The Zenith of Power: Gameplay Thread

[Spamage]

Treaty of Limassol of 1876

The, Russian Republic, Kingdom of Scandinavia, Kingdom of France, Habsburg Monarchy, Kingdom of Romania, Sublime State of Iran, Kingdom of Greece, Kingdom of Serbia, Kingdom of Bulgaria, hereby agree to the following terms, and present to the Ottoman Empire for immediate ratification.

• The warring parties of Russia and her allies the Kingdoms of Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire will immediately cease hostilities and return to normal diplomatic relations.
• All parties will recognize the Kingdom of Egypt, the Republic of Georgia, the Principality of Trebizond, and Rashidi Arabia as new independent states.
• All parties will agree to recognize a male of the House of Bourbon-Aquintaine as Prince of Trebizond.
• Mehmed V, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire will agree to surrender the title of Caliph, for himself, for all of his future ascendants, and for the entire House of Osman. All parties recognize the government of the Executive Regency Council and Sultan Mehmed V as the only government of the Ottoman Empire. Sultan Mehmed V will be returned to Ottoman territory, and King William Henry I of Bulgaria to his Kingdom.
• All parties will recognize Russian control of the city of Constantinople and exclusive control over the Straits of the Dardanelles.
• All parties will agree to a Suez Canal Zone to be delineated among the signatories, and all parties agree it is in the best interests of all to reopen the Canal.
• All parties will agree to an International Commission responsible for the governance of Jerusalem, including deputations from the Russian Republic, Kingdom of Scandinavia, Sublime State of Iran, and the Kingdom of France.
• All parties will agree spheres of influence to be delineated among the signatories, and certain ceding of land.

xAlexsey Sergeyevich Suvorin, President of the Russian Republic

xCatherine II, Queen of Scandinavia

X NSQ

X King Ludovic

X-  Süleyman Hüsnü Pasha, on behalf of the Executive Regency Council and Sultan Mehmed V

[Spamage]

End of an Era
Post-Ottoman Near East Declared

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

   With the fall of Istanbul, the September Revolution, and defeat in Anatolia, it was clear that by 1876 the Ottoman Empire was a spent force. With Mehmed V in Russian custody, it was thus left to the Executive Regency Council to seek peace, coming to its enemies on bended knee. Ottoman contrition meant nothing, both Russia and Iran determined to beat the Turks when they were down after centuries of quarreling. They wouldn’t be alone though, with powers as far afield as France, Scandinavia, and the Habsburg Monarchy all stepping in to protect their own perceived interests. They were not lenient. The resulting Treaty of Limassol has done nothing less than throw the age-old order of the Near East into the dustbin of history, various powers all claiming stake to various former corners of the once-mighty Ottoman Empire.
   In Istanbul itself, the heart of the Ottoman Empire, the provisions of the Treaty of Limassol left that metropolis in the hands of the Russians. Determined to establish a new, loyal populace, Suvorin’s government took swift action to remake the famed city. Turks from the city and the surrounding area were deported en masse, their properties seized and handed out to thousands of immigrants invited by the Russian government to settle the city. Many furious Greeks were not above abusing the now homeless Turks as the fled east into Anatolia. In addition to Bulgars and Greeks, who swarmed into the region seeing a clear land-grab, thousands of Russians, fueled by patriotic and religious fervor, likewise relocated to Konstantingrad, as the city was henceforth to be known.
   In the Balkans an independent Albania was established, Riza Bey Bushati being named the Prince of Albania by local notables and setting up a government in the region. Though Islam was declared the state religion, Bushati instead focused on Albanian national identity as the source of national legitimacy, promising freedom of worship for the Christians. Bulgaria, Greece, and Serbia all set about expanding their borders in line with the treaty’s provisions. Though there was some grumbling over the specifics, most Slavs in the Balkans are just happy to be free from Ottoman oversight after four centuries. While Muslim resistance continues to rage on a lower level in Bosnia, which was in large part handed over to Serbia, most major cities have been safely placed under the control of Belgrade and the Habsburg regime of King Maximilian. Greece faced more opposition in establishing control over the Aegean Coast of Anatolia, where local Turkish resistance flamed up in sporadic violence, though Greek Arms would gradually quell the unrest for the time being.
   In the Caucuses and Black Sea region, the Republic of Georgia was established in Tblisi on February 20th. Prince Ioann Bagrationi, a scion of the old ruling house, was acclaimed as the first President of Georgia by assembled delegates. Though the Russians were loathe to see a former noble elected to government, they could do little in the face of Bagrationi popularity, only insisting that the new President recognize Moscow’s interests in his realm and agree to adhere to a republican system, both of which the new President of Georgia did. Given Bagrationi lacks heirs of his own, there seems to be little immediate threat of a royal resurgence. In Trebizond, as in Istanbul, the coming of Russian authorities meant mass Turkish deportations. Charles de Bourbon-Aquitaine, the brother of the Romanian King, was named as the King of Trebizond on March 20th, taking the regnal name Alexios VI of Trebizond, in homage to the old Emperors of that realm. Alexios VI vowed to protect the independence of his Greek and Laz subjects.
   Sultan Mehmed was exchanged for King William Henry of Bulgaria on March 5th. Yet, the return of the young sovereign was not meant with glee or jubilation. Under the leadership of the Executive Regency Council, not only was the Sultan forced to renounce the title of caliph, but also made to agree to the 1876 Constitution drafted by the Council. Though Mehmed would remain Sultan, a title now made largely ceremonial, the Ottoman state would become a constitutional, parliamentary monarchy. Mehmed was left a prisoner, kept under guard with little personal freedom. The Constitution of 1876 decreed universal Turkish male suffrage in elections to be held in 1877, the abolition of slavery, an end to the nobility, and promises of land redistribution. Though Sultan Mehmed remained nominal sovereign on paper, the Constitution of 1876 decreed that the Executive Regency Council would be a permanent body that would wield power on his behalf in perpetuity. With Istanbul lost; Sinope was declared the new capitol of the Ottoman Empire. Head of the Executive Regency Council, Süleyman Hüsnü also took office as the interim Prime Minister of the Ottoman Empire, adding that title to his role as nominal head of the Ottoman Army. Indeed, he would only seek to expand his grip on the state. Eager to demonstrate his adherence to the Treaty of Limassol, he engaged in a rapid drawdown of Ottoman military strength, demobilizing in particular units he deemed to be threats, their commanders being laid off alongside the common soldiers. Though it made him many enemies, it also cemented the Executive Regency Council’s hold over the armed forces.
   In Arabia and the Levant, the various Arab rebel factions aside from the Rashidis declared themselves indifferent to a treaty made in a far-off land by far-off powers. “Let them enforce their treaty, I shall not abide by its terms,” Emir Abdul Rahman bin Faisal Al Saud is alleged to have said upon hearing of the agreement. Indeed, while Iran has made clear advances in the region, including winning the submission of the Alawites on April 4th, vast swathes of the area remain up in arms. Likewise in Palestine, where Jerusalem has been declared an international city, local Arab leaders have shown clear disregard for external pressure. The Arabs aside from the Rashidis have seemed utterly determined to disregard Iranian offers, not wanting to trade a Turkish master for a Persian one. Fighting in the desert has been sporadic, though many expect this theater to turn active once more in the coming months.
   In Egypt, the tide has turned towards the Crown once more, King Ahmed being declared the legitimate sovereign of the region in the Treaty. Under the orders of Sinope, most of the Turkish soldiers withdrew in good order by April, leaving the region to the new administration. Yet, with his military strength sapped by the collapse of his rebellion in 1875 and fearing foreign predation, King Ahmed’s first act as sovereign was to invite the Scandinavians to protect his realm, allowing their soldiers to cross north from Sudan and take the extremely rich region. Indeed, unlike the fighting over Egypt in the 1830s and 1870s, this handoff has been relatively bloodless, save for the occasional murder of notable Ottoman collaborators. The Egyptian people generally do not seem thrilled by the arrival of Scandinavians, but as in most other newly-established states, have tolerated it as a means of protecting independence.
   To the Turkish public, the Treaty of Limassol has meant nothing less than utter disaster. It has taken just 5 years from the Ottomans to go from their post-Breslau peak, where they were the undoubted masters of the Balkans and Black Sea, to a state of utter destitution. Supply lines within the former Ottoman empire have collapsed, the new states and occupying powers imposing tariffs and border controls. Poverty rules the land in Anatolia, formerly prosperous businessmen being forced into penury alongside their onetime employees. Cities are filled with the poor and unemployed. State capacity utterly imploded; Sinope unable to effectively extend its reach across its territory. Bands of demobilized soldiers and criminals roam the countryside, tax collection and broader governance ceasing in large portions of the country. The sheer dislocations caused by the upheaval have also meant that any sort of civic registry is borderline impossible. It was in this Anatolian environment that the first cracks of dissent would make themselves evident.
   With the loss of so much territory and numerous ethnic minority groups being granted independence, the remaining rump Ottoman Empire was overwhelmingly Turkish. This made the remaining minorities within its borders only more conscious of their status and determined to protect themselves. Cilicia was a region with significant Arab, Greek, Armenian, and Alawite minority communities. Seeing the collapse of Ottoman state authority, and taking advantage of the chaos caused by the Iranian withdrawal, the various minority groups banded together and declared the United Kingdom of Cilicia on April 10th, 1876.   
   In the chaos there was no clear candidate to lead the movement. A sign of desperation and the fragility of the situation, a seemingly nobody was named leader. Seeking to elicit broader Arab sympathy, Mar'i Pasha al-Mallah, a 20-year-old Syrian Arab passing through Ayas at the time the revolt erupted was named King of Cilicia. He was chosen, against his will, solely for his education at the prestigious Galatasaray Mekteb-i Sultanisi. That an Arabic leader took western titles in a clear sign of the fluidity of the situation. Though unwilling, al-Mallah quickly embraced the situation, recognizing his life now depended on the success of his fledgling state. Thus far, the Cilician rebels have achieved significant success, the Ottomans unable to send soldiers that direction. Adana, Ayas, and Tarsus have all fallen to the new movement, in addition to widespread support from rural Armenian and Arab groups.
   Thus, without the Ottoman Empire, a vacuum has emerged in the region, one that could be filled by any number of powers. Iran and Russia, close allies in the collapse of the Ottoman authority, have begun to eye one another far more warily, recognizing they no longer share many common interests with their common enemy left so weak. It remains to be seen if the Treaty of Limassol will hold or if all of its provisions have as of yet been enforced, though on paper it seems there is unfinished business, given not all of the invited signatories have as of yet started to enforce their own provisions.

[Spamage]

Peace of Sevres

A TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN THE HABSBURG MONARCHY, and the SUPPORTERS OF PRINCE AMADEUS and THE KINGDOM OF FRANCE, MEDIATED BY THE KINGDOM OF SCANDINAVIA
I . Habsburg armed forces shall withdraw from all occupied French territories.
II . The supporters of Prince Amadeus shall lay down their arms.
III . A general amnesty is declared for supporters of Prince Xavier and Prince Amadeus who lay down their arms.
IV . Prominent supporters of Prince Xavier and Prince Amadeus shall, upon the completion of an oath of loyalty to Queen Regent Charlotte and King Louis XX be restored to their positions in certain high offices.
V . A Privy Council shall be formed of prominent supporters of Queen Regent Charlotte and Prince Xavier and Prince Amadeus. This body shall advise the crown on certain domestic decisions, but will lack veto power with the following exception:
A . The Crown will be unable to appropriate an unreasonable amount of land without the Privy Council’s approval.
VI . Princess Carolina shall be released from her imprisonment upon her marriage to a prominent supporter of Queen Regent Charlotte.
VII . Padania shall remain an autonomous part of France.
VIII . The parties agree to honor their respective national interests in Iberia, the Netherlands and Germany.
IX . The Kingdom of France shall not support dissidents or dissent in the Habsburg Monarchy.
X . The Habsburg Monarchy shall not support dissidents or dissent in the Kingdom of France.

X Queen Mother Charlotte Von Hohenzollern, Regent of France and Padania on behalf of his majesty King Louis XX of France

X Prince Amadeus de Bourbon-Savoie, Duke of Savoy and Piedmont

[Spamage]

1876 News of the World

Turkish Chaos

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

   The Ottoman malaise continued into the second half of 1876. The success of the Cilician rebels underscored the ineffectiveness of the central government all the while conditions on the ground continued to worsen. In such an environment it was only a matter of time before action was taken against the authorities.
   A cabal of generals in the Ottoman Army, consisting primarily of those who had been demobilized by Süleyman Hüsnü, plotted successfully to topple the regime in Sinope. Osman Nuri took the lead in the plot, capitalizing on his prestige in reconquering Egypt in order to garner support. Beyond the disgruntled officers there were many who were sympathetic to the scheme, including reactionaries, nationalists, and those alarmed by Hüsnü’s consolidation of power. News of Iranian intervention in Cilicia was the final straw. On August 5th, 1876 a session of the Executive Council in Sinope was bombed, killing most of the leadership instantly and throwing the city into chaos. Süleyman Hüsnü himself was killed in the blast, eliminating a key figure in the fragile regime.
   Osman Nuri’s loyalist brigades secured the city, the populace looking on with confusion. The Turkish Republic was declared, the new junta wrapping itself in the nationalist cause. Blaming the Sultans for the decline of the Empire and the Executive Regency Council for surrendering, Nuri called for a new style of leadership, proclaiming himself the Supreme Vizier. Civil liberties were suspended. It was made clear that the Constitution of 1876 would not be going into effect. Yet, in a deliberate break with the past and in an effort to establish a new Turkey, Osman Nuri had young Sultan Mehmed murdered in his cell. Any other members of the Ottoman dynasty found in the city were likewise disposed of. While this instantly alienated the monarchists, it eliminated a potential pole of opposition.
   The military coup, aimed at eliminating Süleyman Hüsnü and arresting the shift towards democratic rule, seemed successful for a few weeks. Yet, his government had even less authority and reach than the Executive Regency Council. Due to this, there would be two sources of backlash from both the people and constitutional loyalists.
   In Sinope, Ankara, and other major cities the populace was fed up. Starving while the elites continued to play their power games, it was time to take matters into their own hands. The nascent Turkish socialist movement, led by a vanguard of ideologues, rallied the populace against the militaristic tyranny. It was a sign how much the situation had deteriorated that a formerly conservative region of the Ottoman Empire was now a hotbed of radical thought. The initial rising occurred in Antalya, but sister rebellions erupted in Ankara and Sinope itself, where Nuri and his men were forced to flee the city amidst the chaos. Rexhep Mati declared the People’s Republic of Anatolia on October 9th, calling for the end of the Sultanate, execution of the nobility and officials of the old regime, redistribution of land, a new constitution, and an end to foreign imperialism on Turkish soil.
   Meanwhile, among the military establishment, reaction to Nuri’s actions were mixed. A cabal of loyalists to the Executive Regency Council convened at Bursa, declaring their intent to see the Constitution of 1876 implemented and to defeat the various radical factions. Roughly a third of the military deserted to their cause, much of western Anatolia in their hands. The Turkish liberals attempted to forge middle road between the right-wing nationalists and the left-wing socialists, though they too proclaimed that one day Turkey would break its shackles of subjugation. Şehzade Ahmed Kemaleddin, a younger brother to the slain sultan Murad V and one of the few surviving members of the Ottoman Royal Family, was declared Sultan Ahmed IV. Yet, rather than marching against Nuri, the Ottoman liberals found themselves bogged down against the Greeks, who sought to take advantage of the crisis.
   King Constantine of Greece saw the potential to further expand his holdings with the three-way crisis erupting in Turkey. Declaring that the murder of Mehmed V and the Executive Regency Council voided Greek observance of the Treaty of Limassol, an expeditionary force was sent into Anatolia, capturing Aydin. The Greek government thought the Turks would be too busy fighting themselves to do anything about it, an incorrect calculation. The Turkish liberals were furious, launching counterstrikes into Greek holdings on the coast, enacting harsh punishment against civilians as revenge for the humiliating treatment of the Turks in Istanbul. With the Greek Army still not fully established since its recent independence, this region has begun to turn into a debacle.
   Thus, as the year closes the former Ottoman Empire has collapsed. Two factions proclaim Turkish nationhood, calling for a new era of nationalist sovereignty, though in two very different forms (nationalist or socialist). The liberals, ostensibly carrying the banner of the old regime, have become distracted by foreign intervention and seem focused on exacting revenge rather than pursuing conciliation. Greece and Iran have placed soldiers on Turkish soil, all the while the fragile semblance of order in the region fades into but a memory. It remains to be seen how the established powers in the region, Iran and Russia in particular, will react to the utter chaos engulfing Anatolia as a new wave of bloodshed erupts in the aftermath of the peace.

Liberian War

(Source: Smithsonian)

   With the Treaty of Albany, Frederick Douglass’ flight to New Orleans, and the increasing realization of their perilous position, morale in Liberia began to sink rapidly. Under the command of General Stoneman and General McCook, the Liberians were defeated at the Battle of Freetown, their capitol city falling back into the hands of the hated oppressors. Indeed, whatever legions had been assembled at Freetown represented the best of the Liberian regular army. Its defeat, to many, signaled that conventional warfare had failed and new tactics would be required.
   Even with Freetown occupied though, the most ardent rebels would not give up. Fires were set in the city, an attempted insurrection being brutally massacred in the streets on September 20th. The lower ranked soldiers of the Louisianan Army, generally more racially-prejudiced than the officer corps, were extremely harsh on the locals, including those who were not under arms. While the officers attempted to restrain them, there was a period out outright bloodletting on both sides in the city. In response, many Liberians who would otherwise have remained neutral have become ever more hostile to King Henry-Philippe and the Louisianan regime. Frederick Douglass himself condemned the soldiers and has demanded that the government initiate punishment of them. Still, the numbers of invaders could not be overcome. After seven days of fighting, the last pockets of resistance in Freetown surrendered on September 27th.
   Shields Green and his loyalists, increasingly discredited as political leaders given the collapsing rebellion, fled into the vast desert and have begun to engage in an intense resistance campaign. Still, given Lousiana’s simultaneous success at putting down recent native risings in the region, some suspect it is only a matter of time before he is captured. Regardless, many Liberian leaders have shifted their demands from outright independence to further concessions from Baton Rouge. Pragmatic in the face of a declining military situation, one of Green’s lieutenants has promised intense resistance until further concessions are made to Black Louisianans. It remains to be seen how the Crown will respond to this.
   The victories against Liberia would help to stabilize the situation in the east. With the loss of North Carolina, many in Louisiana felt that the acquisition of Jamaica and land along the Mississippi was insufficient. Indeed, among the Anglo-Louisianans, there was a growing sense that they were disposable to their king. After all, why else had thousands of their brethren been returned to London’s tyrannical grip when they had won their liberty forty years prior in their rebellion against Britain? The situation was fragile, though news from Liberia seemed to help rehabilitate national morale, fueled as it was by racial animus. The tepid return of international trade likewise ended the worst of the economic strains, the British blockade now just a bad memory. It seemed that the Bourbon monarchy would survive, albeit somewhat tarnished from the events of the past few years.

Invasion of Japan

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

   Perhaps the most ambitious actions of the year would come from the Singapore Pact. Frustrated over the refusal of the Japanese Shogunate under Tokugawa Yoshiyori to even consider peace, it was agreed by the various signatories that an invasion of the home islands would ultimately be the correct decision. Indeed, with the island-hopping of the previous years made such a move feasible, albeit risky.
   Three primary landings were ordered. The Koreans seized Hakodate in April, directing valuable military resources against Japan in a bid to cripple their rival even more than themselves. The city, largely undefended, was seized, cutting off Hokkaido from Honshu. Yet, in a prelude to what would be experienced elsewhere, though the local garrison was outmatched, it refused to surrender. It was only after intense Korean bombardment that the surviving soldiers laid down their arms.
   A second, less-successful attempt was made by the Koreans to land on Fukuoka. Yet, they no longer possessed the element of surprise, news of the incursion in the north having placed most ports on high alert. Attempts to land a force were hampered by erratic weather, intense fighting with the samurai and other soldiers in entrenched coastal positions, and incompetent commanders. When it was clear a landing could not succeed, the Koreans instead resorted to shelling the city of Kitakyushu. For hours fire rained down on the settlement. Many of the houses made from wood and paper were no match for the shells, which ignited a firestorm and killed upwards of a thousand civilians. While this hardened resistance in Japan proper, the foreigners seeming just as wretched as had been feared.
   These two assaults were just a prelude for the main operation though. Colombia, Portugal, the Philippines launching the primary blow against Nagasaki. A feint attack towards Edo caused the Shogunate to relocate a good deal of defenses there, while the Army of Niigata moved north to try and push the Koreans out of Hokkaido. Thus, Nagasaki was left exposed. Shelling began on September 8th, the growing industrial center of the city targeted by the invaders.
   When the invaders landed successfully, in typical Catholic Republican fashion, they proclaimed vengeance on behalf of the 26 Martyrs of Japan killed in 1597. The local populace looked on with horror as Colombian brigades went from neighborhood to neighborhood, ripping down Shinto shrines and destroying Buddhist temples. When tensions came to a boil, the people outraged over their treatment, the Catholic Republican forces deployed mustard gas against the populace, killing many. Fighting and shelling gutted the city, thousands fleeing outward as Yoshiyori mustered his men for an attack in early 1867. Still, there are growing questions around the stability of the Shogunate, given the shock the invasion of the home islands has caused Japanese society.

China Rises: A Republic Under Arms

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

   The peace between Russia and Joseon Korea in the early part of 1876 allowed Seoul to turn its attention once more to taming China. Indeed, many Chinese nationalists were upset by what was seen as Russian abandonment. Matters were not helped over the fact that some of the land surrendered by the Koreans had never been legally ceded by either the Xing or the Republicans, Nanjing seeing it as rightful Chinese territory. The two republics, previously cordial, saw a mutual chill descend in public opinion.
   Still, the Russian assault on Korea had provided Li Hongzhang and the Chinese Republic with the breathing room necessary to regroup. Korea launched an aggressive bid to retake the northern half of China in late spring, 70 divisions of men engaging in a brutal breakout against a far larger Chinese force of 185 divisions. Initial results were promising, the Chinese being outmatched by Korean experience and superior firepower.
    The gains stalled though in early summer though, as the Chinese capitalized on overextended Korean supply lines and flagging morale. Civilians flocked to the republican cause, the proposed constitution by Li Hongzhang inspiring a nation. A new democratic day in China seemed so close, something unprecedented in the history of the Middle Kingdom.
   Chinese General Song Qing, denouncing “despots with imperial illusions of grandeur,” initiated a counteroffensive against Korea in mid-July. The results in the north were stunning, the demoralized invaders utterly collapsing in on themselves. A chaotic retreat was initiated, thousands of square kilometers changing hands in mere weeks. Though Beijing, Tianjin, and the Shandong Peninsula would remain obstinately in the hands of the Joseon, the vast majority of northern China was returned to the control of Han authorities. More momentous is the losses sustained by Seoul, tens of thousands falling either into foreign captivity or deserting the forces and seeking to sneak back home.
   Korea would not be totally idle, launching a secondary operation up the Sinkiang River in the south. Japanese Macau was seized, the last outpost of the Shogunate on mainland China. While the Koreans faced little pushback in this theater, many questioned what broader goals would be achieved by operating in the south.
   After 8 years of exhausting warfare and extensive mobilization, Korean society seems on the brink. At home the people were growing destitute, wartime deprivation eroding many of the luxuries to which they had grown accustomed. Every town had seen local boys slain in far-off regions for the glory of Emperor Yi Ho. What was the fighting even for? At least the war against Russia had been defensive in nature, no such argument could be made about the invasion of China. Strikes, shortages, and radical ideas have begun to gain ground on the home front. When, at long last, the Imperial Court issued a tepid willingness to negotiate an equitable settlement with the Chinese government in December, it was seen as long overdue. Many look to Li Hongzhang to see how he and the Chinese Republic will respond to the unprecedented overtures from their longtime rivals. Could victory really be at hand? Peace in China after a decade of fighting?
   

Islam on the March: India, North Africa, and the Near East

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Indian War
   The union of the Legions of Alp Arslan with the Durrani would provide the Afghans with the boost in manpower they needed in 1876. Yet again the forces of the French colonial empire would be on the defensive. With peace in France proper providing hope of eventual relief, officials were still well-aware they would be on their own for the remainder of the year. The situation was dire. As an illustration of their lack of confidence in the war effort, Nepal and Bhutan, both nominal French vassals, declared their independence in June. Meanwhile for the Durrani, though the Emir had promised talk of peace with Paris, little came over the diplomatic channels. It seemed fighting would continue in 1876.
   Still, orders from Queen Charlotte invited colonial officials to get more creative in their use of weaponry. In particular, the Queen Regent encouraged the use of gas and other modern weaponry against the invading Afghans. 55 French divisions in India, the bulk of force in the subcontinent, launched an offensive aimed at expelling the Durrani. Yet, with the absorption of the Turkish forces into the armies of Emir Abdul Khan, the numbers were not as impressive as had been hoped. By June the initial gains of the French had been reversed. A counteroffensive by the Durrani, who were well-supplied with Russian and Iranian weaponry, coincided with a push north by Mysore, taking advantage of lowered French defenses in the south. Agra, Gwalior, Bombay, and a good deal of land have fallen into the hands of the Muslim powers.
   Without peace in France, it is likely many would have seen the situation as hopeless for French India. In October an attempted Islamic rebellion in Bengal was brutally suppressed by local forces, the Army of the Sacred Heart responding by demolishing mosques and brutally executing captured dissidents. Although the frontlines have been pushed further east, India effectively being divided into thirds, the French maintain their position at Calcutta. It is feared that the decisions of Nepal and Bhutan to declare independence could be echoed by those isolated princes in between French Burma and India as a whole, though as of yet they have remained publicly loyal to the established government in Calcutta.
   Still, even with the Peace of Sevres, the transfer of reinforcements to India could prove problematic. The British-Cape Colony fighting makes that route dangerous, while the Suez remains obviously blocked, though Austrian engineers have been working ceaselessly to get it in working order (it is hoped that 1877 or 1878 will see the canal back up and running).  Some have openly whispered in Versailles that it may be time to accept some losses in India in exchange for preserving the colony, though publicly such talk is treated as defeatism.

