UK/France/Confederates could actually defeat it in the field. Or better yet, what about the new revanchist government considering the Confederacy to still be part of the USA as a new policy, hence the term "these United States"? It wouldn't include just the nation itself, but also the "rebel states."

What I do think it happens is an extremely multipolar world. The USA can't project its power as well as OTL, so you have this world filled with small spheres of influence and shifting rivalries. The UK probably already made peace with the USA a long time ago and now France is their main worry.

On all this, I like the way you're thinking!

They got warm water ports.

All jokes aside, no previous baggage with them, it could be easy to get to if you invest in Siberia, and not a lot of viable alternatives.
Well it was mentioned that they would up their investment in the Pacific and having an puppet nation near a valuable trade route where they can also dock their ships would be very useful.

Ah the Pacific, so many opportunities the Russians would like, and ones the British would go into absolute conniptions if they saw the Russians pursuing them. Interesting times, interesting times...
 
also funny how and to be clear I mean this as a compliment
this timeline will be all statistics and maunvers and geopolitics stuff but then all of a sudden throw in something like Churchill having a evil twin or Sheridan personally killing Forrest .it says a lot about your writing skills Canuck.its not just a timeline it's a story

Many thanks! I try to keep people guessing and I try to have the drama that real history can sometimes create! And, to be frank, the mental image of the plucky Sheridan personally skewering Forrest on a saber was too much to pass up!

As for statistics and maneuvers, well, I've meticulously plotted one war over 100+ chapters, I won't be going into that level of detail again versus the broad strokes if I can avoid it!
 
US + Germany + Russia on one side equals "Let's see if we can make a Sea Lion Possible." :)

While I try to stay away from what I call "Turtledoveism" (ie, no the United States and Great Britain will not be eternal enemies, and no WWI as we know it but with a Confederacy is not happening) I will say that the idea of Britain adopting a "Triple Power Standard" is interesting. At that point the British Army might literally be bullets fired by the navy due to budget cuts...
 
While I try to stay away from what I call "Turtledoveism" (ie, no the United States and Great Britain will not be eternal enemies, and no WWI as we know it but with a Confederacy is not happening) I will say that the idea of Britain adopting a "Triple Power Standard" is interesting. At that point the British Army might literally be bullets fired by the navy due to budget cuts...
The land forces of the British empire would be mostly Canadian, with some Australians and Kiwis thrown in?
 
They got warm water ports.

All jokes aside, no previous baggage with them, it could be easy to get to if you invest in Siberia, and not a lot of viable alternatives.

Well it was mentioned that they would up their investment in the Pacific and having an puppet nation near a valuable trade route where they can also dock their ships would be very ususeful.
Yeah but all those considerations aside this is Imperial Russia we're talking about, they need major things spent to make such endeavors feasible let alone actually valuable for advancing Russia's overall strategic position. The Navy is either shit or halfway decent or nonexistent depending on which administration exists so step one would be money spent making sure it could reach far enough abroad to intervene in a positive manner if Russia was to gunboat diplomacy Ecuador for the Galapagos or something :p
 
Another thing that no one is talking about is Africa. We talk about the Americas, Europe, Asia, and even have one chapter talk a bit about Australia, but have ignored any butterflies that could impact Africa. Is there any chapter covering what is happening in Africa?
 
Last edited:
I don't know if the topic has been raised, but I'm curious about where you will go with Cuba, too.

Maybe it's too easy to crib from Turtledove here, but it's certainly the case that with a friendly French-allied project in place in Mexico, any Confederate hopes for expansion (to the extent that they exist), would have to be directed further east in the Caribbean and Central America. And since they have a slave-based economy, and a planter class increasingly unhappy in this respect with Spanish rule... But perhaps the Confederate leadership of the 1870's and 1880's might be content with a fellow independent slavocratic republic in close friendship off its shore, especially if Britain blocks anything starchier. And the USA is unlikely to look on with disinterest... Well, no doubt you have already given this some thought.

I think that the very real fault lines in 1860s Cuba between east and west, the creole and island born elite and the peninsulares who governed over them with equal parts disdain and unconcern, have a lot of ways they could be played out. Spain itself was hardly a model of a stable state between 1868 and 1876, the underlying reasons for which still exist here. With a militant slave power - who now has a very significant navy thanks to Anglo-French deals - just across the water, I don't see relations going particularly amicably. Especially since the two sides had an existing mutual suspicion of one another.

It's hard to see either the USA or CSA being in a position to pursue a Central American canal now, and I have to think that means Britain is most likely to take up the task. But there are lots of butterflies flocking, so I will read with great interest how you play this out.

There will be an interest from both powers, but there's going to be competition. France has a real interest in mucking about in the New World, and past a certain point Britain will then have an interest in keeping their French interference to a minimum. That can certainly make for some strange geopolitical bed fellows!
 
Yeah but all those considerations aside this is Imperial Russia we're talking about, they need major things spent to make such endeavors feasible let alone actually valuable for advancing Russia's overall strategic position. The Navy is either shit or halfway decent or nonexistent depending on which administration exists so step one would be money spent making sure it could reach far enough abroad to intervene in a positive manner if Russia was to gunboat diplomacy Ecuador for the Galapagos or something :p

Well, Russia will have a much bigger reason to spend generously on their navy as time goes forward. However, they will be distracted by quite a few projects post-1866 with certain events upcoming...