Arabia
   With most of the Arabs shunning Iranian attempts to negotiate some sort of settlement, Tehran decided to take a more aggressive stance. Raids into the desert were conducted against the Wahhabis, both from Riyadh and the eastern coast of Arabia. While the locals would prove quite elusive, those that were engaged faced the full might of Iranian weaponry, including chemical weapons. Other Iranian operations focused on securing the remainder of Hejaz from the collapsing Ottoman presence and assuming direct control of Ha’il. While they were successful in both of these goals, the enemies of the Rashidi-Iranian alliance remained at large.
   Saudi raiding would actually bypass the Iranian-held corridor between Riyadh and Medina, operations launching in the north. Many Rashidi allies have shown themselves only half committed to the cause of Muhammad bin Abdullah Al Rashid, cautious over his close ties to Iran. The Hashemites, meanwhile, pushed out of Mecca in 1875 now continued to find themselves on the retreat in 1876. With Hejaz mostly in the hands of the Qajars, the titular Sharif of Mecca Muhammad ibn Abd al-Mu'in made common cause with the Palestinian Arabs, heretofore largely unaligned in the Arabic fighting. Both sides recognized their perilous position, surrounded as they were by Scandinavian Egypt and Iranian Syria, and so, at the behest of Palestinian leaders, Muhammad was named the King of Palestine, drawing on recent precedent in Cilicia.
   The remnants of the Hashemite faction following defeat in Hejaz have thus been absorbed into the broader Levantine Arab movement. Still, with an Iranian push south into the former Damascus Vilayet, the Hashemite faction remains quite fragile. While Palestine proper was untouched, a product of Scandinavian preoccupation elsewhere, many see it as a matter of time before one of the various regional powers will eliminate the nascent Kingdom of Palestine. 

Tripoli and Cyrenaica
   The status of Ottoman Libya was left in limbo in 1876. With Turkey descending into chaos, the local Arab-Berber population took advantage of the crisis to assert autonomy. Much of the interior has raised the flag of revolt, seeking to break free from foreign domination after centuries. The isolated Turkish establishment, apparently governing the region on behalf of an unnamed foreign power, have done their best to maintain order, holding on to most of the cities along the coast. Still, with the populace in this region up in arms, many wonder if the disorder could spread into either Scandinavian Egypt or the recently reestablished Neapolitan Tunis.

[Spamage]

A Fragile Peace: Europe After Sevres and Venice

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

   The Treaty of Sevres brought an ended the War of the Regency and restored peace between Vienna and Paris. Still, even with the treaty, both Austria and France remained under arms, mopping up puddles of resistance as they sought to restore order to the continent. Likewise the Treaty of Venice forced Naples to heel, though it would come with significant blowback within that kingdom. Although many in either faction have been relieved by the return of peace between the major powers, tension remains in the air. Can the peace truly hold, with the Netherlands subjugated, Prussia collapsing, and Padania in flames?

Netherlands
   When Queen Charlotte ordered the Army of Moselle to move north and assault the Dutch socialists in the aftermath of the Peace of Sevres, Niewenhuis and his government new their cause was doomed. Desperate hopes that the socialist elements in the French government would get Paris to sue for peace were misguided, Charlotte buying off her socialist supporters with extensive labor legislation and sweeping domestic reforms. The assertive Dutch soldiers, too focused on political debates and internal dissent, were easily swept aside by the vengeful French. Brussels fell in May, the Netherlands itself being left open to the French advance.
   And advance they did. Though many Dutch civilians, fired up by socialist rhetoric and determined to beat back the imperialists, took up arms, the French were too strong to resist. Yet again these hated enemies of the people were on Dutch soil and, yet again, the cause of Dutch resistance seemed hopeless. The countryside, already decimated from the chaotic situation over the past year, proved utterly insufficient to support any sort of resistance. The populace as a whole was exhausted, thousands of Dutch fleeing into Flanders in the hopes of a better life. What use was their fighting when the Netherlands was on the verge of being overrun yet again? Amsterdam, the Hague, and Breda were all retaken throughout the summer months. Niewenhuis, not wanting to see his people suffer even more, formally surrendered to the French on July 20th, outmatched and exhausted. Despite the brief hopes of the past year, it seemed that a stable socialist Dutch state would not come to pass after all. The Dutch government has been placed into French custody as the rest of Europe looks on to see what exactly Queen Charlotte intends for the region now that it is formally under French control once more. Many wonder how Vienna and Stockholm will respond to the fate of their ostensible ally, while in exile Queen Regent Carolina has demanded that the French restore her grandson to the Dutch throne, a prospect many in Paris balk at.

Illyria
   One of the secret provisions of the Treaty of Limassol granted Charles VIII control over Illyria, that young state being granted no voice in its own future. Outnumbered significantly, and satiated by the creation of the Kingdom of Croatia as a coequal state of the Habsburg Monarchy, Slavic resistance to the Habsburg invasion in midsummer was almost nonexistent. Indeed, most Croats viewed nominal control by Vienna to be preferable to increasingly vocal Serbian and Italian claims over the region. On August 11th, 1876 the government of the Illyrian Republic formally voted to dissolve itself, its last act bequeathing the region to Charles VIII in his role as King of Croatia.
   One group not reconciled to the Austrian invasion were the Italians who populated many of the coastal cities. Yet, their cause was too feeble to ignite any sort of resistance. The Croats were the overwhelming majority in the countryside and any hope for pan-Italian nationalism in the region seemed remote. Antonio Bajamonti, the Italian former President of Illyria, urged his compatriots to accept the new regime. Though many grumbled loudly, the Italian Illyrians largely fell in line with the new order.
   The annexation of Illyria and the declaration of the Kingdom of Croatia reaffirmed the Croats as the most loyal subjects of Emperor Charles VIII. One group less than pleased were the Hungarians. Not consulted about losing a good deal of their realm to the Croatian upstarts, and long jealous of their liberties, the Hungarian nobility have issued a formal condemnation of the move to Vienna. Indeed, it is feared in some quarters that the declaration of Croatia is just the first step in carving up the Kingdom of Hungary into its piecemeal ethnic groups.

Padania
   Though Naples had agreed to the Treaty of Venice, the Italian nationalists in Padania had not. They were faced with an unappealing future: subjugation by the hated Queen Charlotte or nominal autonomy under the increasingly disdained Prince Amadeus. Indeed, whatever loyalty had remained to Xavier’s memory had evaporated rapidly in early 1876 as the gravity of the gassing of Turin set in. How could any “Italian” prince consent to such treatment of his supposed countrymen?
   Under sustained French dominance, the future seemed a dim prospect. Yet, rather than retreat with the Neapolitan forces after the Treaty of Venice, which would mean abandoning their homeland and their families, many Padanian nationalists chose to stay under arms. With the French forces rapidly demobilizing save for the campaign in the Netherlands, there was a window where they were effective.
   Recognizing that a force of 60,000 (at most) men could not hold the entirety of the kingdom, they moved to the mountains. Anti-French insurgents operate out of the Alps, sweeping into the Po Valley to launch coordinated guerilla strikes against French collaborators and sympathizers. While the larger cities in the region sit safely in the hands of French authorities, the countryside is contested. Infrastructure has been targeted and the overland route between France and Turin has become extremely perilous, most travelers taking ships from Marseilles to Genoa when the Alps need to be bypassed. Notably, most of the cadet branches of the House of Bourbon holding titles in the region (Savoy, Modena, Genoa) have opted to remain in Marseilles rather than risk Italian ire. Outside of France, Switzerland has proclaimed neutrality, but many French officials complain they are doing too little to stop the Italian pan-nationalists who take advantage of the quite porous border.

Naples
   King Charles VIII was a broken man after the Treaty of Venice. He had given everything to his people, even losing the use of his leg in desperate attempts on his person. Yet, through the treachery of Charlotte and the obstinance of the Habsburg Monarchy, he found himself shut out from gains in the northern half of the peninsula. It was with great reluctance he signed the Treaty of Venice. But, recognizing how bitter a pill it would be to swallow for the Neapolitan people and despairing of the state of his kingdom, Charles VIII abdicated the throne on October 20th, 1876. His reign had lasted 17 years and seen the annexation of Tuscany, Sardinia, and Corsica. Under Charles Naples had evolved from an autocratic monarchy to a constitutional and liberalizing state. The old king retired to Taranto, where he was found dead on December 15th, many suspecting either suicide or death from a broken heart. With the treaty signed, Naples could only look on in horror as the bloodshed continued in Padania and Austria asserted itself in Illyria. The restoration of Neapolitan Tunis as part of the Treaty of Limassol was scant consolation for the events in Italy proper.
   Charles VIII’s eldest son was immediately named Philip V of Naples, inheriting a nation in the grips of tension. Cries against the Treaty of Venice were loud and many thought that the traditional establishment, including the monarchy, had discredited itself in the debacle. The Catholic Republicans openly called for the creation of a republic, being outvoted by Crispi and the established government in the latter half of the year. The people were of a mixed opinion. Many recognized the Crown really didn’t have a choice, Charlotte instead being castigated for her perfidy. Indeed, the opinion of France within Naples has reached an all-time low, many people calling on the new monarch to align himself with Austria against the “Harlot of Versailles”. Outright revolution seems to have been avoided for the time being though, the people being of full stomachs and a relatively decent standard of life compared to some of the more ravaged regions. All of the political parties look towards the election of 1877 for answers. The people will decide how Naples is to move forward.

Death of the Old Eagle: Prussia's Struggle for Survival

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Prussia and the Baltic
   Total war continued to rage in northern Germany and the Baltic States, Prussia being left on the defensive. Berlin was infuriated by the French and Neapolitan abandonment of their cause. Frederick IV, normally a staunch ally of Queen Charlotte, denounced her as a dynastic blood-traitor. His wife, Princess Catherine of France (aunt of Louis XX) formally condemned the Treaty of Sevres, while the heir to the throne, Prince Frederick Louis, began to initiate private channels to negotiate peace with his grandfather-in-law Emperor Charles VIII.
   Indeed, the situation on the ground would not be kind to Prussia. With news of the Baltic Act being passed in Stockholm, many local nationalists suddenly saw an opportunity it betraying the hated Baltic German nobility. Cooperation with the Prussians largely evaporated as a Scandinavian force disembarked at Tallinn and began to push back the Prussian occupiers. Berlin simply could not provide sufficient manpower to the theater, overwhelmed as it was on other fronts. Prussia was pushed out of Riga on May 17th, effectively signaling an end to their presence north of the Daugava River. A broader Scandinavian offensive in the summer saw the liberation of Lithuania and incursions into East Prussia. The German forces adopted a defensive stance, using the Nieman River and entrenched positions to slow any advance further south in the latter half of the year.
   In Silesia the Habsburg forces went on the offensive, using the freed-up manpower from peace in Italy to retake the region. The Prussians fought a tenacious defense, but were simply overwhelmed. Their position becoming increasingly untenable with Saxon and Polish intervention, the Hohenzollern forces were pushed all the way back beyond the old border of northern Silesia by the end of the year. Morale in the Prussian army has cratered.
   The twin Wettin realms (Poland and Saxony), never ones to miss out on an opportunity, took advantage of Prussia’s deteriorating position in the latter half of the year. Regent of Poland Archduke Louis-Henry of Austria declared his intent to aid his father’s struggle against Prussia in November. Operations against Prussia would provide Poland with the chance to both liberate Poles behind enemy lines and rehabilitate the disgraced but reformed Polish Army. Posen was seized within weeks as a broader push up the Vistula aimed to free Danzig before the Scandinavians. Saxony, meanwhile, joined the Scandinavian push on Berlin, launching surprise strikes from the south via the Spreewald. Frankfurt an der Oder fell to the forces of the Saxon Crown by the end of the year.
   The demographic implications of the war have been significant. The loss in the Baltic States has all but shattered the age-old Baltic German nobility. Fearing the wrath and ire of the Balts, thousands fled their estates in the train of the Prussian Army, most relocating to Konigsberg. A whole society has shattered, the abandoned properties being broken up by the Scandinavians and redistributed to local loyalists. Prussian refugees meanwhile have poured into the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, and Denmark. Good farmland has been damaged by the warfare, tens of thousands of civilians falling victim to famine and other wartime deprivations.

Battle of Berlin
The primary Scandinavia operation was aimed at seizing Berlin and putting an end to Prussianism once and for all. In a deliberate and careful series of operations, more than 100 Scandinavian divisions pushed west into Brandenburg. The Prussian forces were severely outnumbered. News of defeats were racking up on all fronts and all hope seemed lost. It is a testament to the political strength of King Frederick IV that even in his darkest hours, his fanatic subjects in the army and government have remained loyal to his cause, even when the war is clearly lost.
   Needless to say, with the Scandinavians bearing down on Berlin, and gas attacks erupting throughout the surrounding region, Frederick IV refused to evacuate his capitol. He had seen firsthand how his grandmother’s decision to relocate the government in the First Great Eastern War had subsequently led to the collapse of the Prussian cause and he could not bear to repeat history. While his wife and heirs were evacuated, King Frederick IV remained in Charlottenburg Palace as fighting entered the city on October 5th, 1876. It is said that the King himself took up arms and fought on the barricades as the Swedes smashed into the city. Though gas attacks against civilians had been largely discouraged by the Scandinavian General Staff, commanders employed it in Berlin to beat back tenacious resistance. Once more the Prussian capitol was bathed in blood, the fires of war levelling the city.
   Women and children were alleged to be fighting alongside the men, the fanatic resistance of some pockets of Prussian society knowing no bounds. When the last outpost of armed civilians surrendered on October 16th, the city was gutted. Though King Frederick IV is unaccounted for, he has been assumed dead. Crown Prince Frederick Louis has been named King of Prussia in Konigsberg, his first action being a call for peace and a cease fire. Archduchess Maria Louisa of Austria, now Queen of Prussia, has personally appealed to her grandfather to show mercy to the battered Prussian realm.

Rhineland
   With the peace between Vienna and Paris, the Rhenish rebels found themselves in an unenviable position, suddenly surrounded by enemy forces. The Prussian contingents in the army, quite substantial, melted away rapidly, not seeing any point in fighting in the west while their homes were under assault in the east. “King” Charles of the Rhine, meanwhile, was smuggled out of Cologne alongside with his staunch loyalists by the French, being returned to the relative safety of Versailles. With the leadership fleeing and the Prussian aid nonexistent, the rebels largely laid down their arms, accepting the reality of the situation. Yet again, order has been restored to the Rhineland.
   Local officials and Habsburg officers as a whole have been outraged by French protection of King Charles, a rebel that caused so much regional instability. It remains to be seen whether Vienna will press the issue. With peace returning to the region for the time being, some also wonder if Emperor Charles will seek to stem the root causes of much of the discontent, including the absentee smallholders, and a lack of political representation in the Holy Roman Empire as a whole.

South Africa
   Britain, finally able to focus elsewhere given the Treaty of Albany, wasted no time in capitalizing on the declining power of Prussia overseas. The Cape Colony, Prussia’s prized possession for bordering on a century and a half, was assaulted by 15 British divisions. Cape Town, stunned by the attack, surrendered easily, the harbor being opened to British vessels. The Prussian Fleet of South Africa relocated to Algoa Bay rather than resist the British fleet.
   Yet, the Germans in South Africa had experience holding off foreign incursions. Brazil had attempted to seize the colony in the aftermath of the First Great Eastern War until continued bleeding and intense local resistance had forced it to withdraw. With news of the British invasion, the countryside erupted into violence, the settlers refusing to yield the land permanently to the British. Expeditions to take outlying areas by the British forces would often seem successful, only for the settlements to change hands the moment the bulk of the forces returned to the relative security of Cape Town.
   Recognizing no aid would be forthcoming from Berlin, and hoping to achieve a separate peace, the Prussian settlers in the Cape Colony declared their independence as the Cape Republic. Adolf Lüderitz was elected as President by an emergency assembly at New Potsdam. He vowed to uphold the independence and territorial integrity of South Africa, calling on fellow republics across the globe to support his cause. Though word would not reach Prussia of the declaration of independence, the move would demonstrate that the Prussian people as a whole were beginning to tire of the suffocating regime.
   All the while the local native population has not been idle. The Xhosa, Sotho, and Zulu people have all used the breakdown of authority to assert their nominal independence. Raids on the Prussian settlements, as well as each other, have erupted, all the various powers jostling for positions in a newly chaotic situation. Southern Africa burns.

Politics and Empires

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

   For centuries in western Europe there had always been one empire, the Empire. Since the time of Charlemagne, many had nominally accepted the Holy Roman Emperors as the heirs of the Roman Empire and a level above the other potentates. Though some sort of uneasy understanding had to be reached with the Russians, who likewise asserted their Roman heritage, no Catholic or Protestant sovereign broke the seemingly taboo issue by naming themselves emperor, save for a brief attempt by the Spanish Monarchy in the late 1700s, widely mocked at the time. The prestige of the title of Emperor was only reaffirmed once the Russians did away with their monarchy in the 1840s. Yet, 1876 would see two other monarchs proclaim themselves emperors, this time being met with respect, not mockery as the Spanish had faced.

Quebec
   With the Treaty of Albany putting an end to the long war against the British, and in the aftermath of his father’s assassination, King Philip I took the bold step in 1876 of issuing a total reform of the Quebecois system of government. Recognizing the administrative strain placed on the state after so many acquisitions, and seeking to reorder the government he had inherited, the Empire of Quebec was declared. While at home this was met with widespread support, coming on the heels of the popular peace which saw more territories acquired, abroad the response was more muted. Though undoubtedly, given its tremendous size, Quebec probably does have the right to proclaim an Empire, there has been little foreign recognition of Philip’s new title as of yet.

Scandinavia
   Following the example of Quebec, and eager to capitalize on their perceived superior claims in Africa, Stockholm took the bold step of declaring Queen Catherine II of Scandinavia as also being the first Empress of Africa. Crowned in Gothenburg Cathedral, her husband Archduke Frederick at her side, the move boosted wartime morale in Scandinavia and was a deliberate attempt to strengthen the monarchy after a year of growing wartime unrest. Coupled with the success on the field, it seems to have been successful. Still, even more than Quebec, the question of Austrian recognition remains, given the two courts’ close alliance. Many in Vienna have seen the declaration of the Empire of Africa undermining the traditional Habsburg role as emperor, though Charles VIII has said nothing.

Russia
   Though not a monarchy, President Suvorin was treated like a Czar by the jubilant Russian public in 1876 once peace had been declared and the Treaty of Limassol ratified. The reopening of the trade in grain and food to Europe, being pumped west via Konstantingrad, was also a major boon to the Russian economy. So long as France and the Habsburg Monarchy remained mired in instability and their little wars in the aftermath of the Peace of Sevres, Russia felt unchallenged on the global stage.
   Needless to say, with the approach of the Election of 1876, Suvorin had little reason to be concerned. Indeed, rigged or not, it was likely the outcome of the Russian presidential election would have been the same. Suvorin won handily, defeating radical anarchist Mikhail Bakunin with 90.5% of the vote to 8.6%. Still, some have questioned whether this level of popularity will be sustainable for a president that will have to make some increasingly difficult choices, especially in foreign policy.

[Spamage]

The Zenith of Power: Concert of Europe Part IV
Turn 7: 1877

The World in 1875
(Made by Me)

Nations, Leaders, and Players

Kingdom of France: Queen Mother Charlotte von Hohenzollern (X)
Habsburg Monarchy: Emperor Charles VIII von Habsburg-Lothringen (Dereich)
Kingdom of Scandinavia: Queen-Empress Catherine II von Oldenburg (YPestis)
Russian Republic: President Aleksey Suvorin (KaiserDave)
British Union: King Henry X of Hanover (joshva)
Divine Republic of Brazil: Archbishop-President Manuel Joaquim da Silveira (Ishan)
Kingdom of Naples: King Philip V Bourbon (GoTfan)
Kingdom of Louisiana: King Henry-Philippe de Bourbon-Orleans (Dkrol)
Qajar Iran: Naser al-Din Shah Qajar (PSOL)
Kingdom of Quebec: Emperor Philip von Hohenzollern (Lumine)
Kingdom of Mexico: King Luis de Bourbon-Orleans (Hijodeagua)
Chinese Republic: Protector of the Nation Li Hongzhang (HCP & Devout Centrist)
United Provinces of New Holland: Stadtholder Pieter Mijer (Orwell)
Ottoman Morocco: General Abdülkerim Nadir Pasha (Kingpoleon)
Holy Republic of Colombia: Archbishop-President Vicente Arbeláez Gómez (Kuumo)
Confederation of New England: Chairman Henry Wilson (OBD)
Durrani Empire: Emir Abdul Samad Khan (AverageFoodEnthusiast)

Economic Standings

United Province of New Holland: Moderate-Strong
Qajar Iran: Moderate
Holy Republic of Colombia: Moderate
Divine Republic of Brazil: Moderate
Russian Republic: Moderate
Kingdom of Naples: Moderate-Weak
Kingdom of Quebec: Moderate-Weak
Habsburg Monarchy: Moderate-Weak
Tokugawa Shogunate: Moderate-Weak
British Union: Moderate-Weak
Durrani Empire: Moderate-Weak
Kingdom of Mexico: Moderate-Weak
Chinese Republic: Weak
Confederation of New England: Weak
Kingdom of Scandinavia: Weak
Ottoman Morocco: Weak
Kingdom of Prussia: Weak
Kingdom of France: Weak
United Kingdom of Louisiana: Weak

Popularity

President Aleksey Suvorin: Very High
Archbishop-President Vicente Arbeláez Gómez: High
Queen-Empress Catherine II von Oldenburg: High
Protector of the Nation Li Hongzhang: High
King Luis de Bourbon: High
Emperor Charles VIII von Habsburg-Lothringen: Moderate
Emperor Philip von Hohenzollern: Moderate
Archbishop-President Manuel Joaquim da Silveira: Moderate
Stadtholder Peter Mijer: Moderate
General Abdülkerim Nadir Pasha: Moderate
Chairman Henry Wilson: Moderate
King Henry X of Hanover: Moderate
Queen Mother Charlotte von Hohenzollern: Moderate
King Henry-Philippe Bourbon: Moderate
Naser al-Din Shah Qajar: Moderate
King Philip V Bourbon: Moderate
Emir Abdul Samad Khan: Moderate

Current Global Conflicts:
Chinese Civil War: Chinese Republicans vs. Joseon Korea (1867-)
Pacific War: Tokugawa Shogunate vs. Joseon Korea, Holy Republic of Colombia, Dai Viet, Kingdom of Portugal, Philippine Rebels, New Holland (1874-)

Kingdom of France

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

-The Blues have laid down their arms. France, at home, finally is at peace. The first major test of the Peace of Sevres came with the marriage of Carolina de Bourbon-Savoie (Xavier’s daughter) to Charles de Bourbon-Conti, a distant cousin and staunch loyalist to Charlotte. Though the groom was a noted homosexual (hence his bachelorship at the age of 50), and many suspect the bride to abhor her husband, both parties went through with the union. Their marriage on August 20th, 1867 was the first time the various branches of the royal family had united in person since the outbreak of fighting. With the dynastic situation seemingly settled for the time being, what will be your domestic moves? Coming on the heels of your concessions to the socialists, which have utterly revolutionized the French economy, what will you do to appease greater nationalist demands? How will you shepherd the coalition through another year, or is it time to consider realigning the political situation? Will you take any actions ahead of the upcoming election next year?

-The Netherlands has been conquered yet again, the Dutch Socialist Republic collapsing in on itself in less than a year. Two issues in the Netherlands must be addressed. What will the region look like now that the fight is over? While Queen Dowager Carolina calls for the restoration of her grandson from exile in Scandinavia, this is an unpopular proposition in France. The Netherlands has been a thorn in France’s side for more than a century, many want a lasting settlement and drastic changes. Beyond the fate of the Netherlands proper, what is to be the fate of the socialist Niewenhuis and his socialist ministers, now that they sit in French custody?

-With the end of the civil war, you have regained a good deal of manpower as well as direct control over your colonial forces. India remains aflame, the situation now looking more dangerous than ever before. There is a growing faction in Versailles that would have you cut your losses, making peace with the invaders in order to preserve a French presence on the subcontinent. They point to the difficulty in providing reinforcements and potential further abandonment by restive princes.  Some think that you should cut a deal with one of the two invading powers in order to turn on the other. The Durrani have shown themselves open to a peace settlement, after all. Of course, many hawks and French nationalists would hear of none of this and want to see the foreign invaders punished, even if it means a weakening of the French position in Europe proper. How will you handle the Indian situation?

Habsburg Monarchy

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

-Prussia sits on the verge of collapse. Frederick IV is dead and your grandson-in-law by marriage has ascended to the throne as King Frederick Louis of Prussia. Through the efforts of your granddaughter Queen Maria Louisa, feelers for peace have arrived at Vienna. It seems the Prussian Court has little desire to continue the war, though some in the foreign ministry fear the outreach to you is a deliberate bid to sow discord with Stockholm. The Court in Vienna is divided. Your son and heir, Archduke Maximilian wants peace, arguing the death of Frederick makes further fighting pointless. The hawks, prevalent in the military, argue instead that Prussia must be destroyed once and for all, regardless of family ties. Of course, as time goes by, the issue of Russian or French intervention also looms large. What will you do about the fight against Prussia?

-The Hungarian nobility are irate. Not only did your creation of the Kingdom of Croatia occur without their consent, ripping away a region of their realm many Magyars considered integral, but you followed it up with the creating of a fairly democratic government. Hungary, the most conservative and noble-oriented of your constituent realms, is wary of these changes. A formal petition of grievance passed the Hungarian Diet, though it is largely symbolic. To rectify your alleged wrong, the Hungarian Diet has called for direct negotiations and concessions. Of course, many ministers warn that, given the fractured and decentralized nature of your realm, this could be dangerous and give the other regional governments ideas of their own. How will you placate Hungary, which now sees itself at risk of being carved up at the whim of its sovereign?

-Work on the Suez continues apace, some projections anticipating the canal will be up and running in either this year or the next. Still, merely restoring the canal is one thing, some have argued that you ought to use this time to expand the waterway. When the Suez was constructed in the late 1700s, ships were a good deal smaller than the vessels of today. As such, navigation of the canal has been limited by the narrowness for decades. Several engineers have come forward with proposals to widen the waterway to accommodate the vessels of today, or perhaps even tomorrow. This could delay the reopening of trade by several years though, if pursued. Still, if successful and on schedule it would have tremendous economic benefits in the future. What will you do with the Suez, pursue expansions or should it be opened as swiftly as possible, in order to salvage global trade?

Kingdom of Scandinavia

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

-Queen-Empress, Prussia, those vile fiends, is on the verge of collapse. Berlin is yours, Konigsberg within reach, and Frederick IV slain. Still, the fight is not yet over, men remain at arms under the banner of the Prussian Eagle. Assuming you win, what will your aims be regarding northern Germany? Further afield, assuming peace is restored, how will you handle developments in the Netherlands, you great-aunt Queen Dowager Carolina of the Netherlands constantly badgering you on behalf of her grandson? How will Scandinavia respond to the rapidly evolving global situation overall?

-Domestically, the end of the British blockade in North America and the conquest of Berlin both seem to have gone a long way to stabilizing the situation. Your reforms should not be ignored though, given the boon to morale both the 10-hour workday and guaranteed overtime have achieved. As always, there are new domestic issues to resolve. Property disputes abound in the broken-up estates of the old Baltic German nobility, many of the new grantees quarreling with each other over their portions. Some Baltic German nobles that remained loyal to your government seem to have been caught up in the anti-German hysteria and report being unlawfully evicted from their holdings. Others that have fled claim to have renounced the Prussian cause and seek the right to return to their homes. How will you deal with these issues in your new kingdom of Livonia?

-Though Egypt is now practically a puppet of your government and the Yemeni rebels have accepted your proposal, you have yet to fulfill other parts of the Treaty of Limassol that you were granted. Most notably, Palestine sits in the hands of the Hashemite Arabs who have recently been crowned kings of that region. Some in Stockholm see an opening, proposing that you negotiate with the Arab rebels to create yet another client state in the region rather than attempting to assert direct rule. Others are wary, seeing the Iranian intervention in that theater as a potential threat. Beyond this, there are questions as to what exact shape the new Egyptian government should take, with King Ahmed himself reaching out for some Scandinavian guidance on the issue. What sort of government system, as well as what degree of democratization, will you support? Will you allow the formation of an independent Egyptian army, or should it be left to Stockholm to consider the defense of the region? What economic barriers, if any, will you erect for the valuable region?

British Union

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

-The American War has raised questions about the readiness of the British Union for potential conflicts moving forward. Indeed, a wide variety of military reforms have been proposed, drawing on the experiences of the past few years. Britain and Ireland have long been allowed a lower conscription rate than the American colonies, the general understanding being the British man the navy, while the Americans staff the army. Before this meant little, but given the loss of manpower in the war, and the potential untapped reserves in Britain proper, some see the old arrangement as ridiculous and call for a full reform of the military and conscription laws beyond your wartime measures. Others demand reforms to the choice of officers, lambasting the purchasing of commissions. The navy meanwhile demands more funding, seeking tor repair the damage from Quebecois and New English fleets and maintain the capability to blockade the American coast, should the worst come to pass. Which branch will receive your attention this year? Should changes be made to the old system?

-You have regained North Carolina for the British Empire, a victory celebrated with much fanfare in London. Indeed, the fact that your North American dominions have been spared the worst helped soften the blow of the Treaty of Albany. While thousands of square kilometers have changed hands, the general consensus is that London acquitted itself well. Yet, with the annexation of this region, there are several issues that require your attention. North Carolina was one of the slaving colonies that revolted against imposed abolition in the 1830s. As such, the land is held predominantly by white planters. Inequality reigns in this region, a legacy of the old ways, with Blacks facing discrimination. Will you break up the Louisianan plantations and seek to remedy current and past discrimination? How much will a sort of reconstruction of the region be necessary?

-British landings in the Prussian Cape Colony have not been the quick victory that had been hoped. The locals have declared their independence under a republican government, the local Prussian fleet defecting to their cause. Further afield, the indigenous African tribal groups have risen, seeing a rare chance to assert their independence and reverse the tide of colonial encroachment. Given the ongoing fighting against Sokoto in Western Africa (a conflict left on the backburner during the American War), some wonder if you ought not to try and reach a settlement with the Cape Colonists. Or should the colony be seized in its entirety, a lucrative outpost for trade and future commercial operations? With Prussia proper on the verge of collapse in Europe, it would be wise to also ensure that you have a seat at the table in any future negotiations regarding the fate of the Hohenzollern realm, so Scandinavia and Austria ought to be cultivated. What will you do about the war in Southern Africa?

Russian Republic

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

-President Suvorin, you have won a resounding victory. Your only opponent, that crazy radical Bakunin, had no chance against your candidacy. Yet, taking office with so much popular support could be problematic, given any decisions made could alienate parts of your coalition. What are your main domestic goals for Russia in the coming year? Should economic modernization or stimulus be pursued? How mobilized will you keep the military, now that Russia is at peace? What other policy goals are in the offing?

-Diplomacy will undoubtedly be important in 1877. Fires burn on all sides. The Ottoman Empire, or Turkey as some factions now wish for it to be known, has gone utterly mad, civil war erupting in the corpse of that once-great state. To the west, Austria, Poland, Saxony, and Scandinavia seem on the verge of eliminating Prussia once and for all, perhaps ruining any balance of regional power and allowing the Habsburgs to achieve their dream of dominance over the old Holy Roman Empire after centuries of striving. Despite close ties with Stockholm, many in Moscow were miffed when Queen Catherine married her heir to Charlotte Romanov, the daughter of the claimant to the defunct Russian throne. The public has viewed the move as a slight, making people less trusting of Swedish designs on Germany and the Baltic States. What position will Russia take in this European maelstrom?

-Georgia has been established, most foreign powers seeing the region as a satellite republic of your realm. Yet, the locals have been determined to assert their independence, electing the Bagrationi heir as president. Hardline republicans within Russia would have you depose the royal scion and place a true believer in the post. As Georgia is but an infant state, there are also questions as to what shape the government should take. While many Georgians would be content to decide these matters themselves, it is tacitly understood you should have a seat at the table in any negotiations. What government do you envision for the region? How will it be structured, should it be democratic? What will you do about potential Georgian armed forces or a navy? Given your influence it is likely you would be able to construct the state as you see fit.

Divine Republic of Brazil

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

-Archbishop-President Manuel Joaquim da Silveira, Brazil remains one of the foremost global powers. Despite what may seem to be a less than massive population, recent gains in Africa and Peru seem to bode well for the long-term demographic health of the realm. Ever since the Spanish Royalists collapsed in South America and you acquired Upper Peru, your soldiers have maintained an uneasy peace in the region. The populace here is seen as at best marginally loyal to your new government, though most seem to privately yearn for the restoration of Henry V. The hardline Catholic Republicans in your government would prefer to see brutal crackdowns on royalists, redistribution of property, and forced vows of loyalty to your government. While moderates concur that the new subjects do need to be educated in the ways of Catholic Republicanism and are a risk for revolt, they believe that too much antagonism could make unrest a self-fulfilling prophecy. The matter remains for you to decide. There is also the question of how much autonomy, if any at all, the region should be granted by your government. How will you deal with Upper Peru and your gains from the former Spanish colonial empire?

-Colonially, the last few years have seen significant expansion in the Congo and the Kalahari. Still, pushback from local African leaders has become increasingly evident. The Marota Empire, led by the Pedi people of Transvaal, have utterly ignored demands to submit, murdered Brazilian missionaries, and steadily refused to recognize your authority as stipulated in the Stockholm Conference of 1871. The Ndebele Kingdom to their north have largely concurred and declared their intent to defend Marota should you attack. Your colonial officials call for a relocation of troops and the commencement of military operations in southwest Africa, but some fear sending too many men far from Brazil proper during such dire global times. How will you deal with stubborn native resistance and colonial policy more generally?

-Diplomatically you find yourself in an interesting position. Brazil has long cooperated with Colombia, as a show of solidarity to fellow Catholic Republicans. Yet, with the liberalization of Colombia and that realm’s constant military intervention in theaters deemed unimportant to Brazil, there are some calling for you to reconsider your relationship with Bogota. The new Spanish government and Patagonia lean towards you in the Catholic Republican faction while the Philippines, Haiti, and Portugal are seen as more pro-Colombian, so any discord between you two could shatter that broader Catholic faction. What will you do about your diplomatic situation in 1876?

[Spamage]

Kingdom of Naples

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

-King Philip, you come to the throne at a crucial point in Neapolitan history. With the Treaty of Venice putting a lid on the war effort, perhaps only for the time being, the politics of the Kingdom have become tense. Everyone is looking to blame someone else for the failure to unite the peninsula. With elections to be held this year, the fate of the realm hangs in the balance. Your father’s extensive grand coalition has been criticized as being too broad, though it did manage to finish out its term without collapsing. As the people head to the polls, will you play favorites among the political parties? How will you respond to those who are urging you to use the military to oversee the voting to gently dissuade your subjects from backing Catholic Republican terrorists? Will you allow the election to occur uninterrupted, or is it time for the Crown to reassert some of its domestic authority in the campaign?

-The Treaty of Limassol kindly saw the return of Tunis to Neapolitan control. While this has been celebrated in parts of the realm, a sweet respite from frustrations to the north, there are questions over what is to be done with the territory. Many of the rebels that murdered your garrison ahead of the Ottoman invasion in 1874 remain at large in the region. What will you do about them? Furthermore, how much repression, if any at all, will you enact in the colony? Have recent events caused you to reconsider that area’s status within your kingdom?

-You have yet to marry, King Philip. At 29, you are considered one of the most eligible bachelors in the continent. There are many candidates from a variety of realms. Your cousin Isabella, daughter of your uncle Alfonso and the Grand Duchess of Tuscany is 25 and unmarried. Union with her could cultivate ties with the reactionary nobles in your realm. Princess Elizabeth of England is 23 and could be a suitable match for mending ties with London, should you be so inclined. Princess Isabella of Portugal (21) could be a candidate for calming the Catholic Republican faction at home. There is also a smattering of Prussian princesses available to wed, depending on how provocative you wish to be. From the New World, Princess Bertha of Quebec (31) is also unwed. There is no shortage of options from these, among many others. How will you guarantee the survival of the dynasty?

United Kingdom of Louisiana

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

-King Henry-Philippe, Liberia is in a state of collapse. Yet, though Freetown has been taken and the more populated areas subdued, the most passionate militants have fled into the countryside and vowed continued resistance. Some promise to lay down their arms if you compromise, though others seem less willing to reconcile with you. While the natives have been largely quietly subdued, what is to be done about Shields Green and other irreconcilables? Beyond that, how will you make sure that guerilla fighting in the west is put to an end? Will you address the grievances against your soldiers’ harsh actions in the sack of Freetown? What are your designs for the region when it is fully pacified?

-The national election is upon you. With peace in the east, and victory seemingly imminent in the west, your people now have the breathing room to make clear decisions about the future of your nation. Initial indications seem to bode well for the new United Louisiana Party, many dissatisfied with the old establishment after the Treaty of Albany and loss of North Carolina. Yet, people seem inclined to the extremes as well. Militant nationalist parties (separate from the reactionaries) have particularly begun to poll well among Anglo-Louisianans, as have the socialists among the Black community in the east. Will you involve the Crown in the election? How much latitude should be given to those espousing extreme positions?

-The wretched blockade is ended and trade has been reopened with the rest of the world. While this was met with joy among the planters and other groups inclined to export, the rebound has been less decisive then had been hoped. Many firms have requested government financial aid to get operations running again, arguing that capital will be necessary to get supply chains and production back to levels seen prior to the war. Yet, intervention in the economy is a risky prospect and some fear unintended consequences during an election year. What will you do about the economic situation? How will you get the people back to work?

Qajar Iran

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

-Iranian intervention in Cilicia has stabilized that young realm, but may have inadvertently led to the chaos in Anatolia. With the Ottoman rump state falling into itself, many fear that Russia, Scandinavia, or other nearby powers will get involved in the conflict, potentially installing a government hostile to your interests. Thus, some have proposed you back one of the various factions in the fighting, though such a move could be the very thing that spurs foreign intervention. Regardless, 1877 must undoubtedly see decisions made regarding Cilicia and its Arab king as well. Will you recognize the separatist movement? To what degree will you allow the nascent state to operate independently?

-Arabia remains in a state of flux. While you and your allies control most of the important regions, the Wahhabi have proven a headache to deal with. Generals on the ground call for more men, though others fear relocating too many given threats on other fronts. Some have called for a total withdrawal from the peninsula in a bid to protect your existing gains, though this could be unpopular with the Persian public. Meanwhile the Hashemites operate in Palestine, though you seem poised to snuff out that realm should you be so inclined, even if it means alienating Stockholm. What will you do?

Kingdom of Quebec

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

-Emperor, as you are now known, 1876 was kind to Quebec. Not only was land gained with the Treaty of Albany, weaking the British position and strengthening your hold over the Great Lakes, but constitutional reforms have codified your domestic system of government. Of course, with so much change, naturally political issues have arisen. While the most irreconcilable British loyalists have fled to the remaining colonies, many English-speaking settlers remain in the territories you recently annexed. To what extent will you seek to integrate them, grant voting rights, or allow them a voice in the government? What is to be done about property disputes and land held by British firms?

-With your governmental reforms, end of the war, and fading away of most of the native risings, some members of government are calling for a round of early elections so the people can weigh in on all of the changes. The sentiment seems fairly widespread overall, but is particularly pronounced among the liberal opposition. With any potential vote, however, comes questions about participation among your new Puerto Rican and British subjects. There’s also fears that the lingering economic fallout could lead to a surprisingly high result for the socialists, though this is mere conjecture. Will you use your prerogative to hold a vote in 1877? If so, what will you do about the above issues?

-With Quebec at peace and the blockade broken, you finally have the ability to weigh in effectively on global affairs. While being ensconced with your North American allies has been nice, the world overall is a dangerous place. Your sister, Charlotte of France, has triumphed in the civil war, but your government has not officially recognized her as regent. Many in foreign policy circles are wary of Colombia’s growing presence in the Pacific, which seems to have eclipsed even your own and propose efforts to counter the Singapore Pact. Britain have pivoted from war in the Americas to war in Africa, some believe that aid to the Cape Colonists would be the proper course. To what extent will you engage in the global empire-building and jockeying of the other powers? Or is Quebec best served by remaining above the fray, a neutral observer in a chaotic order?

United Provinces of New Holland

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

-As a member of the Singapore Pact you have been rewarded handsomely. Still, your allies remain at war and some believe there is little to be gained for New Holland by continuing the struggle against the Japanese. Perhaps you could reach some sort of separate settlement with the Shogunate, regardless of what your erstwhile allies may think? Or is it time to recommit to the fight, through greater aid to the Colombian invasion of Japan?

-Your efforts to promote the universities in New Holland have been successful, attracting a wide variety of free-thinkers and innovate personnel. The crises engulfing much of the world have likely helped matters. Yet, as of late, the schools have become hotbeds of controversy. Charles Darwin, who relocated to Willemstad due to the economic chaos in Britain, has been met with protests by many conservative New Hollanders for his controversial theories. Friedrich Nietzsche, a Saxon migrant likewise serving as a professor, has been deemed an atheistic subversive. There has also been some subtle anti-Semitism against Jewish professors recruited several years ago. Among the overall conservative population of New Holland, there is a good deal of resentment over the perceived special status of the universities and the radical views of the professors, which have been deemed out of step with the majority. Yet, the supporters of academic freedom and free speech insist challenges to these thinkers could chill any hard-won gains in the academic field over the past few years. How will you balance the traditionalist values of the majority of your citizens with the perceived radical views emanating from your schools?

Kingdom of Mexico

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

-With the acquisition of British Belize, Guadeloupe, and Barbados, there are questions as to what exact status the new regions will take within Mexico. Will the people there be granted full citizenship, including suffrage? Beyond that, all three locations feature a significant percentage of land owned by British nationals and firms. Should these be nationalized by your government now that the war is over, even if it means irritating London? Some have suggested a sort of compensation scheme for those foreign property-holders that have found their land in the hands of a foreign power, but this would probably be less popular in Mexico itself. How will you deal with this issue?

-With peace declared and the blockade ended, there are many financiers who wish to see Mexico become a major economic power in the Americas. Several foreign firms (based France, Scandinavia, and Britain) have requested to expand operations in Mexico, advancing capital to fund factories if the government gives them generous tax breaks and tariff relief. While these deals may yield tremendous economic gains, they could also spark either indignant nationalist or socialist backlash against the presence of foreign capitalists? Will you intervene directly to improve the economic situation, or should the free market be left to decide matters on its own, the corporate investors having to play by the same rules as everyone else?

Ottoman Morocco

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

-There are calls among some in your forces to allow the recruitment of the Moroccans into your army, given the potential boost to manpower this could provide. Yet, staunch Turkish nationalists in your ranks reject this and believe it will tarnish your discipline. Given your position, more tolerant individuals argue may not have any other choice. Will you commence with recruiting efforts among the locals?

-The homeland is in disarray. Socialists, nationalists, and monarchists fight over the corpse of the Ottoman state as your men watch from abroad. Indeed, as one of the few victorious Turkish generals remaining, especially after the murder of Husnu, there are some who believe the time is right to return home. Perhaps you could convince some other foreign power that your governance over Anatolia could be a source of stability in the chaotic region? If you wish to stay in North Africa, many note the Arab revolt in Libya and the general weakness of Algiers as providing ample opportunities for growth. How will your army be used in 1877?

Holy Republic of Colombia

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

-The unthinkable has been achieved, Colombian, Portuguese, and Korean forces landing on the Japanese islands. While resistance has been fierce, your men have used terror and religious zealotry to maintain morale in the army. With Tokugawa Yoshiyori’s regime suddenly appearing shaken, perhaps even on the verge of collapse, there are questions about what your military goals should be for the coming year. Given that the enemy has now laid down arms, some fear the Japanese intend to fight, regardless of who is in charge. Still, some believe you ought to seek peaceful resolution, perhaps by publicly stating your terms. As your Korean allies look weak, it has been assumed they will be the first target of a Japanese counter-offensive. How will you shepherd Colombia through the Pacific War?

Chinese Republic

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

-1876 yielded tremendous gains for the Chinese Republic, the Koreans being dealt perhaps a fatal blow in their bid to subjugate your nation. Still, Seoul maintains many men under arms. While Emperor Yi Ho has formally issued a call for a negotiated settlement, many in China are divided over the prospect. Certainly, an end to the fighting would be welcome and, given Korea’s continued strength, countless lives would be saved. Yet, there are concerns any Korean settlement would be too harsh for your people to bear. This all occurs as the situation in the Korean peninsula seems the most unstable it has been in decades. Will you open negotiations for peace, or should the fighting continue?

-The success of General Song Qing in the Northern Campaign of 1876 has created something that had not heretofore existed in the Chinese Republic, a figure gaining stature similar to yourself. Indeed, it is only natural that elements of a nascent opposition have flocked to his camp in the aftermath of his success. While the general professes himself loyal to the cause and your leadership, his popularity is formidable. While you have had to make difficult decisions regarding the war, prioritizing operations and inadvertently creating domestic opponents because of said decisions, Song Qing is able to wrap himself in victory. Some have called for such a high-profile individual to be reassigned before he becomes dangerous, though this could just draw attention to a perhaps growing rift between the two of you. How will you handle Song Qing and his moment in the spotlight?

Confederation of New England

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

-It may have been exhausting, Chairman Wilson, but the war has been won. While the gains received by New England were not as large as your initial goals, they are still substantial relative to your prewar position. Several practical issues must be addressed in your new lands. While your bill to administer the territories has been adopted, narrowly, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New Hampshire have all expressed concerns over the eventual integration of Poughkeepsie and the Upper Hudson territories into Connecticut and Massachusetts, respectively, fearing it will upset the domestic balance of power. They would rather the territories be included in Adirondack. Regardless, there are other concerns relating to the integration of former British subjects into your realm. To what extent will you try to enforce compliance with your government ideologically? What is to be done about cross-border property holdings or areas held by Britons in London?

-Price controls and government intervention in the economy have eased, but there is a good deal of fallout from the fighting. Men, particularly in Boston, return home from the front to find their old livelihood destroyed. What jobs that do remain have become highly competitive, veterans competing with women, youth, and other groups mobilized to maintain the economy during the war. There have been calls by some veteran’s associations to intervene in favor of the soldiers. Beyond this, some would have your already indebted government seek to stimulate the return of jobs and industry by rebuilding the worst-hit areas of Boston, cutting taxes on businesses, or making further trade deals. How will you handle the economic situation?

Durrani Empire

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

-Fighting continues in India, your men making great gains alongside Mysore as French forces continued to fold. The winning over of the Turks was a major boon. Still, with peace in France proper, it is feared that Queen Charlotte will turn her wrath directly against you. While optimists point out the difficulties she will face in transit, it does not fully mean you can rest easy. Perhaps it is time to reach out to the French regent and come to some sort of understanding? Or should the war be continued, many note that you could be on the cusp of further tremendous gains, given Uttar Pradesh sits vulnerable to your advance? You have options, Emir. It is up to you to make the call on how your campaign will proceed.

[Spamage]

Peace of Prague

Article I
I . The Kingdom of Prussia, and the Kingdom of Poland, Kingdom of Saxony, Kingdom of Scandinavia, and the Habsburg Monarchy declare an end to hostilities.
II .The armed forces of the respective belligerents will withdraw to the boundaries delineated below.

Article II
I . The Kingdom of Hanover shall be reconstituted with Queen-Empress Catherine II serving as its Queen.
II .The Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg shall be reconstituted with Grand Duke Frederick Francis du Mecklenburg-Schwerin serving as its Duke.
III . All other border changes will be carried out in accordance with the map below.

Article III.
I . The Kingdom of Hannover, the Kingdom of Prussia and the Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg shall become associate members of the Holy Roman Empire.

Article IV.
I . The Baltic League shall be formed as a trade and defensive alliance.
II . The Baltic League shall be comprised of the Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg, the Kingdom of Prussia, the Kingdom of Poland and the Kingdom of Scandinavia.
III . The Kingdom of Scandinavia shall lead the Baltic League.
IV . The Habsburg Monarchy shall be an observer state of the Baltic League.

Article V.
I . Emperor Charles VIII shall recognize Queen-Empress Catherine II as Empress of Africa.