The 1866 World in Review chapter is coming soon, so I'll be happy to have it help fuel speculation :biggrin:

The current plan is 1866 Review, vignette opening 1867, and then right into the Emergency of 1867 opener!
 
Another thing that no one is talking about is Africa. We talk about the Americas, Europe, Asia, and even have one chapter talk a bit about Australia, but have ignored any butterflies that could impact Africa. Is there any chapter covering what is happening in Africa?

From 1861 - 1866, not too much has changed outright. My own knowledge of the whole continent in the period is fuzzy and I try to aim more for the 1870s and 1880s with some changes. As I read more I will make some tweaks as necessary (and reserve the right to retcon some history where I need) but its just such a vast continent that I'm trying to keep my dealings there - and with much of the world - germane to North American affairs to keep the flow of things effective.

Would have some... interesting effects on the Imperial Federation movement, not that I think it would be enough to give them significant traction
Well, maybe, maybe not.

Well, the Canadians in particular are less likely to feel irked/betrayed by some Alaska border settlement, so expect many to be full throated imperialists because of a combination of lingering memories of the War of 1862 and then most immigrants to Canada being from the British Isles. Australia and New Zealand, perhaps. They're currently both a touch more militant (Australia because of the perceived threat of seaborne attack, New Zealand because of running battles with the Maori) and they see the British helping so are happy with it.

Australia is a bit more problematic with there being some deep class divides between the descendents of "convicts" and the "free" settlers of later years. The last boatload of convicts sent to Australia did only arrive in 1868, so there's plenty of time for the social ills to be drawn out. Currently Australia is looking at "Confederation" through Victoria and New South Wales, they're too snooty to partner with the "undesirables" in the other colonies.
 
Well, Russia will have a much bigger reason to spend generously on their navy as time goes forward. However, they will be distracted by quite a few projects post-1866 with certain events upcoming...

The 1866 World in Review chapter is coming soon, so I'll be happy to have it help fuel speculation :biggrin:

The current plan is 1866 Review, vignette opening 1867, and then right into the Emergency of 1867 opener!
As long as Russia can avoid the 1877 war with the Ottomans, they'll be much better in several aspects
 
Well, the Canadians in particular are less likely to feel irked/betrayed by some Alaska border settlement, so expect many to be full throated imperialists because of a combination of lingering memories of the War of 1862 and then most immigrants to Canada being from the British Isles. Australia and New Zealand, perhaps. They're currently both a touch more militant (Australia because of the perceived threat of seaborne attack, New Zealand because of running battles with the Maori) and they see the British helping so are happy with it.

All valid points. Historically the British fumbled along in their evolution of political arrangements, and I still tend to think that the moment is not ripe in the 1860's you have painted to see any dramatic move to more formal structures of imperial federation. But it's also true that the psychological bonds and shared identity of British Canadians and British Britons are stronger than they were in OTL; and I think there's a little more space now for some gradual steps toward....a little more substantive joint security arrangements, as occasions arise. I think the real openness has to come at this point from elites in the mother country, and that will depend more than anything else on just how things develop in Europe over the next few decades.

The really interesting question to me is how the residue of this war will shape the debate between free trade and imperial preference in the final years of Victoria's reign!
 
From 1861 - 1866, not too much has changed outright. My own knowledge of the whole continent in the period is fuzzy and I try to aim more for the 1870s and 1880s with some changes. As I read more I will make some tweaks as necessary (and reserve the right to retcon some history where I need) but its just such a vast continent that I'm trying to keep my dealings there - and with much of the world - germane to North American affairs to keep the flow of things effective.




Well, the Canadians in particular are less likely to feel irked/betrayed by some Alaska border settlement, so expect many to be full throated imperialists because of a combination of lingering memories of the War of 1862 and then most immigrants to Canada being from the British Isles. Australia and New Zealand, perhaps. They're currently both a touch more militant (Australia because of the perceived threat of seaborne attack, New Zealand because of running battles with the Maori) and they see the British helping so are happy with it.

Australia is a bit more problematic with there being some deep class divides between the descendents of "convicts" and the "free" settlers of later years. The last boatload of convicts sent to Australia did only arrive in 1868, so there's plenty of time for the social ills to be drawn out. Currently Australia is looking at "Confederation" through Victoria and New South Wales, they're too snooty to partner with the "undesirables" in the other colonies.
Some of the South American nations or factions of them may have Agendas Chile, at times a significant naval player themselves and pro and anti slavery factions in Brazil to name but two
 
A good number of ATL have the British becoming more involved (as this one) leading to a tighter and more militant Canada. Is there any way to take this in the other direction? Prince Albert lives and someone else dies?

I know the UK wouldn't supply troops, but could relations with BNA remain so warm that there is to rush to Canadian Unity?
 
As long as Russia can avoid the 1877 war with the Ottomans, they'll be much better in several aspects

That's one of those issues I'm highly invested in researching. I have plans for either scenario, but I'm trying to do more reading to nail down some specifics if anyone has any info on offer!

It's one of those background details which, depending on how it breaks, has some big butterflies going forward!
 
Top