(Made by Spamage/Me)

xQueen-Empress Catherine II

X Charles von Hapsburg

X-Archduke Louis-Henry of Austria, Regent of Poland on behalf of his nephew King Sigismund IV

X-Albert, King of Saxony

[Spamage]

The Family Pact

The Holy Roman Emperor, the King of Serbia, the King of Prussia, and the Lord Regent of Poland ("The Parties") friends united by bonds of fraternal love and common interest, here proclaim their association in this pact:
1.   The Parties agree to defend each other’s sovereignty and national integrity.
2.   The Parties agree to make all efforts to eliminate barriers to trade and restrictions to travel between other members of the Pact.
3.   The Parties shall support transportation projects between other members of the Pact.
4.   The Parties shall take action to facilitate military cooperation between member of the Pact, including joint military exercises and equipment standardization.

x Charles von Hapsburg

X-Archduke Louis-Henry of Austria, Regent of Poland on behalf of his nephew King Sigismund IV

X- King Maximilian of Serbia

X- King Frederick Louis von Hohenzollern of Prussia

[Spamage]

Army Strength*:

Kingdom of France
68 division Army of the Netherlands
(68/295 divisions possible raised, max 14% conscription)

Habsburg Monarchy (Excluding HRE)
20 division Army of Italy
39 division Army of the Rhine
61 division Army of Silesia
20 division Army of Transylvania
15 division Army of Illyria
9 division Spanish Expeditionary Force
3 division Army of Madagascar
8 division Chinese Expeditionary Force
3 division Army of the Suez
(173/279 divisions possible raised, max 14% conscription)

Kingdom of Scandinavia
47 division Army of Mecklenburg
48 division Army of Hanover
14 division Army of Estonia
5 division Army of Cyprus
10 division Army of Egypt
(124/124 divisions possible raised, max 18% conscription)

British Union
13 division Army of Ohio
13 division Army of the Cape
27 division Army of the South
33 division Army of New York
5 division Army of Ireland
5 division Home Guard
(96/116 divisions possible raised, max 6% conscription)

Russian Republic
5 division Army of St. Petersburg
10 division Army of Moscow
5 division Army of Crimea
1 division Army of Romania
5 division Army of Trebizond
20 division Army of Konstantingrad
10 division Army of Mongolia
5 division Army of Inner Mongolia
10 division Army of Manchuria
5 division Army of Turkestan
(76/275 divisions possible raised, max 10% conscription)

Ottoman Morocco
22 division Army of Morocco

Divine Republic of Brazil
5 division Army of Spain
10 division Army of Brazil
5 division Army of Taipei
5 division Army of the Congo
2 division Army of Southern Africa
3 division Army of Bahia
(30/70 divisions possible raised, max 22% conscription)

Kingdom of Naples
57 division Army of the North
13 division Army of Sicily
17 division Army of the Balearics
5 division Padanian Rebels
(92/97 divisions possible raised, max 14% conscription)

Kingdom of Prussia
46 division Army of Pommerania
32 division Army of Posen
2 division Army of the Baltic States
(80/80 divisions possible raised, max 14% conscription)

Tokugawa Shogunate
60 division Army of Japan
30 division Army of Niigata
10 division Executive Guard
7 division Army of Kyoto
2 division Army of New Guinea
(109/169 divisions possible raised, max 10% conscription)

United Kingdom of Louisiana
19 division Army of Freetown
10 division Army of Delta
4 division Army of Denver
4 division Army of the Rockies
(27/40 divisions possible raised, max 14% conscription)

Joseon Korea
32 division Army of Beijing
15 division Army of Manchuria
28 division Army of Pyeongyang
12 division Army of Incheon
5 division Army of Sumatra
4 division Army of Borneo
3 division Army of Shanghai
15 division Army of Hokkaido
(116/116 divisions possible raised, max 10% conscription)

Kingdom of Poland
10 division Army of Warsaw
(10/56 divisions possible raised, max 16% conscription)

Qajar Iran
5 division Army of Homorzegan
4 division Army of Gwadar
4 division Army of Mashad
5 division Army of Qatar
18 division Army of Riyadh
29 division Army of Damascus
28 division Army of Ankara
9 division Army of Mecca
(102/124 divisions possible raised, max 20% conscription)

Kingdom of Quebec
5 division Army of the West
5 division Army of the East
5 division Foreign Legion
(15/41 divisions possible raised, max 16% conscription)

Kingdom of Mexico
5 division Royal Guard
5 division Army of Arizona
(10/52 divisions possible raised, max 15% conscription)

Chinese Republic
177 division Great Army of Liberation
20 division Army of Nanjing
(204/286 divisions possible raised, max 3% conscription)

United Provinces of New Holland
6 division Army of Western Australia
4 division Army of Northern Australia
3 division Army of Papua New Guinea
4 division Army of Southern Australia
(17/40 divisions possible raised, max 8% conscription)

Holy Republic of Colombia
11 division Army of Nagasaki
11 division Army of Iwo Jima
2 division Army of Maracaibo
2 division Army of Caracas
3 division Army of Luzon
2 division Army off Taipei
4 division Army of Lima
4 division Army of New Guinea
(39/39 divisions possible raised, max 18% conscription)

Confederation of New England
15 division Army of New York
1 division Army of Boston
(16/16 divisions possible raised, max 17% conscription)

Republic of Patagonia
3 division Army of Cordoba
3 division Army of Paraguay
(6/22 divisions possible raised, max 15% conscription)

Kingdom of Romania
5 division Army of Bucharest
(5/30 divisions possible raised, max 14% conscription)

Kingdom of Portugal
5 division Army of Lisbon
4 division Army of Nagasaki
(9/22 divisions possible raised, max 14% conscription)

Spanish Catholic Republic
10 division Army of Castile
(10/40 divisions possible raised, max 8% conscription)

Durrani Empire
23 division Army of Delhi
43 division Legions of Alp Arslan
2 division Army of Herat
(68/28 divisions possible raised, max 11% conscription)

Sultanate of Mysore
20 division Army of the North
19 division Army of Mysore
(39/39 divisions possible raised, max 11% conscription)

*-Note: This refers to the numbers at the beginning of the turn. Subsequent actions/developments are not considered in this.

[Spamage]

DAEBOREUM REVOLUTION
Yi Ho Exiled Korea Amid Two Coups

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

   The situation in Korea was tense at the start of the new year. When the Chinese Republic ignored the timid calls for peace from Seoul, instead electing to continue its successful offensive in the north from the previous year, matters came to a head. In the existing political climate, it was obvious that the war was unpopular and actors from a broad cross-section of society saw the opportunity of championing peace.
   The immediate spark was a Chinese capture of Tianjin. Despite a valiant defense by Korean soldiers, the sheer level of firepower was too much to bear. Thousands were killed in the relentless bombardment and, as the smoke cleared, the city was surrendered on January 25th. The Chinese were willing to level one of their own cities, just so the Koreans would be pushed out of their land. Indeed, the loss of Tianjin was seen as a devastating blow to the war effort, given its role in supplying Beijing. While attempts were made to censor the news of the loss at home, Joseon officials were overwhelmed by an upswing in public outrage.
    It was thus quite a contrast as the realm began to celebrate the traditional Daeboreum, noting the first full moon of the Korean year. Enthusiasm for many of the traditions was noticeably lacking. Rabble-rousers took advantage of many community gatherings to rail against Yi Ho for abandoning the Korean people in his bid to build a universal empire. Some called for his abdication, others went to saw as to demand republicanism.
   The emperor attempted to get out ahead of any popular unrest by issuing proclamations promising tax relief, a scaling back of wartime measures, and urging nationalist sentiments. Yet, some wondered, if many hated measures could be scaled back so easily, why had it not been done sooner? The military, which had heretofore supported Yi Ho, was outraged by his moves and warned publicly of supply difficulties. When some of the generals publicly criticizing the regime went unpunished, criticism became louder. On February 7th a coup occurred in Gyeongbokgung, the emperor’s guard being engaged by a battalion of soldiers. Overwhelmed by the sudden assault, the palace fell to the Korean Army. Although the new regime promised the emperor would remain nominal head of the nation, their actions effectively ended the rule of the Joseon Dynasty after centuries. Yi Ho sat under house arrest in the palace, his captors finding inspiration in the arrest of the Ottoman Sultan.
   Yet, the people were not satisfied when the military announced the formation of a provisional government just days later, the safety of Yi Ho being guaranteed by the new regime. Many assumed the military had seized control in order to prevent the emperor from making peace. Led by Jeon Bongjun, a mob of discontented peasants in Jeolla began a march on the capitol from the south, demanding the implementation of a republic and immediate peace. Their numbers swelled, within weeks thousands approaching the city, as sympathetic mobs appeared in the streets of the Korean capital. Seeing the way the winds were blowing, the provisional military government formally negotiated a handover to a select group of civilian leaders, abolishing itself. Better to allow limited civilian rule, many generals believed, than to face full-blown socialist uprisings.
   The Reform Council, established following the handover, appeased the mobs further, ordering an immediate withdrawal from China, establishment of a constitutional convention, and the further scaling back of wartime measures. The new regime promises a republic, attempting to head off any residual loyalty to Emperor Yi Ho by sending him and his family into exile in Vietnam. Peasant leaders seem to have been placated for the time being, though it is unclear if they will take further actions in the coming months.
   The Daeboreum Revolution, as the happenings of early 1877 are becoming known, has much broader implications for the rest of the region. In Japan, while it seems as though Korean commitment to the invasion is now rapidly flagging, events in Seoul also demonstrate the perils of pushing the populace to far. It is unclear how Korea’s ostensible Singapore Pact allies will react to the deposition of Emperor Yi Ho. In China, meanwhile, the revolution and the fall of Tianjin have been met with celebration. The tattered Korean forces have slowly withdrawn from Beijing, the city falling in a whimper rather than a roar. It is unclear what will be the fate of the other Korean outposts on the mainland. The Korean generals seem to have acquiesced to recent developments, but it remains to be seen how loyal they will be to the new government in the longer-term.
   Korea has fallen a long way from the golden age of Empress Sunwon. With the Joseon dynasty now joining many other royal families in exile, domestic strife erupting in the homeland, and the colonial empire collapsing, dark days have descended on the region.

North American Cup Inspires A Continent
First Champions Named!

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

   After years of carnage and bloodshed, the American Allies would seek to move forward in peace. Sport, rather than war, was championed by the Court of New Orleans as a means of friendly national competition. Capitalizing on the momentum of the Football Summit of 1871, the North American Cup was announced in 1876, a four-way tournament pitting New England, Louisiana, Quebec, and Mexico against one another.
   A series of round-robin games set the standings for the eventual bracket. In Game 1, Mexico gained an early lead over New England, winning that round 3-1. Quebec and Louisiana slogged it out in game 2, a Louisianan goal in the closing minutes securing them victory 1-0. In the loser’s bracket Quebec’s victory over New England meant that team was the first eliminated. When Mexico and Louisiana faced each other, it was one of the most dramatic matchups yet in this young sport. When the clock ran out and the game was tied 1-1, it went into two additional shortened periods. Neither side scored, the defense on both teams proving quite remarkable. Much to the chagrin of their fans, Mexico was technically defeated as the game moved into the penalty shoot-out. They would face Quebec, the winner playing the undefeated Louisianans.
   Despite attempts for a comeback, Quebec simply could not outmatch the Mexican team, losing 2-1. Many noted that Mexico had worked diligently to establish local teams and used the best players to assemble the national squad. In Game 6, the first point where Louisiana could end it all and win the North American Cup, the playing was particularly dirty, players on both sides receiving red cards. When Mexico triumphed, 1-0, it was clear the two teams would have to face off again, as Mexico had been previously defeated by Louisiana in Game 3.
   Thousands crowding to watch, the championship game ultimately saw Mexico triumph 2-1. Mexico has become the first winner of the North American Cup, that team being personally awarded their trophy by King Henry-Philippe, an avid fan of the new sport.
   The North American Cup of 1876 has been seen as a tremendous success. Despite the spirit of competition, true bonds have been forged between the allied powers both within their teams and their general public. Fans of teams other than their home nation have emerged as the populace has gotten exposure to the specific players, their personalities, and how they approach the game. Already, local leagues of amateurs have started popping up, even in British America. Many look forward to the next iteration of the North American Cup, some wondering if Mexico should host as the reigning champ. Regardless, this marvelous event no doubt heralds a new day in athletics. It remains to be seen if the rest of the world will follow the example of the American Alliance and exchange their warring bloodshed for some friendly athletic competition.

[Spamage]

The End (An Abridged History of the World 1877-1900)

Congress of Copenhagen (1880)

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

   By 1879 it was abundantly clear that the situation in East Asia was untenable. Conflict was everywhere and the whole region aflame. In addition to the rebellion of Mysore and Durrani invasion, Chinese intervention in Burma in 1877 had expanded the fighting in the Raj yet further. France, despite extreme difficulties in sending supplies and reinforcements, seemed determined to win in India at any cost. The Habsburgs, Colombians, and Hollanders all feasted on the rotting corpse of the Korean East Indies. Korea proper bravely fended off Russian intervention while Japan was on the brink of full-blown civil war. Britain, despite struggling for control of the Cape, was also embroiled in a frozen conflict with the Hollanders in Australia. The Philippines stood independent, but unrecognized by all save for the Catholic-Republicans. In order to settle the situation, restore normal trade, and bring about lasting peace, it became increasingly evident that some sort of broader settlement was necessary. It would be the ever-pragmatic Scandinavians who would employ their complex web of diplomatic connections in order to establish some sort of peace.
   Under the initiative of Queen Catherine, initial feelers were sent to Vienna, London, and Moscow in order to force a settlement. Eventually the four powers, despite tensions elsewhere, agreed to call the Congress of Copenhagen with the sole aim of restoring peace in Asia. In a notable shift, several Asian countries were allowed to send representatives. Ultimately Austria, Russia, Scandinavia, Britain, China, the Philippines, New Holland, Colombia, France, Japan, the Durrani, Mysore, Siam, and Korea were all represented directly. Quebec, Portugal, Spain, Iran, and Dai Viet all sent observers.
   France initially showed itself disinclined to participate, but was forced to cooperate by the tacit threat that the terms agreed would be enforced by all other participants. Rather than risk open war with Scandinavia, Britain, Russia, and Austria at once (especially given the spread-out nature of the French military) Queen Mother Charlotte decided it would be better to bide her time and agree to some sort of limited peace. She would not forgive the other powers for intervening in what she saw as internal French affairs, but had little choice.
   This mass diplomatic gathering finally occurred in April 1880. The overall agenda of Copenhagen proved an initial sticking point. Attempts by Russia to involve Anatolia or by Britain to include the war in Southern Africa in the Copenhagen Congress proved unsuccessful, other powers largely agreeing that these matters fell outside the scope of the meeting. It was determined that the Congress would cover five main areas: India, the East Indies, Oceania, China, and the unstable former regional hegemons of Korea and Japan.
   It took two months, but the ultimate result of the Congress of Copenhagen was a broad settlement of affairs in the region. No power could express itself fully satisfied with the terms, but neither were they too harsh on any individual realm, save perhaps for the Koreans. Despite an effort by the Chinese delegation to forge some sort of Pan-Asian working group, typically the European factions pitted the various local powers against one another in order to protect their colonial gains.
   Peace was restored to India. Mysore was officially recognized by France, granted independence, and had its holdings enlarged. Still, it was forced to give vast tracts of occupied land to the north back to France. Similarly, the Durrani were given Gujarat and broader gains along the border, but were compelled to retreat out of much of the Ganges Plain. France insisted on having Delhi restored to its rule (well-aware of the city’s symbolic significance), a term the Durrani were forced to accept when it became clear that they were outvoted by the various European powers. In Burma, the independence of the Shan people under Chinese protection was recognized, while the Christianized coastal Lower Burma remained under French control. Chinese diplomats also forced France to recognize the independence of Nepal and Sikkim, creating a nice buffer between the subcontinent and Chinese-backed Tibet. French India emerged from the war battered and reduced, but far stronger than many observers would have assumed just months earlier. The return of territory gave Paris the leverage it needed to buy off some domestic opposition and regroup ahead of any secondary onslaughts.
   The East Indies were partitioned between the various powers present in the region. The Habsburgs, in exchange for renouncing any substantial territorial ambitions, were recognized as controllers of Singapore and Brunei. The Japanese surrender of Papua New Guinea to Colombia and New Holland was confirmed, as were most of the Hollander gains in the region. France, not to be left in the cold, insisted on the restoration of its holdings on Sumatra and Borneo. While the Hollanders were able to maintain an outpost in the south of Sumatra, the remainder of the island was ceded to French control. While Aceh remained independent, France now had a claim to the sultanate on paper. The remainder of Malaya beyond Singapore was partitioned between the Colombians and Hollanders. In a victory for the Catholic Republicans, the Congress of Copenhagen recognized the independence of the Philippines.
   In Oceania the conflict between the British and Hollanders was at long last brought to an end after six years. New Holland’s borders were pushed a good deal west, London being willing to cede what it viewed to be sparsely populated wastelands in return for the survival of the Australian colony. Given the region had been the site of an uneasy truce for most of the war, the conclusion of the conflict was largely overshadowed for all but the inhabitants of the region.
   The Tokugawa Shogunate was confirmed in its control of what remained of the former Japanese Pacific, as well as overlordship over the Republic of Formosa. Still, it was forced to make concessions, formally renouncing its claims to any of its Chinese territories that had been lost in the regional chaos of the past several years. Many observers, both inside and outside Japan could see the growing gulf in tensions within the realm. As foreign powers succored the two factions, the incumbent government merely sought to leave the Congress of Copenhagen with as little disruption as possible.
   Korea, meanwhile, was punished the most. Russian annexation of the Transamur Region was confirmed by the Congress, as was the loss of all territories in the Pacific. The weak republican government in Seoul felt it had little power to disagree. In a role reversal, the Chinese would demonstrate their influence over the Koreans, the diplomatic assembly recognizing a “Chinese interest” in the affairs of that nation. Long gone were the days of Sunwon's glory, the new republic standing on unstable ground.
   While the Congress of Copenhagen demonstrated the benefits of diplomatic cooperation, and brought peace back to East Asia, some questioned whether the new order would endure. Paris simmered with resentment over the Durrani and Mysore gains at their expense, let alone the Chinese intervention. In China proper, many had hoped that the Congress would see Scandinavian and Habsburg holdings eliminated, a prospect soon dashed. Many in China resented the fact that their joint claim to the Korean colonies had been usurped by the Catholic Republican seizure of said territories. The Koreans and Japanese both yearned for revenge and a reassertion of their position. Yet, for its imperfections, the order established would endure for the next two decades, the borders of the region looking fairly stable come 1900.
  

Ottoman Empire: A Monarchy Restored?

Battle of Kuthaya, 1880

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Turkish Civil War (1877-1882)
   The situation in Turkey at the beginning of 1877 was chaotic and complicated. With three factions vying for control of the country, rapacious neighbors infringing on the nation’s sovereignty, and newly-created fragile states from the Ottoman corpse merely trying to survive, anything seemed possible. Ultimately, the conflict to some extent came to represent a proxy fight between the great powers, each jostling for influence in Anatolia. In addition to the various domestic factions Russia, France, Iran, and Greece would all have a role to play in the fighting.
   The Turkish Socialists would be the first faction to fall, Nuri using the fact that his constitutionalist rivals in the west were focused on fending off the Greeks to crush dissent on the Anatolian plain. While Ankara was fairly easily subdued, Sinope and Antalya proved thorns in the side of the Republicans. The Siege of Sinope lasted until 1879, thousands of civilians perishing as a result of starvation and the steady bombardment of the Republican guns.
   To the west, the Greeks achieved a major victory over the Constitutionalists on June 8th, 1878 at the Battle of Balikesir, breaking the stalemate that had existed and putting the Executive Regency Council on the back foot. Rather than continue north to destroy their initial foes though, the Greeks instead focused their attention to the south, a region with more ethnic Greeks, where significant gains were made against the Republicans.
   The initial stages of the conflict demonstrated that all factions suffered from poor supply and lax discipline. Anatolia was in desperate shape. The fighting expanded the famine in the region and caused refugees to flee into the surrounding realms. Given Russia and Trebizond had outright discriminatory policies against Turks, most fled east towards Iran and Cilicia, seeking stability and safety. Among the armies, repeated attempts by the various leaders to organize offensives were undermined by a lack of cohesiveness. Disobedient soldiers found desertion to be rather easy and the recruitment bonuses were easily exploited.
   The most important development in the Turkish Civil War would take place well outside of Anatolia. In 1880 General Abdülkerim Nadir Pasha reached an agreement with Queen Charlotte in the Treaty of Rabat. In exchange for transit to Anatolia provided by the French fleet and armaments, the Ottoman Royalist forces would cede Morocco to France and allow for a French military port in the Eastern Mediterranean should they triumph. Nadir had conquered Morocco in 1874 but still struggled to govern it with local resistance simmering, so the agreement seemed a bargain to him. Low scale resistance continued in the Atlas Mountains and the populace showed little willingness to embrace their Turkish government. Queen Charlotte saw benefit in establishing a French outpost in Morocco to counter the Habsburgs at Gibraltar and increasing French presence in the Eastern Mediterranean, given Russia’s seizure of Konstantingrad and Scandinavian bases on Cyprus.
   On April 11th, 1880 the Sultan’s Brigades (as the Royalist cause dubbed themselves) landed on the coast of Anatolia and captured the city of Attalia. Nadir Pasha declared himself a “friend of the House of Osman” and determined that the “wretched fiends who have feasted upon our nation” would pay. Fresh, compared to the demoralized factions that had battled for control for years at this point, the Royalist cause showed great promise. Shipments from France brought both food and weapons in ample supply, Paris seeking to buy itself a loyal friend.
   The Royalists and Constitutionalists reached a compromise with the Treaty of Gemlik in late 1880. Seeing their cause as all but lost, and determining that a restored absolute monarchy was preferable to a republic under Nuri, the Constitutionalists formally aligned themselves with Nadir, further increasing his strength. The Executive Regency formally dissolved itself, transferring all command to the Royalist leadership.
   Nuri was not idle, using the French backing of the Royalists to court Russian support. Suvorin had already tried to establish cordial relations with whomever it seemed would win the Turkish Civil War and, given Nuri’s success since 1877, Russian-Republican ties were fairly strong at this point. Yet, Suvorin’s willingness to provide aid was undermined by Nuri’s refusal to recognize Trebizond and Greek Anatolia. Thus, Russia limited its involvement, not wanting to alienate the Royalists too much as well.
   French intervention in Turkey was a clear slight towards Russia. While Paris could plausibly deny direct involvement, no French troops taking part in the fighting, it was clear who they were supporting. With French weaponry, including excess supply left over from the War of the Regency, being funneled to the Royalists, Nadir was able to field the most well-equipped force. 1880 saw Nadir successfully unite his southern territories to the former Constitutionalist holdings on the Sea of Marmara. The Greeks, beset by supply difficulties and guerilla resistance were smashed at the Battle of Kutahya on August 5th, 1880. Despite harassment from Nuri in his rear, Nadir followed up this victory with a rapid rollback of Greek gains in Anatolia. Vasileios Sapountzakis and the Greek Expeditionary Force found themselves holed up in Smyrna.  
   Constantine of Greece was conscious that the war could likely not be won. Ever since France had made its position clear, and with Russia fairly disengaged, the Greek government had decreased resources being sent to the front. The defeat at Kutahya gave the King the excuse he needed to seek peace. With Scandinavian mediation, the parties settled their differences in the Treaty of Rhodes. Greece agreed to recognize Nadir Pasha and the Royalists as the legitimate government of Anatolia and cede most of their holdings in Anatolia except for Smyrna. In return, the Ottoman government provided assurances for the Anatolian Greeks, reaffirmed its territorial concessions to Athens in the Treaty of Limassol, and agreed to not construct any naval ports on the Aegean.
   Peace with Greece allowed Nadir to close out the conflict. By early 1882 the Republican cause was spent, five years of fighting having decimated its forces. Osman Nuri attempted to resist the final onslaught in March 1882, but the fall of Sinope and Ankara cemented that the cause was lost. As his forces disintegrated, Nuri fled across the border into Trebizond.
   It would be this flight to Trebizond that would give Nadir the causus belli he needed to attack that realm. Most Turks had never fully accepted the carving out of that state and saw it as wholly illegitimate. Denouncing King Alexios VI de Bourbon-Trebizond as a harborer of fugitives, the Ottoman Royalist forces pushed past the Halys River into Trebizondian territory. The Trebizondian force was token, having not yet been fully organized in its short life and the result was a rapid rout.
   This, naturally, caused panic in the region. The Bourbons of Romania denounced the invasion and threatened to intervene to protect their close relations. Iran stood back, watching carefully, curious for the implications to Cilicia. Only Russia would formally act. President Suvorin condemned any attempts to rewrite the Treaty of Limassol, deploying Russian soldiers into the small realm after Alexios VI formally requested aid. While this did bring the fighting to a standstill, it underscored how tenuous the situation remained in the region. Osman Nuri, meanwhile, was treated as a “guest” of the Russian Republic, being sent to exile in distant St. Petersburg.

Turkish Civil War is Declared Over, 1882

(Source: Wikimedia)

Restoration of the House of Osman (1882-1887)
   Abdülkerim Nadir Pasha declared Turkish Civil War at a formal end on June 3rd, 1882. After six years of fighting and an incalculable amount of devastation, none of the initial war goals of the various combatants had been achieved. The Constitution of 1876 was abandoned as a political program, republicans were persecuted or shunned, and Cilicia (the whole initial spark of the civil war) remained an independent realm. The Empire, meanwhile, had been permanently transformed, an old order shattered in the process.
   Sultan Ahmed IV formally took up residence in Bursa, the new capital of the Ottoman Empire and one of the few cities that had not been leveled. In flagrant violation of the Treaty of Limassol, he reassumed the title of Caliph on behalf of the sultanate. Yet, he wielded little power as all looked to Nadir Pasha for leadership. Once peace had been settled, Nadir coerced the young sultan into declaring him the Grand Vizier. He immediately set about repairing the Ottoman state. Modelling himself somewhat on the late Süleyman Hüsnü, he hoped to reverse at least some of the Ottoman collapse over the previous decade and a half.
   France was dutifully rewarded for its support of the Royalists with the transfer of Morocco in August 1882. Nadir Pasha also ceded the city of Attalia to Paris as had been agreed in the Treaty of Rabat. It seemed the Franco-Ottoman alliance of 1536 yet lived, Charlotte and Louis XX pouring millions of francs into the Ottoman Empire in return. France was initially used by the government in Bursa as a means of keeping the Russians and Iranian at bay.
   This aid was used for a wide variety of purposes. Infrastructure projects saw the various cities of Asia Minor linked by improved road and rail networks. Housing construction and resettlement saw the thousands of Turkish refugees from both the civil war and the forced resettlements of Trebizond and Konstaningrad integrated into Anatolian life. A new administrative system was set up, as the eyalets were abolished and replaced with vilayets. Higher salaries and foreign training were used to establish a whole network of civil servants to replace the old system that had been disrupted by the Treaty of Limassol and the Turkish Civil War. Public schooling was encouraged. Finally, new agricultural technologies were imported from France, expanding both output and profits.
   Most important to Nadir Pasha though, was the reconstruction of the Ottoman military. Rather than demobilize with the wind-down of fighting, instead the Grand Vizier sought to expand the armed forces, French subsidies helping to achieve this. Lessons from the civil war were used to develop new doctrines for fighting in mountainous regions. Former Republican officers were offered a pardon and commission in the armed forces if they would pledge loyalty to Sultan Ahmed IV. National conscription policies were gradually rolled out, young men aged 18-25 being compelled to spend a week training at various military camps. The Ottoman Army was given a further chance to gain experience with the pacification of Tripolitania in 1885, the last sparks of rebellion in that province being snuffed out.
   Yet, the good times could not last forever. The reconstituted Ottoman Empire would be jolted severely by the sudden death of Grand Vizier Abdülkerim Nadir Pasha on January 15th, 1886. The “Savior of the House of Osman” was honored with a tremendous state funeral in Bursa, the public showing a mass display of mourning for the man who had stopped the fighting. His direct rule had been brief but extremely significant in driving the trajectory of the Ottoman Empire moving forward.
   With no figure of much stature waiting in the wings, Sultan Ahmed IV was at long last able to take control of his own government. After years under the control of the Second Executive Regency Council and then forced to obey Nadir Pasha, he was eager to assert himself, but not well-versed in the actual act of governing, as would soon become evident. The sultan removed many of Nadir’s allies throughout his first year of direct rule, replacing them with loyalists and sycophants.

[Spamage]

Turkish Soldiers Under Arms, 1887

Qajar-Ottoman War (1887-1893)
   The United Kingdom of Cilicia had faced peril from the day of its proclamation in 1876. King Mar'i al-Mallah had wisely invited Iranian soldiers to stabilize the situation in that same year, a move that ensured his survival but also indirectly led to the Turkish Civil War. The Qajars had withdrawn their men in 1878, as it became clear Turkey was too engulfed in the civil war to pose any real threat. By the time Cilicia’s much larger neighbor returned to a state of peace in 1882, the Ottomans were still seen as too weak to act against the Cilicians. It was only with the military reforms advanced by Nadir Pasha in 1883-1885, that Adana became wary once more of potential Ottoman reconquest.
   In late 1886, King Mar’i once more requested aid from Tehran. Yet, this time, he was willing to go further than in the past. Rather than merely inviting the Iranians to support his government with the presence of troops, he was fully willing to pledge fealty to the Qajar Dynasty along similar lines to the Kurds, Alawites, and Armenians. Naturally, the offer was too good for Shah to ignore and he consented on February 17th, 1887 with the Submission of Adana.
   To Sultan Ahmed IV, the Submission of Adana was a humiliation and one that could not be allowed to stand. Despite some of his advisors urging caution, the headstrong Sultan was egged on to confrontation by the Russian ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Aleksandr Nelidov. Russia had taken a decidedly anti-Iranian turn after the Treaty of Limassol, President Suvorin seeing the Qajars and not the Ottomans as the largest threat to his interests in the region. Despite both France and the Habsburg Monarchy urging calm, Russia’s scheming won the day. The Ottoman government issued the Cilician Ultimatum on February 20th, demanding a Qajar renunciation of the Submission of Adana, temporary Ottoman occupation of Cilicia, and a renegotiation of the Ottoman-Qajar frontier. The terms were deliberately provocative, despite almost all Ottoman factions panicking and urging restraint.
   Iran, naturally, felt it could not accept the Cilician Ultimatum and believed that the Ottomans were utterly suicidal in issuing it. After all, the Turks had just endured a terrible civil war while Iran had prospered. The shah was unaware that Russia was decidedly hostile, convincing himself that any disagreements were merely temporary. He openly refused Ahmed IV’s demands on February 23rd, the Ottomans declaring war later than day.
   The Qajar-Ottoman War proved to be both larger and longer than either of the combatants had expected. The Ottomans opened up the fighting with a massive offensive, aimed at knocking out Cilicia and ejecting Iran from the rest of Asia Minor. Initial gains were impressive, the Iranian generals underestimating the Ottoman military reforms of the previous five years. Kayseri fell, as did Mersin, Turkish soldiers reaching as far east as Malatya by the end of the campaign season in October 1887. Adana itself was placed under siege in August 1887 but stubbornly resisted surrender, forcing the Ottomans to refrain from further advances in Cilicia.
   The initial stage of the war had been nothing less than a humiliation for the Iranians, who some felt had grown complacent of their dominance over the region. Determined to see better results in 1888, the Naser al-Din fired his aged uncle Bahman Mirza Qajar and appointed his son Mass'oud Mirza Zell-e Soltan to command, demanding offensive action to reverse the losses. Indeed, if 1887 had been the year of Turkish gains, 1888 proved to be Iran’s time.
   The Iranian assault began in March 1888. While the first few weeks were frustratingly slow, the Ottomans occupying entrenched positions from over the winter, a series of breakthroughs were achieved with the use of chemical weapons. These bridgeheads broke Ottoman resistance temporarily, causing a mass retreat to the west. Unfortunately for the Turks, supply would become an issue. Russia, which had promised and provided extensive military aid to the Ottomans in 1887 and early 1888, saw itself forced to curtail this assistance with the onset of the Panic of 1888. Thus, by the end of the campaign season in 1889, Iranians occupied Ottoman land, a total reversal of the past year.
   The military disasters of 1888-89 saw a coup in the Ottoman Empire, the military seizing control of the government from Sultan Ahmed IV, who was blamed for the predicament. Ahmed Muhtar Pasha, the Field Marshall, was given overall command, purging the government proper of those loyal to the Sultan. The Coup of April 14th proved to be a tremendous benefit in the long run, the whole state being reformed into a military apparatus for the duration of the war. No longer would Ottoman strategy be determined by a proud but incompetent royal with little real-life experience. Military strategic consideration instead would drive policy moving forward.
   In 1890, with Algiers conquered and alarmed by the Iranian gains, France stepped in to fill the vacuum left by Russia’s curtailing of support. Like the Russians, Paris had no love for the Iranian Shah, who was seen as complicit in the Durrani Invasion of India. Once again modern weaponry and military advisors poured out of Attalia. King Louis had no scruples about extensive shipments of gas cannisters and shells as well. Yet, for the Ottomans, there would be no repeat of 1887. While they did push the Iranians out of Anatolia, fighting bogged down frustratingly close to the old borders. In Cilicia, meanwhile, Adana was placed under siege once more. It was at this point that the fairly mobile war began to grow entrenched. Despite efforts from both sides to break out and restore a war of movement, the end result seemed to only be further death and destruction. Gas attacks caused the deaths of thousands, yet proved to be ineffective at achieving more than temporary breakthroughs.
   Seeking to expand the conflict and relieve pressure on the front line, the Ottomans and their nominal French allies released the Saudis back into Arabia in 1891, igniting yet another Wahabi Revolt and undermining the stability of Rashidi Arabia. The Saudis called on the Sunni to rise up against the Shah, their declarations seconded by the captive Ahmed IV, who as caliph was used to call for resistance to the Shi’ites. While Arabia proper would descend into crisis, the response from Sunnis on other parts of Qajar Iran was extremely limited.
   This situation endured for the next two years, minor gains for either power coming at the cost of thousands of lives. Yet, the two combatants stubbornly continued to fight. While Muhtar Pasha and the Ottoman military leadership consistently offered negotiations, seeking to exit the conflict as soon as possible, Iran’s demands were deemed unacceptable. Naser al-Din Shah was utterly convinced that continued pressure would break the Turkish resistance if given more time. He ignored the extensive foreign aid to his enemies and was too proud to seek backing from Vienna or Stockholm. Only growing war-weariness among the populace began to change the shah’s opinion. The Mutiny at Antioch in late 1892 shook the Qajar Dynasty to its core and finally convinced him that peace was necessary.
   The Treaty of Newcastle was brokered by King George IV of Britain in 1893, the United Kingdom seen as a relatively neutral arbiter by both sides. Cilicia would become a protectorate of Iran, though Tehran was prohibited from basing troops in the kingdom. As compensation for the loss of claims on Cilicia, the Ottomans instead would be granted most of the Sivas Vilayet and Kayseri by the Iranians, a move that increased the security of Anatolia and pushed the borders further east. In Arabia, the Saudis were recognized as the leaders of Nejd and were forced to accept a ten-year truce with the Qajars. Though neither power expressed themselves excited by the agreement, especially given the tens of thousands that had died to achieve it, both the Qajars and Ottomans felt they needed to lick their wounds and recover. Britain was named as the guarantor of the treaty, London deliberately sidelining both Moscow and Paris in a bid to establish a presence in the Eastern Mediterranean.    

Ahmed Muhtar Pasha, Grand Vizier for Life

The Grandest of Viziers (1893-1900)
   Ahmed Muhtar Pasha had effectively seized control of the government from Sultan Ahmed IV in 1889 with the Coup of April 14th, as it became clear the sultan was well out of his depth. For the remainder of the Qajar-Ottoman War, the Empire had functioned effectively as a military dictatorship, Ahmed IV sidelined to ceremonial appearances and propaganda uses. With the Treaty of Newcastle restoring peace, Muhtar felt comfortable handing Ahmed IV once and for all. The headstrong sultan was forced to commit suicide on June 20th, 1893, his death presented to the public as a tragic accident. Şehzade Ibrahim Tevfik, one of the few remaining Ottoman princelings after the Massacre of the Princes in 1876, was proclaimed Ibrahim II. Aged just 19, he was effectively a prisoner in his own palace, Muhtar keeping him isolated from the public.
   Backed by the military for his leadership and the populace for his nationalist sentiments during the war, Muhtar faced no opposition when he declared himself Grand Vizier for Life in 1894. Inspired by Louis XX, internal dissent was utterly crushed. The state of emergency for the war was extended indefinitely. Following up on his earlier purges of the government of monarchists during the war, the Grand Vizier expanded this to society as a whole, eliminating dozens of perceived opponents. Freedom of speech was stifled, the Ottoman government instead focused on uniformity and compliance. Muhtar portrayed the Empire’s difficulties as stemming from many ethnic and religious minorities who refused to bend to the will of the government, a situation he vowed to rectify. Meanwhile, a cult of personality was also fashioned around himself, the Grand Vizier being portrayed as the Savior of the Nation. Ibrahim II, while still honored, was relegated to a secondary and ceremonial propaganda role. Islam was deemphasized, the government pivoting solely to a focus on Turkish nationalism and militarism. With the empire’s mass-conscription system, it became very clear that the Ottomans remained a force to be reckoned with.
   Muhtar would distance himself from picking any single major foreign partner, keeping the Ottomans as an aloof, neutral power. In particular, his government sought to play French and Russian interests against one another, extracting concessions from both sides without having to surrender much. The Qajar-Ottoman war had demonstrated that no power would go out of their way to aid the Ottomans unless something could be gained from it. Russia had withdrawn funding at the first convenient opportunity, while France had only aided the Turks after they had concluded their mischief in North Africa. Scandinavia was viewed with particular distaste, many remembering its betrayal of the Ottoman cause and invasion of Egypt, while the Habsburgs were still seen through the lens of the historic rivalry.
   At the turn of the century the Ottoman Empire yet endured, though it had been utterly transformed by the events of the past thirty years. The sultan by now was powerless, a sidelined figurehead, as the military dictatorship of Muhtar Pasha thrived. Militarism on a scale only seen before in Prussia has seized society, a siege mentality emerging among the beleaguered Turkish people. No more would they be pushed a side and dictated to. If the nation was to survive, it needed strength.

Habsburg Monarchy: Reform on the Dabube

Streets of Vienna, 1900

Later Reign of Charles VIII (1877-1894)
Agram Decrees and Internal Reform (1877-1881)
   No power epitomized the old order more than the Habsburg Monarchy, yet even the noble House of Austria was not immune to the changing of the times. Sandwiched between destabilizing influences in both France and Russia, the need for reform became evident. On May 5, 1880 Emperor Charles VIII proposed the Agram Decrees. While the creation of the Ministry of Petitions had bought the dynasty time, the emperor became convinced that more drastic reform was needed. Unilaterally, he announced a great reformation of the imperial government, essentially expanding the Triune system of government to the other constituent parts of the monarchy. New assemblies, partially elected and partially appointed, were to be convened in the various capitols of the realm. No longer would the local constituent diets be controlled solely by the nobles and clergy of the given regions. Suffrage would be open to men 35 years of age and older, those who had entered Imperial service, and unmarried female landholders. Hungary alone was given latitude to slightly alter the arrangements within their own realm.
   Given the Emperor’s existing obligations to the Habsburg military, the Church, and the diplomatic corps, each constituent realm would be headed by a viceroy to act as the emperor’s representative in executive decisions. Hungary would be headed by the Palatine, Croatia by the Ban, Bohemia by the Burgrave, Bavaria by the Prince Regent, Ruthenia by the Hetman, Italy by the Viceroy, and Austria proper by Archduke-President. Most of these positions were filled by members of the Imperial family, Charles hoping to prevent decadent idleness among his relations by giving them duties. Typically, it was understood that the heir to the throne would act as the Archduke-President in Austria, while the broader family governed the rest. In a return to Habsburg tradition, female members of the dynasty would be appointed to some of these executive posts. For example, Charles VIII named his unmarried niece Maria Amalia of Habsburg-Ansbach as Princess Regent of Bavaria in 1889, a post she would dutifully fill for years.
   Each assembly, in addition to continuing the administration of the constituent realms, would also select five delegates to serve on the Geheimrat. While lacking legislative authority, the 35-member Geheimrat would serve as an advisory body for the emperor. Charles VIII made it clear in the Agram Decrees that he would appoint his ministers primarily from the Geheimrat, a means of vesting the constituent realms into the broader fate of the Empire. Thus, on paper at least, ministers would be reliant on both the emperor’s favor and the approval of their local diet. Though the union of all the realms was technically a confederation, Charles VIII was clear that there would be united economic, trade, military, diplomatic, and judicial systems under his personal supervision. The diets would have control over some taxation, local governance, education, and other more provincial matters.
   Reaction within the Habsburg monarchy ran the whole spectrum. Generally, the common classes approved the expansion of suffrage, although some said it did not go far enough. Nobles, threatened by being outvoted, were confident that they would be able to maintain their positions as appointed delegates. On a more regional basis, despite the emperor having crushed a nationalist uprising in 1872, most subjects in Bohemia were overjoyed with the Agram Decrees. Czech nationalists portrayed it as a restoration of the historic role of the Bohemian Kingdom centuries after the Battle of the White Mountain. No longer would a small clique of German elites have sole control over the legislature in Prague. The Bohemian Germans were a bit less enthusiastic, but remained optimistic that the imperial appointees would help block Czech majoritarianism. In Bavaria, which had largely enjoyed fairly unbroken autonomy since the union of the crowns under Emperor Maximilian III in 1801, and the Triune Kingdom, where the reforms had already been implemented, the Agram Decrees attracted little notice. While some in Austria proper expressed disappointment that no larger assembly would be created, the public proper reaffirmed its support for Charles VIII and the Habsburg Dynasty, at this point central to Austrian identity.

Emperor Charles VIII signs the Agram Decrees, 1880
(Source: Me via Midjourney)

   No group was as alarmed over these developments as the Hungarians, especially the elites. First their claimed Croatian territories had been removed from their control with the stroke of an imperial pen. Now, many felt their traditional rights had been undermined with the Agram Decrees. While Charles VIII had gone to great lengths to placate them, granting them wide latitude in the implementation of reform in Hungary proper, the nobility felt they had been backed against a wall. How long would the common classes or the ethnic minorities consent to the existing order when their neighbors in Ruthenia or Bohemia enjoyed far greater rights? It was felt as though Charles VIII was playing them off against the substantial Romanian and Slovakian minorities who would be able to flex a powerful electoral muscle. Indeed, if the Agram Decrees were implemented in Hungary unaltered, between the expected Slavic delegates and those appointed by the emperor, it was clear the Magyar nobility would likely find itself a legislative minority in its own realm.
   In order to be fully implemented, Charles VIII stated the Agram Decrees had to be ratified by the existing diets, essentially forcing the old establishment to consent to the weakening of its authority. He expected public pressure would force the diets to comply, a sentiment that seemed to be confirmed when Ruthenia, Austria, Bavaria, and Bohemia all complied by passing resolutions endorsing the reforms by the end of 1880. Lombardy-Venetia and Hungary proved to be the two obstinate realms.
   Lombardy-Venetia was won over by formal compromise with the emperor, Charles VIII formally decreeing that all the appointed members of the Lombardian Senate (as their local diet would be known) who have to have been born within the borders of the current kingdom. The sole exception would be the Viceroy, who would either have to be a member of the Imperial family or born within Lombardy-Venezia. This was specifically aimed at preventing the sort of dominance by German-speaking officials that had become all too prevalent in the past. Satisfied, they too adopted a resolution of approval of the Agram Decrees on February 10th, 1881.
   While the willingness to compromise had won over the Italians, it also showed the Hungarians that they too had leverage. Aggrieved over the Agram Decrees, they intended to slow-walk the proposal through the assembly. In Hungary proper, the nobles who had governed the kingdom for centuries at long last turned to the masses in an attempt to whip up nationalist fervor. Ignoring the fact they had excluded the common classes from government for centuries, the existing Hungarian Diet sought to portray far-off Charles VIII in Vienna as usurping the natural rights of the Hungarian people. Their tirades found a willing and eager audience in the region, Magyars becoming agitated.
   Protests against the Agram Decrees erupted in several regions. Yet the Magyar nobility, who had encouraged the initial expression of discontent through vitriolic statements, found themselves outflanked by the populace, which was drifting in a republican direction. The Hungarian Protests of 1881 demanded the freedom of the Hungarian people from both monarchical and noble subjugation. Budapest became unfriendly, the Diet fleeing to Sopron after weeks of growing unrest in the hopes that tensions would abate after a particularly violent week in April.
   It was at this juncture Charles VIII demonstrated his authority. Mobilizing the Habsburg Army, he intended to calm the situation before it got out of hand. Russia, in particular, was vocal in decrying the instability in the Habsburg Monarchy and Suvorin vocally threatened to handle the situation himself in mid-1881, a move that made him no friends in Vienna. Charles overruled the Diet of Hungary and, some would say illegally, invaded his own lands. Armed forces occupied all the major cities of Hungary in May 1881. Hostile presses were destroyed, nationalist republicans arrested, and order restored. The emperor personally oversaw the crackdown in Budapest, eliminating sources of opposition. Magyarism was decried while the Slavs were cultivated as imperial allies.
   Cowed by the instability and their own inability to handle the situation, the Hungarian Diet reluctantly adopted approval of the Agram Decrees unaltered on May 22nd, 1881. The events had shown both that the nobility lacked sway over the populace and there was an underlying republican current in Hungary. In such circumstances most elites decided it was better to cling to the hem of the monarch’s cloak that try to stand alone after such an embarrassment.

Mod Edit for Image Size Issue

[Spamage]

Crushing of Budapest, 1881
(Source: Made by Me via Midjourney)

Katona Affair and Diplomatic Implications (1881)
   The most significant development of the Hungarian Crackdown of 1881 was the Katona Affair. Ervin Katona was one of the Magyar Republicans captured in the emperor’s crackdown. As authorities investigated his background and connections, it soon became clear why the republican movement in Hungary had been so strong. A vast network of Russian funding for the Hungarian nationalist and republican movements was uncovered, the plot implicating dozens upon further investigation. The Russian government proper had both been supplying financial aid and cultivating connections with those that would see Hungary stand as an independent state.
   Indeed, according to the evidence presented to Charles VIII, the responsibility stretched all the way towards President Suvorin himself, who had allegedly made the first moves towards supporting Hungarian nationalism in the 1870s. Early on the Russians allegedly cultivated Hungarian resentment over the creation of the Triune Kingdom, before expanding their aims. Vienna issued an official protest to Moscow, who denied any involvement, and relations between the two powers chilled yet further after reluctant cooperation during the Congress of Copenhagen.
   The Katona Affair seemed to confirm all the latent suspicions the Habsburg elites had towards the Russian Republic and its designs on Europe. All the while, given events in France, it was clear the Habsburg Monarchy would have to reaffirm its alliance with Scandinavia. It was for this reason Charles VIII arranged for the marriage of his grandson and eventual heir Archduke Charles to Princess Christina of Britain, one of Henry X’s daughters, seeking to cement ties with the family that ruled Britain and would one day rule Scandinavia.  

A New Day on the Danube (1881-1894)
   With the Agram Decrees approved by the various constituent realms, elections were organized for March 1882, to be followed by subsequent votes every four years in the future. While much was made of the new novel campaign, unprecedented in Habsburg history, suffrage was still rather limited. As could be expected in such circumstances, it would generally be the conservative parties of the respective regions that triumphed in the various votes. Only in Lombardy, Hungary, and Bohemia would some nationalist groups establish a sizable presence in the diet. The liberals had a particularly poor showing, their best results coming in Austria proper, but even there they were in the minority. Once the addition of the appointed delegates was considered, it was evident that Charles VIII would oversee numerous loyal and pliant assemblies.
   The 1880s were a time of peace and growth in the Habsburg Monarchy. Particularly pronounced were the improvements in the standards of living in Ruthenia and in the mountainous regions of Hungary. Electrification, improved sanitation, and continued industrialization were present in most of the major cities. New suburbs expanded the borders of Vienna, Prague, Budapest, and Munich and thousands poured out of the rural regions, seeking a new life in the cities.
   The Family Pact of 1877 culminated in the formation of the Central European Common Market in 1884. The Habsburg Monarchy, Prussia, Poland, and Serbia agreed essentially to free trade within their shared borders. It was a notable shift for the normally protectionist Vienna, but a reform that brought major economic activity to the region. Saxony, due to its position on the Elbe, was seen as a potential future partner. They were incorporated into both the Family Pact and the Central European Common Market with the wedding of King John of Saxony to Archduchess Maria Petronella (granddaughter of Charles VIII) in 1888.
   Politically, the establishment breathed easy. Charles VIII, exhausted by his early reign, was content to step back from any major reforms after the Agram Decrees. Though some whispered of political stagnation, the elections in 1886 saw the conservatives continue their dominance. It was only as the after-effects of the Panic of 1888 sunk in that liberals would achieve electoral majorities in Austria and Bohemia as well as a plurality in Lombardy during the vote in 1890. While most overlook the seemingly placid political culture of the Habsburg Monarchy during the 1880s, it is still notable that any sort of political culture existed at all. This underscored how much the realm truly had evolved in the past few decades.
   1888 was also the year the Habsburg Monarchy faced its major economic crisis in 16 years, with the Russian economic contagion spreading into the Viennese stock exchange. While the government had invested little with Russia and had sought minimal contact with that nation in the aftermath of the Katona Affair, many speculators had seen tremendous potential in that economy. With investors losing wealth, forced to liquidate Austrian securities to cover their losses, the situation witnessed growing unemployment. Total economic disaster was averted by the Convention of Bern yet, as a result of that economic unrest, the Habsburg Trade Bloc would begin to enact rather steep trade barriers to external markets, hoping to protect itself from future financial contagion.
   Further afield, the later years of Charles VIII’s reign oversaw increasing involvement in Africa. Eager to enforce his claims, but unwilling to wage a full-blown war over it, the Habsburgs incrementally expanded their holdings in the Sahel and Ethiopia. Among the East Africans a concerted effort was made to pull off some of the Abyssinian vassals from their sovereigns, to limited success. Further gains were achieved in the Sahara, but the region was sparsely populated and some questioned the value of holding onto it. The crown jewels of the Austrian colonial empire would remain the Suez, Singapore, and Ningbo. Madagascar too proved to be a prized possession, though one that yielded less value than some of the others, primarily used for cash crops and an extraction-based economy.

Meeting of the Geheimrat, 1888
(Source: Wikimedia)

A Monarchy Distressed (1894-1900)
Year of the Three Emperors (1894)
   The 1890’s would prove to be perilous for the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, 1894 itself being known as the Year of the Three Emperors. Charles VIII, the beloved sovereign of the Habsburg Monarchy for 35 years, passed away peacefully in Vienna on July 19th, 1894. His son succeeded him as Maximilian IV. No heir had perhaps been better prepared to assume power than a crown prince who had served as the Archduke-President in Vienna for the better part of a decade and a half.
   Maximilian IV being a conservative work-horse, a smooth transition seemed all but guaranteed until the new emperor fell ill quite rapidly in a Typhoid outbreak in Vienna. The court could only watch in horror as the 56-year-old sovereign deteriorated swiftly and died on December 20, 1894. His reign had lasted just a mere five months, both brief and forgettable. His sole son and heir became Emperor Charles IX at 38. The new emperor dutifully led the mourning for his father and vowed to govern in the spirit of his respected grandfather.

Launching of the First Zeppelin Over Vienna, 1896

(Source: Wikimedia)

The Great Reformer (1894-1897)
   Charles entered his reign as a relatively unknown and untested sovereign. During his grandfather’s reign he had served as the Hetman of Ruthenia on the emperor’s behalf during the early 1890s, a region of the realm that seldom attracted the attention of Vienna. As emperor, he proved to have a reforming and modernizing energy unseen since the days of Joseph II more than a century prior. Convinced that stagnation would mean defeat at the hands of either the French or Russians, Charles was determined that the Habsburg Monarchy maintain its power under his watch.  
   1895-1897 saw the enactment of further reforms seeking to prepare the Empire for the coming century. Charles IX launched a broad overhaul of the military, sacking many elderly officers who had first seen action in the First Great Eastern War. While this undoubtedly did dilute the level of experience in the general’s staff, it also allowed for younger, ambitious men to fill the posts. The launching of the first Zeppelin on June 17th, 1896 demonstrated that the Habsburg Monarchy remained one of the key players in the development of military technology. While outwardly the emperor expressed the desire of peace and stability, he was determined to not demonstrate weakness and invite attacks.
   In the same spirit of modernization, the emperor proposed the boldest step of reform for the Holy Roman Empire since the Great Re-Mediatization of 1849 half a century prior. While it was generally accepted that Francis II had been more than justified in breaking down the Empire into numerous microstates, some wondered if perhaps it was limiting imperial potential. Many foreign observers had a dim view of the Empire, one dubbing it a “fleshy corpse, used by Vienna to shield itself from French pressure.” The Reichstag and other institutions were seen to be anachronistic and toothless, unable to stem the crisis along the Rhine in the 1870s. While the Habsburg emperors retained great authority, especially under the re-mediatized lands, they lack sovereign power of Prussia, Saxony, and the Scandinavian holdings. Charles sought to change this.
   On February 6, 1897 Charles IX publicly proposed the Third Imperial Reform. In effect, this was an effort to bring a modified form of the Agram Decrees to the Empire. Under the framework he established, the Imperial Diet would be completely remodeled. Two thirds of the lower house of the body would be elected, while the remaining third would consist of the various imperial knights who currently filled the College of Princes. Imperial Free Cities would have no more special representation beyond their elected delegates.
   Of his personal holdings Austria, Bavaria, and Bohemia would all elect members to the Diet, while the remainder, that technically lay outside of the Empire, would not. The Former Electoral College, which had been taken over by the Six Major Principalities following the Great Eastern War, would likewise be remodeled. Each major prince, save for Wurzburg, was now instead to represent a respective region in the upper house, joined by the foreign sovereigns who likewise held land in the Empire. Hanover was represented by Scandinavia, Pomerania by Scandinavia, Brandenburg by Prussia, Albertine Saxony by Saxony, Ernestine Saxony by Habsburg Bayreuth, Westphalia by the Palatinate, Thuringia by Hesse, Baden and Württemberg by Habsburg Ansbach, and Mecklenburg by Mecklenburg. Charles IX, as sovereign, would meanwhile cast the votes of Bavaria, Austria, and Bohemia. Thus, it was assumed, the emperor would control three votes directly, the Scandinavians would control two and have sway over one, and the remainder would be theoretically independent, though there was little illusion as to how Bayreuth and Ansbach would vote. With 11 members, the reformed Upper House would serve as a moderating influence against the publicly elected Lower House.
   As in the hereditary lands with the Agram Decrees, the Third Imperial Reform was lauded by the German common classes. Still, it could not go into effect until it was ratified by the existing Diet in Regensburg. This proved to be complicated. Among the nobility there was a sense of resentment. Many felt their positions as local leaders was undermined by the promise of public elections, especially ones with expanded suffrage. Prussia and Saxony, which had a more limited suffrage than the proposal for the Empire believed their sovereignty was violated by the proposition. Scandinavia, an ally of the Habsburgs, found itself caught off-guard by Charles IX’s proposals. Unlike Saxony and Prussia, Scandinavian suffrage was greater than that proposed by the Third Imperial Reform, so there would be potential Scandinavian voters unable to participate in Imperial elections. The press portrayed the new emperor as a young, headstrong man determined to press through with reforms no matter the cost.

Emperor Charles IX, "The Great Reformer"
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

June Crisis (1897)
   Further afield, the move caused great concern in both Paris and Moscow. The Third Imperial Reform would essentially make the remainder of the Empire into yet another constituent piece of the Habsburg Monarchy in the eyes of foreign powers. Indeed, Europe seemed on the cusp of a diplomatic crisis heading into the spring of 1897. From Paris, Louis XX declared on June 2nd, 1897 that he fully intended to resume the French position as guardian of the German liberties guaranteed by the Peace of Westphalia and announced he would not recognize the Third Imperial Reform even if it was adopted. Moscow likewise expressed opposition on June 5th, though far less strong, and remained aloof as tensions began to expand. President Mikhaylovsky and his social democratic government were privately against military action, given the weakness of their governing coalition, but felt expressing pacifist sentiments would be interpreted as Russian weakness. The lack of clarity on Russian goals further complicated the diplomatic situation and caused ever-greater suspicion among the various powers.
   Louis’ announcement of French opposition to the Third Imperial Reform just pushed the German public more in favor of its adoption. Riots occurred in Cologne, Frankfurt, and other Rhenish cities throughout the first few weeks of June, the populace attempting to pressure the Imperial Diet, which had scheduled a vote in the second half of the month. In the face of France’s perceived meddling, Prussia and Saxony largely fell in line, the two sovereigns announcing that they would abide by the Reform if it passed the College of Princes.
   Charles IX, meanwhile, expressed strong opposition to French interference in the German constitutional process and argued that the Great Re-Mediatization under his great-grandfather had nullified the Peace of Westphalia. Yet, he was wary about escalating tensions with France for fear that the Russians would cause unrest in Hungary. Habsburg diplomats sought guarantees of neutrality from Moscow but remained empty-handed. At the same time, Scandinavia seemed fairly distant. While condemning French interference, Catherine II didn’t go further and express her support for the reforms. Indeed, she herself was skeptical of the Third Imperial Reform and the threat it posed for Scandinavian control over Hanover. This, naturally, damaged the close ties between Vienna and Stockholm.
   The spell was broken on June 20th, 1897, just days before the Diet was set to take up debate on the measure, by the shocking assassination of Emperor Charles IX. Returning home from the opera in an open car, the emperor was gunned down by a young man on the streets of Vienna. His death was quick, his wife Christina of Britain looking on in horror as her husband died in her lap. In a moment the diplomatic calculus of Europe was thrown into the air once more.

The Regency (1897-1900)
   The death of Emperor Charles brought about a massive wave of mourning in the Habsburg Monarchy. For a moment, it seemed internal divisions were patched over as the people united under the banner of the late “Great Reformer”. Charles and his brief reign were romanticized as a period of Habsburg dynamism. The new sovereign was a child. Christina of Britain, his mother, and Vittoria of Bourbon-Savoie, his grandmother, initially presented a united front in protecting the imperial dignity. It was decided they would form a three-person regency council alongside Archduke Louis-Henry, who had prior experience serving as the regent in Poland.
   The new regents were united in their belief that the empire needed stability. With its fourth sovereign in as many years, the reforms could wait. While not formally withdrawn, debate on the Third Imperial Reform was postponed indefinitely.
   The assassin was Reinhard Kofler, a self-professed anarchist. He had operated with a clique of like-minded individuals in the imperial capitol, his plans predating the announcement of the Third Imperial Reform. The Viennese police were brutal in their crackdown on the local anarchist and socialist undergrounds in the aftermath of Charles IX’s death. Kofler himself was tortured before being executed on April 5th, 1898. Roundups and mass arrests ensnared dozens of potential co-conspirators. Many in Vienna could not shake the feeling that the emperor’s death had been perhaps a bit too convenient. Suspicions were obviously directed as Paris and Moscow, though other theories also included the Austrian general’s staff, Naples, and even Scandinavia.
   Regardless, the death of Charles IX brought stability back to Europe. Louis XX, rather than pounce on the situation, restrained France at this juncture, believing any further saber-rattling would only provoke a united German front. Russia meanwhile sent condolences to the young Emperor Maximilian V and President Mikhaylovsky personally attended the funeral in Vienna. It seemed for the time being that tensions had abated as Europe was able to breathe easy once more.
  The united front in the regency council would be undermined by growing feuding between Christina of Britain and Vittoria of Bourbon-Savoie. The two had very different attitudes towards governance, diplomacy, and the upbringing of Maximilian V. While Louis-Henry sought to balance the two as a swing vote, the situation has made the whole empire uneasy at the end of the 1800s. All the while the elected assemblies waited in the background, perhaps determining how best to win further powers for themselves…

[Spamage]

Russia: A Young Republic Finds Its Feet

Streets of St. Petersburg, late 1800s
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The Suvorin Years (1877-1888)
Pinnacle of Glory (1877-1882)
   Russia emerged from the 1870s as one of the preeminent global powers. Just four decades after the humiliating defeat in the Great Eastern War, the cause had been avenged. Indeed, the rise was dizzying, the Ottoman collapse having proven far more rapid than had been hoped. The Hagia Sophia was a church once more, Russia’s position on the Pacific had been expanded, and the republic had endured.
   The 1876 election underscored how politically dominant Suvorin had become. While both Menshikov and Gorchakov had experienced electoral landslides as well, there was little doubt this time that there was genuine popular enthusiasm behind the result. From Konstantingrad to Novosibirsk, the President was seen as the “Great Redeemer.” Domestically Suvorin and his allies would use the victory as a means of sidelining the exiled Romanovs further. Friendly papers portrayed Suvorin as undoing the “Romanov humiliation” and for the first time since the death of Menshikov, the future of the republic seemed all but guaranteed.
   Despite Russia’s domestic tranquility, conflicts on the borders demanded intervention and action. With revolution in Korea, civil war in Turkey, and fighting all throughout Asia, the republic could not stand idle. Suvorin sought to extend Russia’s gains in East Asia, following up on his earlier seizure of the Korean Amur with the outright occupation and annexation of Haishenwai, the last major port city in the hands of that state. While ethnic Korean militias resisted, and would continue to harass the Russians in the countryside for the next several years, political chaos to the south meant Seoul could do little but issue a formal protest. The city was renamed Vladivostok, becoming a major hub of Russian influence in the East.
   Having focused on demobilization, and wary of the cost of its extensive military engagements over the past decade, Russia did little in the Turkish Civil War other than play the factions off against one another and seek to be a friendly arbiter. Only when their interests were directly threatened did Moscow step in. Following the victory of the Royalists, the subsequent Ottoman assault on Trebizond demanded Russian intervention. With the Bourbon king’s invitation Russian soldiers occupied the parts of the principality that had not come under Ottoman occupation in 1882. It soon became clear they would not be leaving, effectively turning that state into yet another Russian protectorate. Yet, Suvorin did not seek to regain the Trebizondian territory already lost, a deliberate effort aimed at soothing relations with the Turks.
   Suvorin began to wind down the mobilization of the 1870s as the decade came to a close, seeking to reduce military expenditures in order to implement social reforms (see below). Yet, Russia would not be wholly idle. The president believed that the American War and scuffles over the British blockade had demonstrated the continued importance of naval power. Seeking to ensure Russia was not left behind, especially now that at long last it possessed a warm-water port at Konstantingrad, Suvorin embarked on a concerted policy of naval expansion. Comparing his aims to those of Peter the Great two centuries prior, he declared that three major fleets were to be constructed: a Baltic fleet at St. Petersburg, a Black Sea/Mediterranean Fleet at Konstantingrad, and a Pacific Fleet at Vladivostok. While this required a massive investment into shipbuilding facilities, in particular in far-off Vladivostok, Suvorin saw this as more than a worthy investment. Internationally, the Russian announcement was met with unease. Scandinavia in particular was vocal in criticizing the policy, the issue becoming just one of many demonstrating the growing gulf between the Baltic neighbors.
   Domestically, Suvorin spent his second term primarily focused on rolling out social policies aimed at alleviating poverty and supporting a growing middle class. State-backed pension and insurance programs were implemented in 1880 and 1881, respectively. Vast housing projects in Moscow and St. Petersburg saw slums demolished and replaced with middle-class housing, the government seeking to both improve sanitation and standards of living. While many on the right would decry the ensuing expenditure, and seek to undermine these social programs in the future, they enjoyed broad support among the urban population.

Reform and Liberalization (1882-1888)
      Suvorin used his mandate to declare the Emancipation of the Jews in 1882. This was a significant development, coming on the heels of more than a century of Tsarist persecution and then subsequent Republican neglect of that social group. It was a stunning decision. Subsequent analysts have argued that only Suvorin could have emancipated the Jews, as no other politician held the trust of the electorate like he did. Yet, even popular Suvorin saw backlash. The Orthodox Church issued pointed criticism of the Emancipation and there were attempted pogroms all throughout Belarus and Malorussia, though under Suvorin’s orders the local police were commanded to suppress violence. Though order would be restored, it would take years for Jews to be wholly accepted by the Russian mainstream society, and in some quarters they never would be.
   1882 saw Suvorin elected once more for a third term, winning the vote with 60.4%. While still an overwhelming victory, it was clear the “Great Redeemer” was no longer above criticism as he had seemed just 6 years prior. Disgust over the emancipation of the Jews propelled the reactionary, tsarist Konstantin Pobedonostev into a distant second place in the 1882 Presidential election with 20.4% of the vote.
   Under Suvorin’s leadership the political culture in Russia continued to mature during his third term. Though there was little question that he was in command and enjoyed genuine popular support, alternatives began to make themselves known. Unlike in the early days of the Republic, when the government had functioned as a sort of quasi-military dictatorship, Suvorin allowed for a generally free public discourse. Russia was a relatively open republic, it was just that the incumbents used their systemic power to rig the system in their favor. During Suvorin’s third term the proliferation of newspapers, party programs, satires, and philosophy took the Russian Republic by storm.
   Naturally, this maturation of Russian political culture coincided with an increase in literacy and greater electoral turnout. In later years many Russians would view the early 1880s as a golden age where everything seemed to be going right for Russia, liberalization accompanying domestic peace. Extremists remained marginalized as society coalesced around a consensus of Suvorinist moderation. Indeed, compared to the economic and political developments of the remainder of the decade and 1890s, these years would seem rather quaint.
   Suvorin primarily focused on diplomacy during his third term, leaving the day-to-day governance of Russia to the Duma. Russian friendship with Scandinavia gradually chilled. Not only had Catherine II seen the marriage of her heir to the deposed Romanov’s, but Stockholm increasingly pivoted towards the Baltic as a means of countering Russia, a move Suvorin saw as greatly insulting. Yet, this did not prevent him from turning against his former Qajar allies in the south, acting to instigate trouble between Iran and the Turks as a means of keeping the Persians in line. Indeed, it was Russian instigating that encouraged the outbreak of the Qajar-Ottoman War in 1887. China, despite shared republican principles, likewise was increasingly framed as a threat, their autonomous regions seen as bolstering nationalist sentiment in Russian Mongolia and Manchuria.

President Suvorin during the last months of his administration, 1887
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Chicherin Administration (1888-1894)
Panic of 1888
   Russia had been a land of tremendous economic growth for decades prior to the Panic of 1888. The advent of the republic had invited foreign investment and domestic reform. The nation had been largely unscathed in the Panic of 1872 in part due to the tremendous untapped economic potential. With a rapidly exploding population, numerous avenues for modernization, and far from the carnage seen in Western and Central Europe, it was no wonder that the influx of foreign capital continued throughout the 1870s.
   Yet, this growth masked growing inefficiencies. Capitalizing on the sentiment of republican equality, creditors were eager to advance loans to all sorts of Russians, including many with little financial literacy. With the rapid growth seen during the 1870s and early 1880s, it had almost become a maxim that Russia offered guaranteed financial returns. Suvorin was all too happy to present this image to the rest of the world, loosening up rules on foreign investment in order to continue the good times. Russia itself went into drastic levels of debt due to the simultaneous commitments to building three world-class fleets, military aid to the Ottomans, expanded social programs, and infrastructure improvements. This was all on top of existing obligations related to both the Second Great Eastern War and the subsequent Great Turkish War.
   The harvest of 1887 would bring an end to the party, the music stopping rather abruptly. Despite efforts to encourage industrial production and numerous improvements in infrastructure, Russia remained a predominantly agricultural country. When crop yields were substantially reduced by a terrible growing season, hundreds of thousands found their sources of income threatened. Bills went unpaid, farms went bankrupt, and agricultural workers were laid off. Rising food prices in one of the breadbaskets at the same time as such financial loss was a recipe for even further malaise.
   April 17th, 1888 saw the panic reach the Moscow Stock exchange. It started in the banking and agricultural sectors but spread throughout the whole market. Many wealthy investors saw their portfolios evaporate rapidly, the loss of their disposable income only serving to further expand the crisis. Attempts by Suvorin, now in his final days in office, to quell the crisis did little to soothe the markets. A 24% loss on April 18th was followed by another terrible 18% loss on April 19th and 11% on the 25th. More than half of the aggregate market value had been wiped out, though this included dozens of firms which were now worthless. Foreign creditors, including powers as far afield as New Holland and Quebec, were jolted by the economic chaos.
   The disaster on the stock exchange had cascading effects as consumption declined causing numerous businesses operating on the thinnest of margins to go bankrupt. Runs on banks occurred in Moscow and St. Petersburg as the financial panic spread throughout Russia. Unemployment soaring, firms enacted wage cuts, confident that they could always find other employees willing to work for less. Infrastructure projects, seen as a stable and safe means of employment in the time of chaos, found themselves halted and private construction firms saw the evaporation of both their capital and finance. The spiraling crisis grew out of control. Foreign creditors were faced with the horrific realization of their losses as the panic spread. Banks that survived initial runs found themselves insolvent by later financial jitters. Russia, despite standing strong geopolitically, was now beset by economic unease.
   Despite having enacted social safety nets, the government was overwhelmed by the scale of the crisis. Faced with cutting military expenditures, thereby showing weakness against the French and Austrians, or limiting the social services, Suvorin elected to maintain military readiness at the expense of the needs of the populace. The ‘Great Redeemer’ was accused of loving his boats more than his people, naval construction continuing apace while pension payouts were frozen and capped. Chicherin would maintain this stance somewhat, afraid of the consequences that simultaneous economic and diplomatic turmoil could bring.

First Open Election (1888)
   The full scale of the Panic of 1888 had not been realized when the Russian people went to the polls in May 1888, but the seriousness was evident. Occurring right after the stock market catastrophes of April, what had seemed a boring coronation turned into a surprisingly competitive vote.
   Aleksey Suvorin had toyed with the idea of running for a fourth term in office, but decided in late 1887 that he would instead return to private life. After more than a decade and a half in command, he was satisfied most of his goals had been achieved. Boris Chicherin, having served as Prime Minister under President Suvorin during the peak of Russian fortunes, received the blessing of his mentor to seek the Presidency as his anointed successor. Indeed, upon Chicherin’s announcement of his candidacy and Suvorin’s endorsement, no other Suvorinist candidate would declare a campaign. More liberal than his patron, Suvorin still essentially commanded a broad coalition at the center of the political spectrum.
   Waiting in the wings were the Social Democrats under Nikolay Mikhaylovsky and the Reactionaries led by Pobedonostev. Mikhaylovsky attracted a broad left-wing coalition, ranging from communist and socialist factions to the pragmatic social democratic wing of his own party. Focusing on the soaring unemployment, he appealed to the working classes and those disillusioned with the growing economic crisis. This was coupled with condemnation of the authoritarian nature of the Suvorin Regime which, while allowing for free speech and seemingly free votes, was not above abusing the system to achieve its goals. Pobedonostev, leading the reactionary cause for the third election in a row, continued to harp on antisemitic conspiracies and demanded the restoration of the House of Romanov.
   When the votes had been cast, Chicherin did in fact emerge victorious, though with a mere 50.21% of the vote, the lowest received for any president dating back to the acclamation of Mikhail Gorchakov back in 1846. Mikhaylovsky carried 30.45%, a stunning improvement for the left-wing parties and an open demonstration that the economic malaise and growing fatigue with Suvorinism were sapping support. Pobedonostev came in a distant third with 13.81%, voters tiring of his tirades while radical Peter Kropotkin won 4.31% of the votes despite his exile in Scandinavia for alleged subversion.

Unemployed Poor Russian Family, 1890
(Source: Jacobin)

Chicherin Administration (1888-1894)
   Chicherin, despite good intentions and a reforming mind, found himself in dire straits from the outset of his term. The first few months consisted of increasing economic panic. Determined to stabilize the situation, the new president pursued a wide variety of executive actions. First, government expenditure was to be curbed. Aid to the Ottomans in the Qajar-Ottoman War was more than halved, much to Bursa’s consternation. The public housing construction was ceased, while projects in progress were sold off, often at a substantial loss. Pension payouts were cut. The government publicly decreed that bank deposits for Russian citizens would be protected up to a certain amount, though pointedly refused to issue the same assurances for foreigners (a move that led to a substantial amount of anger among foreign investors). Tariffs were substantially raised, the hope being that the elimination of foreign competition would spur Russian industrial development.
   The overwhelming issue though, was the Russian national debt. The deteriorating economic situation greatly decreased tax revenue, with both private investors and other governments expressing concern over the security of their holdings. To his credit, Chicherin refused to print his way out of the crisis, believing the economic effects of inflation would be far more damaging to the Russian Republic than a shorter period of hard times. On February 5th, 1889, Chicherin formally announced, with the concurrence of the Duma, a suspension to the servicing of Russian debt, effectively declaring bankruptcy.
   The reaction was immediate, the stock market imploding further and foreign powers issuing statements of protest. New Holland and Quebec both saw massive slumps, the two powers having provided ample finance to Russia in the past. Closer to home, Vienna and Stockholm rattled their sabers and threatened to extract concessions from Russia if their holdings were not repaid. All the while another wave of domestic bankruptcies hit and the strength of the ruble deteriorated greatly against other currencies. Unemployment was well above 20%, the middle class established with such effort by Suvorin seeming to dissipate back into poverty.
   Yet, early 1889 proved to be the deepest of the abyss. The Swiss Republic stepped in to mediate the situation in March, using its financial acumen and largely nonaligned status to present itself as an honest broker. The Convention of Bern in April 1889 saw a wide variety of reforms implemented to stabilize the situation. In return for debt reduction, Russian tariffs were lowered back to their previous levels with Scandinavia and the Habsburg Trade Bloc. Chicherin agreed to service the remaining Russian debt to the effective immediately, thereby assuaging the concerns of further off powers. Domestically, to calm the situation, a State Bank of the Republic was established in Moscow, which would take over control of the currency and handling of Russia’s debt. The Russian deficit was to be eliminated through the establishment of an income tax for most middle-income earners and higher. The satellite states were also extorted, made to pay for the garrisoning of Russian soldiers in their region.
   By late 1890 it seemed the crisis was no longer expanding and the situation began to stabilize. For all the outrage, Russia also held a supply of food. Certainly, the harvest of 1887 had been lackluster, bringing down the house of cards that was the Russian economy, but numerous other powers absolutely needed the supply of Russian grain. This increased the demand for rubles and, when coupled with the Convention of Bern, restored confidence in the Russian monetary system. Relative to other currencies, the ruble showed remarkable resilience in the coming decade.
   While unemployment continued to plague the economy, and vast impoverished hordes existed on the edges of all major cities, no longer were they increasing in number. Efforts by the government to get the populace back to work proved to have limited effect. While unemployment did decrease from 1891-1894, it was a sluggish recovery and many expected better results. Chicherin himself was criticized as indifferent to the plight of the poor, especially by the Russian left. It was a testament to the strength of the republic that, despite growing discontent, little effort was made to topple the political system. For all the hardship, many Russians still bought into the republican ideals, for they had seen their nation at the pinnacle of success just a decade prior.
   Still, the economic effects of 1888 would be long lasting. The collapse of so many small businesses left oligopolies in charge of many industries, the wealthier firms having been able to absorb the worst shocks and then purchase their opponents at bargain prices. Chicherin saw little to be done on this, arguing it was the natural evolution of the market. He was helped by the fact that many of these new oligarchs proved to be supporters of the status quo.

[Spamage]

Breakthrough of the Left (1894-1900)
Feud of the Presidents (1894)
   Less than enamored with the performance of his successor, and finding the political sidelines to be rather dull, Aleksey Suvorin publicly announced he would be making another run for the presidency in 1894. Given his former popularity and role as the Great Redeemer, both the ex-President and most observers expected him to win easily and clear the field of any potential opponents.
   This would not be the case. Chicherin, enraged by the betrayal of his former patron, announced he too would be running for another term. The Suvorin movement, which had dominated Russian politics for decades, split. While most supporters remained with Suvorin, Chicherin drew off a sizable chunk of liberals and centrists. Many Russians, despite their admiration for former president, felt it was time to turn the page to new leadership. By 1894 Suvorin had been a major figure on the political scene for a quarter century, dating all the way back to when he had been appointed as President following the death of Menshikov in 1870. Coupled with the fact his last campaign had been twelve years prior in 1882, he was not the ironclad candidate that had been assumed. Indeed, a not insignificant portion of the electorate had never voted for him and reached voting age after his retirement.
   Without the state apparatus to support his campaign, Suvorin could do little as his legacy was questioned and savaged by all parties in relatively free discourse for the first time. Pobedonostev continued his anti-Semitic tirades and condemned Suvorin for his liberalization of Mother Russia. Mikhaylovsky and Chicherin placed the blame for the Panic of 1888 on Suvorin. Suvorin, for his part, denounced Chicherin as an incompetent failure, Mikhaylovsky as a radical ideologue, and Pobedonostev an old fossil unwilling to move on from the past. This last line of attack backfired though, reactionary newspapers openly asking if it was not Suvorin who was unable to move on, too addicted to power to contemplate a quiet retirement? The raucous and spirited campaign demonstrated how much Russia had liberalized over the past few decades. By 1894 very few had memories of the Empire, most citizens having been raised in the republican tradition.
   It became clear on election day that the unthinkable had occurred, Mikhaylovsky and the Leftist Alliance had achieved an extremely narrow victory over Suvorin, 33.17% of the vote against 32.84%. Chicherin mustered a mere 16.41% of the vote, Pobedonostev 12.34%, and Tolstoy 3.38%. With no constitutional rules regarding runoffs, victory merely went to the candidate with the most votes. For the first time since the birth of the republic, a left-wing social democrat would hold the reins of power. Whereas earlier in the Russian Republic, when the system was still fragile, this result likely would have been nullified, Chicherin demonstrated the new republican ethos by conceding and aiming to ensure a stable transition of government. Many cynical observers noted that he was likely unwilling to rig the close election in Suvorin’s favor due to the feud between the two.

President Nikolay Mikhaylovsky
(Source: Wikimedia)

Mikhaylovsky’s Years: Political Paralysis
   Mikhaylovsky entered office with an ambitious program of policy goals and a wave of optimism. It seemed like finally the reformers would have a true impact on the Russian Republic. Yet, the long-sought left-wing victory proved to be a hollow one for several reasons. First, without a majority in the Duma, Mikhaylovsky was left to rule through executive decree, somewhat curtailing his bid to establish lasting governmental reform. Second, within his left-wing coalition there was almost as much disagreement as there was in the political spectrum as a whole, meaning his ministers were prone to scheming, infighting, and frequent bickering. Still, even his rule through executive decree proved to leave a permanent mark on the Russian Republic.
   The governing coalition ranged from committed communists to moderate social-democrats. Even then, it had only won with a plurality of the vote and was deemed illegitimate in the eyes of many on the right. During the entire term, Mikhaylovsky himself would often face criticism from the left as much as the right. The more radical communist and syndicalist factions believed him to be a weak leader unwilling to take on the oligarchs and too beholden to the concept of private property. Social democrats meanwhile decried his extensive executive powers and sidelining of the unwieldy Duma.
   One of the primary avenues Mikhaylovsky could use to implement his agenda without control of the Duma was through funding of various government apparatuses. One of his first moves, in late 1894, was to drastically curtail spending on the municipal police forces in major cities. As a onetime candidate, he had been often on the receiving end of brutality on the part of Suvorinist-aligned police forces throughout the country. Even during the 1894 campaign, social-democratic and other left-wing rallies were often dispersed while right-wing ones went fairly undisturbed.
   Seeing the police force as a den of right-wing thought and potential subversives, the mass layoffs were accompanied by a reshuffling of leadership, left-wing allies replacing Suvorin and Chicherin’s appointees. The poor, seen as another victim of Suvorinist policing, were often hired as replacements for the removed officers, conveniently at cheaper wages. This whole reform of policing was portrayed by the president as an effort to further open up the Russian political system by restraining those who had used force to manipulate it in the past. Of course, it was not realized how much stability the sometimes-heavy-handed conservative police establishment brought to the republic, as would be demonstrated in the coming years.
   Mikhaylovsky himself was concerned with the poor masses, particularly the peasantry and urban paupers. Indeed, most of the funds cut off from the police or the freezing of the military budget were redirected unilaterally to restarting and expanding Suvorin’s old social programs. Many would rightfully credit the government for expanding public sanitation in Moscow, Kiev, Konstantingrad, and other cities. Electrical grids brought light to the darkness, demonstrating Russia would not be left behind. Likewise, the government pivoted once more into the credit business, using other funds to give low-interest loans to the rural poor, with the aim of expanding land ownership and weakening yet further the hold of the old elites.
   Diplomatically, the right and center would criticize Mikhaylovsky for perceived weakness. He stood idly by as Charles IX attempted to push through the Third Imperial Reform in 1897, even attending the emperor’s funeral in Vienna, causing widespread criticism from the right. As with the police, and especially without the support of the legislature, funds were redirected from the military to fund further social programs. This served a double purpose. Ever suspicious of the armed forces, which he feared would be the source of a coup against him, Mikhaylovsky used their money to try and but the loyalty of the masses. While Russia still maintained perhaps the single strongest military force, officers would be frustrated by with funding freezes and greater oversight. This truly represented a reversal for the standard role of the military in Russian politics, as all the way back to the days of Menshikov its dominant role had gone unquestioned.

Meeting of Nevsky Front, 1897
(Source: Wikimedia)

Escalating Rhetoric (1896-1900)
   The victory of Mikhaylovsky had longer term implications for the future of the Russian right-wing. For decades, those on the right had the choice of the reactionary monarchism of Pobedonostev and the mainstream established Suvorinist movement. To the upcoming generations neither movement elicited much excitement. Suvorinism, having long been the institutional power, saw itself shut out and marginalized by the very authoritarian system it had created. The movement looked weak as the neutered courts could do little to restrain Mikhaylovsky from his unilateralism. Pobedonostev meanwhile was seen as a Romanov fossil. Though undoubtedly there were those who shared his dreams of a restoration, most people had moved on.
   Instead, a newer and more assertive ideological strain emerged to challenge the consensus. Rabble-rouser Vladimir Purishkevich shocked the city of Moscow on June 5th, 1896 with the “Death of a Nation” speech, denouncing not only the incumbent government, but the Suvorinists as well for the state of Russia.
   Purishkevich portrayed the Russian nation as weakened by enemies within and without, condemning the elites for enriching themselves and playing politics while the Russian people suffered. There was a tacit of all things non-Russian, modernity and a relaxation of traditional values being blamed for the malaise. No topic was off limits. The socialists and communists were painted as internationalist graspers corrupted by Germanic thinking. The Romanovs were denounced as an inbred, incapable, and by this point a wholly non-Slavic family. Suvorin, the once sacrosanct ‘Great Redeemer’ was deemed a senile old conservative, well past his prime. Chicherin was a traitor to the working people, while Mikhaylovsky was weak. Purishkevich’s tirades elicited enthusiastic responses from those who felt ignored by the Russian government and had pent up their anger for years. Hundreds crowded into halls to hear him speak, electrifying the seemingly stagnant Russian right-wing.
   Purishkevich dubbed his movement the “Nevsky Front,” registering as an official political party in October 1896. This new movement had a wide variety of inspirations, both from within Russian history and around the world. Beyond the namesake Alexander Nevsky, Ivan the Terrible, Frederick IV of Prussia, Ahmed Muhtar Pasha were some of those who had the most decisive impact on the comportment and outlook of this new ideological strain. Looking back to an almost wholly mythological ideal Russian society, a muscular government was required both at home and abroad. In Russia, he condemned the socialists and liberals, arguing that their focus on petty issues such as free speech and constitutionalism had left Russia vulnerable to economic chaos. Further denunciations were reserved for the minority nationalities, who were condemned for resisting Russification. Diplomatically, he expressed great disdain for the Germanic powers of Austria, Scandinavia, Britain, and France (derisively called the ‘Frankish Realm’). They were seen as the subjugators of Slavs, home of subversive thinkers, and sources of Russian suffering in the past.
   This heated rhetoric only served to escalate the tense Russian political situation. Purishkevich found a strong opponent in Andrei Argunov, a member of the Duma who defended the government and often criticized Mikhaylovsky for not going far enough. Just as the right had grown more assertive as a result of the political reforms, so too did the left. Argunov led competing rallies and speeches, calling for the collectivization of rural lands, the institution of total suffrage for women and the other nationalities, and the breaking up of the corrupt oligarchies. He portrayed the Nevsky Front as a gang of failed brutes who knew only how to destroy.
   Scuffles at some of Purishkevich’s rallies saw an arms-race on the streets between various political gangs. By mid-1898, “Nevsky’s Sword” had been formed as an informal apparatus of Purishkevich’s movement, leading mob violence against leftists and disrupting rallies of political opponents. The left would not be silenced however, with Argunov himself tacitly organizing the creation of the “Red Guard.” With the police force throughout Russia weakened as a result of the 1894 reforms, many could do little but watch in horror as street fighting erupted during heated political periods.
   “Bloody Wednesday” in Konstantingrad on August 4th, 1897 illustrated the general tenor of the situation, though this incident was influenced by the unique situation in that city. Nevsky’s Sword interrupted a Greek nationalist political meeting in the morning, storming the political gathering in a pub and beating many attendees. The Greeks, denouncing the Russians as invaders fought back, blood in the streets. The police emerged trying to calm the situation, but found themselves overwhelmed by midday as tensions simmered. When the Red Front got involved with the factories breaking for lunch, the situation spiraled yet further. In Konstantingrad many members of the Red Front were Bulgarian immigrants who had migrated for the labor opportunities in the factories, looked down on by both the Greeks and Russians. Three-way street fighting only finally was brought to a halt in the mid-afternoon, the local garrison finally stirring itself and forcing the combatants to separate. By the time the fighting was concluded, at least a dozen were dead, most young men in their 20s. The worst perpetrators were arrested and most combatants returned home, ready to return to the struggle at the next sign of trouble. Whole neighborhoods identified themselves with one or the other various factions as tensions in the city continued to simmer.
   This situation was mirrored to a greater or lesser extent throughout most major cities in the republic. Though the standard of living in Russia had overall seldom been better, the political temperature was running hot in the 1890s. Political infighting and street battles would see vigilante justice and petty feuds erupt throughout the country. All the while Mikhaylovsky did little, himself committed to the ideals of free expression and wary of repressing political movements after having been on the receiving end of such suppression himself.

"Bloody Wednesday" in Konstantingrad, 1897
(Source: Made by Me, Via Midjourney)

1899: Russia at a Crossroads
   As Mikhaylovsky’s term wound down, Russia stood at a crossroads. Recognizing his unpopularity and fed up with the difficulty of governing, the president was quick to announce he would not be seeking reelection. His term had been controversial. While the economy was better than 1894 and social reforms had been restored, little legislative work had been achieved. Rival gangs terrorized political gatherings and the future looked uncertain. Both the right and left had assertive leaders aiming to disrupt the status quo, while the Suvorinists sought to reverse the error of 1894. With no incumbent on the ballot for the first time since the 1864 election, the world watched closely as the 1900 campaign began in earnest. From the far-right to the far-left, Russia never had experienced such an active and dynamic political situation.
   Among the mainstream Suvorinists, some initially whispered of a comeback for President Suvorin. Yet, by 1900 the ‘Great Redeemer’ had instead transferred his ambition onto his son Mikhail, who he hoped would ensure both a familial and political legacy. Campaigning on a mix of nostalgia, rationalism, and stability, Mikhail Suvorin emphasized restoring normalcy, punishing the extremists, and reasserting Russia’s republican role worldwide. Yet, he was also extremely close to many of the oligarchs who drew so much public ire.
   Yet, this Suvorinist movement was no longer the monolith it was in the past. Most of Chicherin’s embittered supporters, unable to forgive Suvorin for running in 1894, decided to back a more mainstream liberal candidate. Chicherin himself declined a chance to run, preferring a quiet retirement to more hectic governance. Pavel Milyukov, the former Finance Minister under Chicherin would prove to be the liberal candidate. Milyukov argued for rational political reforms aimed at creating a more sustainable political situation, including the weakening of the Presidency and transfer of some of the extensive executive powers to the Duma and the judiciary. He wanted progressive domestic reforms, including the elimination of the literacy requirement for suffrage and greater civilian participation in government.
   To little surprise Purishkevich launched a bid for the Russian presidency as well, vowing to sort out the Russian Republic once and for all. He claimed to have plans that would get the people working, eliminate domestic poverty, and bring even greater glory than Suvorin to the nation. Fiery speeches denounced the Jews, conservatives, Germans, and the capitalist elites. He vowed a crackdown on all subversives should he be elected and vowed to bring politics in Russia back into line.
   Those reactionaries who could not stomach the Nevsky Front put forth their own long-shot candidate. Yet again perennial candidate Pobedonostev put his hat in the ring, arguing the instability plaguing Russia was the natural conclusion of the anti-Theist Russian Republic. Only be restoring the natural political order and the czar could Russia prosper once more.
   With Mikhaylovsky choosing retirement, Argunov easily swept up most of the left. Denouncing Purishkevich and Suvorin in visceral language, he pushed for a leftward turn in Russia. Promising to implement his total program if elected, regardless of the status of the Duma, Argunov aimed to complete what Mikhaylovsky had so tepidly started. No amount of establishment resistance or complacency would get in his way. While this alienated many social democrats, it re-energized further left elements. Argunov called for a Second Russian Revolution to finish the work of the first. Whereas the toppling of the Romanovs had created political openness and reform, Argunov sought to topple the establishment to enact social reform. Only by remaking and reforming Russian society did he believe it could function in the modern world.
   With such a wide potential of outcomes, the world waited with bated breath for the upcoming 1900 election, convinced it would be crucial in determining the future direction of the Republic.

[Spamage]

France: An Autocratic Drift

Versailles, the Heart of the French Monarchy, 1900
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The Later Regency (1877-1880)
   With the conclusion of the War of the Regency, many Frenchmen expected society to return to normal. This would not be the case. Emboldened by her victory over the Blues, Charlotte as regent gained confidence in the autocratic system of government she had fashioned. Though she would not make any constitutional changes herself, it was clear the direction she wanted to go. The volatile reactionary-socialist alliance that had seen her through the war would continue. The elections of 1877 were delayed with the approval of the National Assembly, the Queen Regent using the ongoing war in India as an excuse.
   People were not blind to what was occurring and the heavy-handed nature of the government did receive pushback. Adolphe Thiers, who had been an instrumental liberal Prime Minister back in the days of Marie Fernandina’s regency for Louis XIX, penned a public critique of the government in 1878, signed by dozens of former ministers across the political spectrum. He urged for new elections, stating that the state of emergency had passed. Indeed, not holding the vote was seen by Thiers as a betrayal of the Peace of Sevres. While the conflict in India was dire, the former Prime Minister correctly pointed out that the subcontinent had never held the right to suffrage, so the vote ought to be able to proceed unmolested in France proper. Thiers was particularly frank in his analysis of the current situation. Charlotte’s policies were publicly denounced as “ideologically incoherent” while the legislature was “filled by brutes, idiots, and lickspittles.”
   Thiers’ dramatic statement did attract broad attention in France, with many former Blues tacitly voicing their support of his analysis. Yet, Charlotte and the government refused to bend. In response to “unpatriotic drivel issued by cheap rags,” the assembly drafted and enacted the “Sedition Act” prohibiting statements hostile to either the Crown or itself, a sign that old rights were slowly eroding. Charlotte was all too happy to sign the bill into law in her role as regent. When protests erupted against the Sedition Act, they were brutally suppressed, demonstrators framed as foreign subversives under the employ of republican Russia. Given the Katona Affair, it was not a wholly unbelievable claim. These claims would be used to bolster the size and strength of the French police forces, now used to keep the subjects in line.
   In any case, men such as Thiers found themselves on the outside looking in. Charlotte and later Louis XX had no intention of returning to the ‘Golden Days’ of Maria Fernandina. In defiance of public opinion, the general state of emergency was extended further. The vote was postponed again in 1878, before being halted indefinitely in 1879. Even after peace had been restored in the Congress of Copenhagen, still the elections remained for an indeterminate time in the future. While the promise of an eventual vote was maintained, Charlotte argued that it would only be suitable to do so after her son had reached his majority.
   The government sought to overshadow the trampling of suffrage with a massive investment in reconstruction and domestic improvement. In papers loyal to Charlotte, her actions were portrayed as those of a loving regent trying to restore the French nation both physically and spiritually. Any damage in France proper from the War of the Regency was quickly repaired. Indeed, oftentimes the new constructions employed modern methods, resulting in more efficient and durable infrastructure in some locations that prior to the war. Still, while buildings could easily be repaired, it would take far longer to reconcile the two feuding halves of the French nation.  

King Louis XX, 1889
(Made by me via Midjourney)

The Most Christian King (1880-1900)
The Eclipse of Charlotte (1880-1885)
    Louis XX’s early years after he was declared of age in 1880 were largely ones of continuity. Indeed, it seemed to most observers that France yet again would have a weak king beholden to the wishes of his strongest advisors. Charlotte, as a fiercely protective and loving mother, was loathe to give up her control over the government. Yet, young Louis XX was rather different than his father. He would increasingly grow more assertive in politics and diplomacy, cultivating his own style and policies as sovereign. For the first time in forty years, back when King Louis XVIII had been assassinated, France would have a powerful and politically active king. The young Louis would leave his mark on the realm, inspired by none other than Louis XIV, his distant progenitor.
   Louis was tutored as a child by Jean-Joseph Gaume, an ultra-conservative theologian who argued that the Renaissance as the primary source of evil in the modern world. Gaume instilled both a religious fervor and a sense of destiny in his young ward. Coupled with Charlotte’s example of ruling with an iron will, the new sovereign developed absolutist tendencies wedded to Catholic fanaticism. These had only been cemented further when the moderates had attempted to supplant his mother during the War of the Regency. His philosophy was not too dissimilar to King Antonio II of Portugal in the 1830s, though Louis was far less inclined to the quasi-republican displays used by that king. Fundamentally, the political outlook of Louis was of a glorious sovereign leading a good people. It was his responsibility to ensure the well-being and happy lives of his subjects against the conniving intermediaries such as the noble, capitalist, and mercantile classes.
  In the early 1880s, the King continued to generally govern in line with his mother’s views, though he gradually incorporated other advisors so he could get alternative opinions. Charlotte’s policies in regards to Anatolia and Africa were implemented from 1880-1882. Yet, her first failure would be the King’s temporary decision to dismiss her close ally and Minister of War Georges Ernest Boulanger in May 1883 over a heated cabinet debate where the King felt insulted. Though Boulanger was reinstated by the midsummer with the connivance of Charlotte, the King had shown he was not to be defied.
   The eclipse of Charlotte as the primary political force in France occurred in 1885. The eighteen-year-old sovereign determined it was time to find a wife. Charlotte pushed for Louis to marry her niece, Princess Wilhelmina of Quebec. The King was reluctant however, privately noting that the marriage would just serve to prolong his mother’s control at Court. Instead, he sent private feelers to Vienna in order to do the unthinkable.
   In a bid to unite the feuding Blues and Whites once and for all, young Louis XX decided to wed his second cousin Anna of Bourbon-Savoie, the daughter of Amadeus and granddaughter of the late Prince Xavier. The House of Bourbon-Savoie had lived in a de facto state of exile following the conclusion of the War of the Regency, enjoying the hospitality of their relations in Vienna. Yet, Amadeus yearned for home. Despite their sympathies, it was clear the Habsburg Court was willing to do little to advance his cause. The prospect of mending ties with the senior branch of the royal family at this point was just too tempting to resist. Louis promised the Blues reintegration into French society, and even the return of confiscated estates, in exchange for the marriage and a public affirmation of loyalty.
   The announcement of the betrothal on March 15th, 1885 jolted the realm. In a public address distributed throughout France, Louis pledged his undying love to his fiancée. Vowing that their wedding would reconcile France and heal the wounds of the past, he concluded by stating, “Today we are all Whites, today we are all Blues. We must stand united as one People before God.”
   None was more shocked than the Queen Mother, who had been unaware of her son’s negotiating. In one fell stroke, Louis XX demonstrated Charlotte no longer was in command. Despite reportedly falling into a rage upon hearing of the announcement, she knew her authority had been irretrievably undermined. That very afternoon Charlotte made a show of deference to her son, congratulating him on his proposal and reaffirming her loyalty to him. She would no longer be an independent source of authority in French politics, but remained determined to be one of her son’s closest advisors, a role she would take to quite easily. Charlotte stood by her son’s side with unswerving loyalty throughout the remainder of the nineteenth century.
   The formal marriage on July 15th, 1885 was celebrated in the Cathedral of Notre Dame, a mass show of royal pomp accompanied with grand ceremonies. It was a propaganda victory for the young sovereign, crowds cheering both Louis and his wife Anna of Bourbon-Savoie. Though Charlotte and Amadeus eyed one another warily throughout the ceremony, they were forced by the King to formally join hands during the wedding banquet, a sign of mended ties. Unlike as had been the case with Charlotte, there would be no fertility issues for the new queen. Anna gave birth to the Dauphin Louis in 1886, followed by three other surviving children through 1895. Though many commoners who backed the Blue cause remained wary of King Louis XX, the royal wedding had eliminated most of the Blue noble leadership, who now fell in line and compromised with the regime.

Marriage of Louis XX and Anna de Bourbon-Savoie, 1885
(Made by Me via Midjourney)

Colonial Ventures (1882-1889)
   In India, after the Congress of Copenhagen, the most important policy was reform. The reoccupation of Delhi saw King Louis proclaimed the ‘Emperor of India’. The newly-minted King-Emperor was convinced that previous French rulers had been too soft on the subcontinent. What had French leniency to the Princely States achieved? Most Indians had stood aside during the Durrani invasion, refusing to involve themselves in the hope that French India would crumble on its own.
   Several new policies were instituted. Some of the former Princely States that had been occupied in their entirety by the Durrani but returned to France in the Congress of Copenhagen (Jodphur and Pune) would not be reconstituted. Instead, their lands were absorbed into direct Crown ownership. Louis then used this new influx of Crown territories to win back over the loyalty of the reintegrated Blues. Former rebel leaders were offered vast estates in India, potential sources of great wealth, tying them to the regime and system they had fought to overthrow. In the surviving Princely States, France was given expanded economic and taxation rights. All polities had to agree to abide by France’s diplomatic direction in the future and to sever trade with external powers.
   Within the regions that had been untouched by the war, the King ordered a general confiscation of lands from anyone who had shown disloyalty to his government during the War of the Regency and the Durrani-Mysore invasion. Locals who had remained indifferent or supportive of the regime were allowed to continue unmolested. While there was undoubtedly extensive abuse, neighbor accusing neighbor in an attempt to expand their own holdings, the overall result severely weakened any separatist cause in India. The French Raj had endured.
   French Africa meanwhile had largely been a theoretical concept for decades. Beyond outposts at Senegal and Dahomey, Paris had for decades shown itself uninterested in the continent dating back to the 18th century. While that seemed to have changed with the Stockholm Conference in 1871, granting France claims on Algiers, the War of the Regency and subsequent Durrani-Mysore War had distracted the government and prevented any follow up on instituting French rule in Africa. Yet, the disruption of the Suez and the ensuing difficulties of supply in India had underscored the importance of having alternative modes of transport.
   Charlotte took the first step in making good on French claims with the Treaty of Rabat, gaining title to former Ottoman Morocco on the condition that Nadir Pasha’s soldiers emerged victorious in the Turkish Civil War. When this proved to be the case in 1882, Morocco passed formally to French rule on August 16th. Louis XX, conscious of the extended local resistance and seeking to channel the image of the ‘benevolent Emperor’, elected to restore the deposed Alawi dynasty as Kings of Morocco under a French protectorate. Arafa bin Muhammad, the son of the slain Muhammad IV, was reinstated as leader in the region, simultaneously pledging his fealty to King Louis XX, declaring his realm fell under French jurisdiction, and ceding diplomatic and political functions to France. France also extracted most of the Mediterranean coast from its new puppet, using the strip of land to clearly counter the Habsburgs stationed at Gibraltar.
   While the most zealous Moroccan nationalists continued to express themselves outraged, the majority of Moroccan society at this point saw French rule as preferable to life as either a Turkish or Prussian colony. It was clear their state could no longer survive on its own given the imperialistic bent of nearby powers. More than a decade of military invasion and occupation made many merely desire to be left in peace, France’s fairly light hand in domestic affairs being appreciated.
   Yet, events in Morocco were merely a prelude to Louis’ designs. When the Qajar-Ottoman War erupted in 1887, thereby distracting the two major Islamic powers, France decided to make good on its claims to Algiers. Denouncing that state as a “den of pirates, heathens, and slavery,” Louis declared war on the Regency of Algiers and launched a well-prepared strike.
   Lacking any foreign backing, and overwhelmed by a substantial pre-planned French campaign, the Algerian army stood no chance. Their token navy was swept from the Mediterranean within the first month, allowing for French bombardment of their primarily coastal cities. Within weeks the capital had fallen to a landing party, while Tlemcen and Oran collapsed in the face of a French offensive from Morocco. There were allegations on the ground that the French forces had employed poison gas against the Algerians, though there could not be corroborated in the chaotic invasion.
   The initial French Conquest of Algeria lasted until 1889, when the Dey surrendered. Although resistance continued to simmer further out into the Sahara, for the most part fighting ceased and Paris pivoted to sending aid to the Ottomans. The relatively rapid collapse of the Regency of Algiers was greeted with praise among many Christian powers, even the Habsburgs reluctantly sending congratulations through gritted teeth. The last of the old Barbary States had fallen, North Africa in its entirety colonized by France, Naples, the Ottomans, and Scandinavia.
   Domestically, Louis used his victory to further cement his control over France. The King was portrayed as a military genius, one who would bring back France’s golden age as sole superpower. Those who had questioned his decision-making in the leadup to the Algerian War were fired or sidelined, loyalists filling the ranks of the general’s staff. Looking further afield, Louis ordered his generals to use the lessons of the conflict for any potential reconquest of Mysore or operations against the Durrani, though no action would be taken on neither front before the turn of the century.

Catholic Services of Thanksgiving Celebrated in Conquered Algiers, 1889
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Forging a New France (1885-1899)
Further Reform (1885-1890)
   The 1880s would also see continued encroachment on the traditional rights of the French that had been guaranteed by Louis XVIII. Newspapers were forced to register with the government in 1883, with those seen as hostile being denied licenses. This was extended to publishing houses the following year. Political debate and frank discussion gradually gave way to a general parroting of the royal line.
   Charlotte’s government, especially after the eruption of the War of the Regency, had been extremely authoritarian. Yet, not the sovereign herself, the Queen Regent was always somewhat personally hesitant to make any permanent lasting alterations to the constitutional order of France. Her son had no such compunctions. As King, Louis saw himself as uniquely suited to reorganizing both the French political and social systems. French from his victory in the Algerian War, the King finally felt he had the domestic authority to push through another round of reforms to the system.
   The Crown interfered further in the schools, injecting a hyper-royalist curriculum into the parochial education system. Students were taught that they owed utter obedience to the king, who had been appointed to rule by God himself. It was the duty of the King to protect the common classes from intermediaries seeking to do them harm, such as cruel nobles and lazy capitalists. Louis XX incorporated many of his own tutor Gaume’s teachings, the Renaissance and Enlightenment being portrayed as evil perversions of Christendom. In the long run, the radical teachings would instill a good deal of loyalty to the regime and its ideology among the French youth. Though, as always, there was dissent among some, a majority seemed convinced by the doctrine. These would be the young men who would start to staff the army and fill administrative roles in the government.
   Economically, the War of the Regency had been a convenient excuse for expanding government control over industry. In order to appease the socialist factions in the coalition, Louis XX formally codified and expanded this in 1885 with the Loyalty Act, forcing new companies to give the government a significant stake in ownership. Operations deemed more essential, such as coal mining and weapons manufacturing, were wholly nationalized. It was war on the capitalist class, who objected fiercely to the laws passed one after another through the rump, rubber-stamp assembly. Workers were granted rights to unionize and extensive safety regulations were implemented, though in practice these lofty rights were not always put into full effect. While private economic activity still continued in most industries, it was a significant step away from the previous capitalist outlook of the French state.
   Keen to underscore his virtues, and resettle the Netherlands while he was at it, Louis XX also undermined the religious situation in that conquered region. France had generally become a more tolerant state during the reign of Louis XVIII earlier in the 19th century, but now there was a fierce Catholic backlash. The King formally banned the construction of new Calvinist churches in 1889, following it up with mandatory Catholic education for the Dutch youth in 1891. French settlers were brought into the cities, taking up administrative jobs as well as positions in the universities. Every effort was made to bring the Dutch to heel.
   Many Dutchmen, proud of their nation’s historical Calvinist resistance, chose to emigrate to New Holland or North America rather than suffer such indignities. The Dutch countryside was gradually sapped of manpower in many areas due to so many numerous departures, population stagnating or even mildly declining. Anti-French protests that erupted in many cities were brutally suppressed, rebel leaders facing imprisonment or summary execution. Only the continued heavy military occupation prevented the situation from escalating. The King ruled by terror in the Netherlands, hoping that such policies would finally end the perennial unrest in that area.

[Spamage]

Erosion of the Constitutional Charter of the French (1885-1888)
   The Assembly elected in 1872 had been seated for 14 years by the time Louis XX felt he had a free hand in regards to government reform. It was a rump body; the liberals and conservatives having exited at the start of the War of the Regency and not been allowed back after peace had been declared. Without any moderating influence, the reactionary-socialist National Assembly had been cowed first by the Queen Regent, then by her son. It had been this group of legislators that had stifled free speech with the Sedition Act in 1877 and Registration Act of 1883, combated capitalist ownership with the Loyalty Act in 1885, and force-fed the children of France propaganda from 1886 on. The reactionaries tended to find themselves inclined to heed royal leadership, while the socialists were given just enough concessions to keep them in line. Yet, by 1886 it was clear the situation was becoming untenable. Resignations and deaths had created numerous vacancies in the body with no mechanic for replacing vacancies other than new elections, which the Crown continued to delay. This was coming at the same time ideological debates threatened at long last to rupture the governing coalition.
   Dating back to the War of the Regency and the Reactionary-Socialist engineered by Queen Charlotte, there had been two lines of thought among French socialists. Some saw cooperation with the Crown as a necessary evil, yet remained republican in essence. Their support for Charlotte, and later Louis, was predicated on social concessions but remained at its core an alliance of convenience. The Republican Socialist faction in France pointed to ample criticism of Charlotte’s ideological program by Marx himself before his death in 1883. Marx had decried Charlotte’s rule as what he saw as “bastardized, feudal socialism” as an attempt by the ruling class to co-opt the proletariat against the bourgeoise for their own self-preservation. By the turn of the century Georges Clemenceau was seen by many as the most prominent members in the republican socialist camp.
   Yet, other socialists saw the monarchy itself as the sole unifying source in France and believed that only through it could true, lasting social revolution be achieved. Wedding ultra-monarchism to socialist thought, they enthusiastically backed the Crown, so long as reform seemed on the table. Under the guidance of Louis Blanqui, who served loyally on the Conseil du Roi, the royalist socialists remained firmly behind the King. It was their support for a strong, unquestioned sovereign that led the Blanquists to become fervent defenders of Louis and rivals of the Republican Socialists, who they viewed as impractical idealists.
   Charlotte kept both factions in line, even during times of turbulence such as the invasion of the Netherlands, through concerted concessions in favor of worker’s rights. These won her time and ensured fundamental difference of opinion had remained merely theoretical given the turbulence of the civil war. Yet, as the years passed, many Republican Socialists began to openly question and condemn the continuing cooperation with Louis and Charlotte, especially so long after the crisis had ceased. The Queen Regent’s redistribution of Indian lands to noble families, along with the continued colonialism, undermined their support for her government. So too were various factions disgusted over the repeated delay of elections, given the crisis had clearly passed. The Loyalty Act of 1885 proved to be the last major piece of legislation backed by both socialist camps.
   The Socialist Divorce, as the events of 1889 were dubbed, saw a lasting break in that bloc that would endure the remainder of the century. It would also prove to be the first step in utterly destroying the old constitutional order in France.
   The spark was minor. When Jean Jaurès, a republican socialist, was denied a renewal of his newspaper license over veiled critiques of the government, he continued to print illicitly. His critiques of the government became far less tacit in the new publications. It was only a matter of time before the police caught on. His arrest and subsequent trial in 1887 attracted widespread attention, even if the coverage of them was slanted by the pro-government bent of his fellow journalists. Clemenceau felt honor-bound to defend one of his ideological allies, privately urging for leniency and publicly calling for a fair trial. This contrasted greatly with the attitude of the Blanquist faction, which called on harsh punishment for one who would question the crown’s authority to carry out reform. When Jaurès saw himself imprisoned for 10 years, Clemenceau was furious. Enough was enough.
   The fact that there was a break in the socialist faction of the National Assembly was apparent almost immediately, the blocs beginning to meet separately in the fallout of the Jaurès Affair in 1889. Louis XX was initially pleased by this, believing that if the ideologues were debating each other, they would be less inclined to challenge royal authority. What he hadn’t realized was how far Clemenceau planned to go. The republican socialist leader resolved to challenge to the royal dictatorship from within, privately maneuvering his supporters in the assembly. He would rally his faction behind a plan to force through new elections, in the belief that Louis would back down if the Nation Assembly proved defiant. Given the fact that the mainstream liberals and conservatives still found themselves locked out of power, it was believed that the extensive public pressure would be too much for the young king to oppose. Not trusting the Blanquists, he decided instead to cultivate ties among similarly disaffected legislators from the reactionary side of the coalition.
   Discontent with the reactionary-socialist system existed on the right as well. While many reactionaries felt a divine sense of duty to follow the whims of the king, the degree to which social reforms had been pushed through caused alarm in some circles. As with the left, by the late 1880s the reactionary cause was fracturing between governmental loyalists and those willing to push back against the regime, though the dividing line was far less clear. Of those loyal to the government, men such as Henri Vaugeois, Georges Boulanger, and George de Villebois-Mareuil led the more ideological, loyalist camp. Though they may have disagreed with some of the Crown’s socialist leanings, they fully supported the established government and its role in preserving order.
   The less loyal reactionaries generally came from the nobility, including some of the Princes of the Blood. These men, independently wealthy, disliked the vilification they had received on the part of the government’s propaganda. Those that had used their wealth to invest in business activities likewise felt their livelihood was under threat by a greedy sovereign. Despite having remained loyal to Charlotte during the War of the Regency, it was agreed by the less zealous reactionaries that she had turned on them in victory. Philip de Bourbon-Brittany, the Duke of Brittany and grandson of the beloved Marie Fernandina, was the most publicly dissatisfied. Despite the cowed nature of the National Assembly, he had loudly voted in opposition to the Loyalty Act of 1885. He was joined by many others who, despite their far-right political leanings, could only stomach so much royal absolutism when they disagreed with it.

Georges Clemenceau and Philip de Bourbon-Brittany
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Coup of 1890
   It was to the lukewarm reactionaries Clemenceau extended an olive branch in early 1890. Following private negotiations with Philip of Brittany, it was agreed that return for reactionary support of new elections, the Republican Socialists would support a repeal of the detested Loyalty Act. According to the private counts of the plotters, they had a clear majority. In essence the two sides had fully committed to humiliating the King and bringing an end to the by now 18-year-old legislative session. Not wholly naïve, privately former caches of Blue weapons throughout France were distributed among those deemed loyal to their cause. It was hoped that between a legislative majority and an armed force, the extremists would be brought to heel.
   Yet, this juncture proved to be fatal for the attempted coup. As previously stated, the reactionaries were less concretely divided than the socialists and all it took was one defector to bring down the whole conspiracy. It was Charles François Marie, the Duke of Harcourt, that ratted out the conspiracy to Charlotte several weeks in advance. The Queen Mother naturally informed the King, who decided to act preemptively. A week before the plotters planned to introduce the Electoral Act in the National Assembly, Louis pounced.
   Extremely early in the morning of June 5th, 1890 a wave of mass arrests erupted throughout France. The streets of Paris were filled with clamor as major supporters of the plot were dragged from their homes. King Louis was personally present at the arrest of the Duke of Brittany, condemning his cousin for his disloyalty and lack of faith. In other cities throughout the country, those in possession of the Blue weapons were either arrested or, in the event they resisted, summarily executed. Publicly Louis announced that he had thwarted a “Satanic Coup”. The plotters, he stated, were attempting to topple the age-old French monarchy and replace it with an oligarchic republic run by the well-to-do. Despite their aims having been technically legal, Louis ignored this and argued the plotters had committed “treason of the heart.”
   Clemenceau himself managed to escape, his servants having held the door closed long enough to allow him to sneak out the side and into the city. He quietly crossed the Imperial frontier the next day, resurfacing in Cologne where he vocally condemned the tyranny of the King. Eventually he made his way to Britain, where he would smuggle tacit denunciations of Louis XX into France from across the Channel.

Suppression of the Coup of 1890
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Purge of the Traitors (1890-1893)
   The National Assembly, now numbering merely in the dozens after the king had crushed the Coup of 1890, convened the very next day. It was the rump of a rump. Louis himself took charge of the proceedings, using the Royal Guard to seal the deputies in the chamber until his whole agenda had been enacted. The King went yet further in his pursuit of the reactionary-socialist ideology. Issuing a tirade against “traitors” and “agents of Satan”, he demanded action. A siege mentality took hold. Louis portrayed himself at war with the irreconcilable Republican Socialists and the traditionalist capitalist nobles at once. In essence, Reactionary Socialism was under siege from both the right and the left. Ignored was the fact that the “traitors” had hitherto fore bought into the government’s program.
   Determined to end the attrition in the National Assembly without having to hold an election, the body adopted the “Royal Appointment Act,” which allowed the King to fill any vacancies. This was coupled with a simultaneous expulsion of all those caught up in the Coup of 1890. Within hours more than a hundred new deputies were sworn in, filling not only the recently vacated seats, but those that had been emptied at the start of the War of the Regency in 1872 as well. What had been a technically independent body overnight became yet another royal apparatus. Notably, some former Blue delegates who had since come into the royal fold found themselves instated, a move meant to demonstrate that the old dividing lines in French society were no longer relevant. Now there was no question of elections being held anytime soon.
    Punishment was the next order of business. All nobles that had been arrested had their lands seized and broken up and the affected bourgeoise saw their companies handed over to their workers. Republicanism meanwhile was formally outlawed, the government expanding “Sedition Act” yet further to encompass all sorts of speech deemed disloyal or treacherous. The courts were circumvented, the National Assembly instead officially proscribing those that had just been arrested with arbitrary sentences. Clemenceau was sentenced to death in absentia, while Philip de Bourbon-Brittany was stripped of the title, removed as a noble, and imprisoned for life.
   Public reaction was mixed. The opposition now not only consisted of the former Blues, but now republican socialists and moderate reactionaries as well. Yet, in the face of the Crown’s authority many found themselves powerless. The initial wave of arrests to preempt the Coup of 1890 was followed by a broader sweep through society. Professors critical of the King, nobles, bad managers, and former Blue veterans were among those caught up in following crackdowns. The opposition was driven underground, a tacit resistance network quietly establishing itself in many cities. Some, like Clemenceau, fled the country, surfacing in Britain, Scandinavia, or Naples, where they spewed hate against the King. Others, deep in hopelessness, made peace with the regime. Filled with apathy, a good portion of French society found it simply safer to become apolitical. They followed the example of the king’s in-laws in the House of Bourbon-Savoie, who stood silent during the crackdowns, a tacit endorsement of the king’s methods.
   This is not to say the King was without genuine support. Louis’ enforcement of his social reforms endeared him to the urban workers, while his further breaking up of noble estates won friends in the countryside. The French Church had by at this point become fully in-tune with the Crown’s goal, using the Catholic message to promote anti-capitalist sentiment and yet simultaneously emphasize the divine right of the King. The upcoming generation that had been force-fed royalist propaganda largely fell in line, as did radicals in the intelligentsia either on the right or left. The police and armed forces were kept loyal by pay increases.

Absolute Rule (1893-1899)
   Louis initially seemed content to halt his authoritarian creep there, but his hand was forced to go yet further. The French Resistance, as an underground, diverse network of opponents to the regime dubbed itself, demonstrated its strength with a wave of successful assassinations in 1893. Georges Boulanger, long instrumental in both Charlotte’s and Louis’ governments, was killed by a thrown explosive. Eugene Baudin, a socialist serving as Minister of the Interior, was found dead in the Seine. Reports emerged midyear of an aborted attempt on the life of the King himself, causing a genuine groundswell of public support for the sovereign.
   Exploiting his support and feeling secure in his position, the King at long last announced the withdrawal of the Constitutional Charter of the French. While showing reverence to his great-grandfather King Louis XVIII, in a public statement Louis XX declared that the previous century had only shown how much damage constitutional experiments could cause. France had become riven with politicking, while those unwilling to accept electoral defeat resorted to violence and assassination. “A document cannot be the basis of the French Nation, that role is solely reserved for the King and for God himself.” The National Assembly was renamed the “Royal Council,” halved in size, and any shred of legislative power in it was nullified.
  Unshackled domestically, the king also spent the 1890s settling old scores. Within France, the “Sons of St. Louis” was established, effectively a paramilitary domestic force for enacting the will of the King. Thousands of loyal Frenchmen were given military training, generous stipends, and ideological instruction. Well-armed and feared even by the local police, the group became quite violent. Numerous prisons were stormed, leading to the murder of many of those arrested after the Coup of 1890. The most notorious instance was the brutal killing of Philip of Brittany, an act condemned all through Europe. The King professed himself shocked, giving himself the veneer of innocence, all the while allowing the group to operate unmolested. There were several attempts on the life of the exiled Clemenceau, though they were ultimately unsuccessful.
   Their actions extended further, however. Employers deemed to be abusive found themselves targeted, as did nobles who chose to remain on their estates rather than serve the King in Versailles. The Sons of St. Louis acted as a surveillance system, their presence on streetcorners throughout the realm ensuring compliance. When faced with open or subtle resistance, they often resorted to extrajudicial beatings or killings. Vocal conservatives, liberals, and even committed Catholic-Republicans ofttimes would go missing. In instances where murder was deemed too radical a solution, many deemed sympathetic to the resistance were shipped off to labor camps in the countryside where they worked the fields held in the public trust.
   Yet, the realm seemed seldom economically more stable. For in addition to the campaign of terror, France found itself unscathed by the Panic of 1888, which it denounced as the result of ‘capitalist excess.’ Propaganda emphasized extensive French support for the downtrodden at the same time Suvorin and Chicherin were cutting benefits in the east. Through a combination of colonial exploitation (pro-socialist legislation almost always excluded India and the other French colonies), planned economic activity, and economic engagement with Brazil, the French economy showed great resilience through the 1890s.
   Europe as a whole looked at developments in France with unease. Despite a shared monarchical bent, the populace of Britain, Scandinavia, and the Habsburg Monarchy were all shocked by the radical agenda championed by the French Crown. Republics, such as Russia and Switzerland, were appalled at the curtailing of suffrage. While most would have preferred to isolate France and allow its domestic developments to operate in a vacuum, King Louis demonstrated his realm was not to be ignored. Convinced of domestic support he nearly entered war with the Habsburg Monarchy during the June Crisis in 1897. An able diplomatic player, thousands of hours were spent wondering about the king’s motives.

Sons of Saint Louis Patrol Streets of Paris, 1898
(Source: Made by me via Midjourney)

France at the Turn of the Century
   By the end of the nineteenth century, Louis rules absolute, any formal political opposition to his rule having been eliminated. While the kingdom entered the nineteenth century on the cusp of constitutional monarchism, it exits having revered back to the divine right of kings. Yet, this is not the France of Louis XIV or XV. A vast web of surveillance and repression rules the day, chilling the opposition. The Sons of Saint Louis stalk the streets, an omnipresent demonstration of royal authority. France seems stable to most observers, though with no electoral outlet like Scandinavia, Russia, or the Habsburg Monarchy, the true opinion of the public is an enigma. Many wonder whether the populace genuinely buys into the King’s reactionary-socialist agenda, or is merely parroting the King’s pronouncements so they can be left alone?

[Spamage]

Republic of Brazil: Spreading the Good Word

Catholic Procession on the Streets of São Paulo, 1892
(Source: Wikimedia)

Antônio de Macedo Costa (1878-1891)
Triumph of the Hardliners (1878-1885)
   Archbishop-President Manuel Joaquim da Silveira died on February 5th, 1878 after a rule lasting a decade. Under his leadership Brazil had eliminated the last remnants of the old Spanish Empire from South America, expanded the influence of Catholic Republicanism through direct intervention in Spain, and formalized Brazilian control over Central Africa. It was a respectable legacy, placing him among the likes of Andrade in the Brazilian national mythos.
   With the bishops converging on Sao Paolo, the two camps of Reformists and Andradist Hardliners yet again struggled for the Archbishop-Presidency. Yet, after a decade of Silveira and the appointment of loyalist bishops, the Reformists found themselves on the backfoot. Bishop Antônio de Macedo Costa of Bahia was elected on the third ballot with a majority. Costa had been a relatively minor in Silveira’s government, but was noted for his rigid enforcement of Catholic-Republican doctrine. Thus, the new government would be portrayed as a fresh start, even if it was doubling down on the same old policies.

Schism of the Catholic Republics (1882-1900)
   It was perhaps inevitable, given the victory of the Brazilian Andradists following the death of Silveira, that tensions with Bogota would only continue to increase. Many Brazilian officials looked on the liberalization of that state with disdain and refused to entertain the possibility of reform in Brazil proper. An open breach did not occur until 1884, though, with the death of Colombian Archbishop-President Vicente Arbeláez Gómez. His prior cooperation with Brazil in both the Spanish Civil War and the Conquest of Spanish South America had been enough to preserve the semblance of unity.
   His successor, Archbishop-President Críspulo Uzcátegui of Colombia, officially ended any military cooperation with Brazil on August 7th, 1885, denouncing the authoritarianism of Costa and the Brazilian clergy. Brazil responded in kind by denouncing Uzcátegui as a heretic, withdrawing all ambassadorial staff, and placing an embargo on Colombian goods. Colombia followed with its own counter-embargo just days later. This open breach, unprecedented in the history of the Catholic Republican movement, would see the ideological bloc shatter due to the infighting.
   The other Catholic-Republican powers rushed to take sides. Colombia was backed by the Philippines, Haiti, and the Spanish Union. These were the regimes that tended to have a less doctrinaire approach to Catholic Republicanism, either due to secular leadership (Spain, Haiti) or liberalization (Colombia, the Philippines). They united under the banner of the ‘Holy League’, an intercontinental defensive alliance. Brazil, besides its two sister republics of Cisplatina and the Parana, was backed by the ultra-hardline La Plata and the Braganza radical monarchy in Portugal. This grouping dubbed themselves the ‘Divine Union’ in order to contrast with their onetime allies.
   The external world reacted with surprise to the schism, but foreign powers rushed to respond. Colombian overtures to Quebec and Louisiana were rebuffed, Montreal focused on their rivalry in the Pacific. Britain however, still hostile to the Francophone powers in North America, offered expanded economic ties and a pact of non-aggression. British mediation later would see the Holy League’s ties restored with both Scandinavia and the Habsburg Monarchy. Colombia was often portrayed as the ‘safe’ Catholic-Republican faction compared to the more doctrinaire Brazil.
   Louis XX used the split to cultivate a friendship with Brazil. The two powers had little areas where they were in direct competition and a friendly Brazil was seen as a needed ally for an increasingly isolated France. Paris and Sao Paulo signed the Treaty of Bahia in 1886, which saw tariffs lowered and a general pact of cooperation. Brazilian timber and rubber would prove crucial in supplying French factories in the coming years. France was willing to overlook Brazil’s anti-monarchist bent and vice versa, the two powers emphasizing their shared Catholicism in the Treaty of Bahia.

Antônio de Macedo Costa, 1885
(Source: Wikimedia)

Expansion of the Mission States (1878-1891)
   Despite preaching a utopian ideology at home and implementing numerous protections of the common people, the Brazilian government was rapacious towards its African colonies, perhaps moreso than any other power. Archbishop-President Costa branded the holdings as “Mission-States” shortly after his election, arguing that the eventual goal was the total conversion of the population to Catholicism. In the meantime, though, the government felt no compunction about abuse of the so-called ‘heathens.’ If conversion was the eventual goal, profit was a more immediate necessity, given the raw goods of Central Africa were seen as necessary for fueling Brazil’s nascent industry.
   ‘Missionaries’ as the foreign exploiters were dubbed, often took advantage of legal loopholes to abuse the native Congolese, Khoisan, and Ndebele people. Communities were forced to provide laborers, relocate on the whims of colonial officials, or suffer brutal repression. While the ostensible purpose of the missionaries was to convert the populace, ofttimes in reality they were merely Brazilians with important political connections given free reign to exploit the natives.
   The loophole in question was a stipulation in Brazilian law signed by Costa that decreed Catholic converts in the Congo would gain exemption from the forced labor duties and be treated along the same lines as other Brazilian citizens. Missionaries, unwilling to lose their sources of wealth, ofttimes utterly neglected conversion. Even when Africans did convert to Catholicism, thanks to a clandestine network of genuine proselytizers, the missionary class would force them to take theological exams in Portuguese, a non-native language, or would declare outright that the conversion was ungenuine.
   Sao Paolo did nothing because of how profitable the African holdings proved to be. Given the brutal actions of the government domestically, there was also little revulsion among the Brazilian clerics over the aggressive punishments meted out. So long as the goods flowed into Brazilian factories, who cared how they were procured? Colonial subjects were subjected to sermons telling them to be obedient to the Divine Republic and that even thinking negative thoughts to the regime was a form of treason.
   This is not to say there was no resistance. Indeed, many of the various ethnic groups have fought back. By the turn of the century the Luba people of the Congo remained outside of colonial authority due to low-level resistance. Actual rebellions of the Congolese and Nama people were put down in the late 1880s. The indigenous people too outgunned when faced with direct confrontation by the Army of Brazil. Though it has occupied most of the areas that it won at the Stockholm Conference, several remote patches have yet to see a trace of the Divine Republic’s control. Even in areas firmly held by Sao Paolo, many administrators and missionaries warn visitors to not travel alone, lest one be found dead at the hands of a resentful populace.
   The world as a whole was largely ignorant of the happenings in the mission-states until a series of publications by the exiled Brazilian opposition began to circulate in Europe and North America. Even then, ofttimes the plight of the native Africans under Brazilian rule was overshadowed by more dramatic occurrences elsewhere, likely due to existing prejudice among many other fellow colonial powers.

Scene from the Congo Mission-State, 1884
(Source: Wikimedia)

A People’s Catholicism (1885-1899)
   Archbishop-President Costa oversaw a period of significant growth in Brazil. The country continued to industrialize apace; a concerted effort being made by the clergy to place the Divine Republic on a more solid economic footing. Exports in coffee and rubber exploded, while manufactories for textiles, food products, and weapons were cultivated in southeast Brazil. The opening of the French market with the Treaty of Bahia further expanded demand for Brazilian goods.
   Yet, this explosion in economic activity was top-down. Faithful to Catholic-Republican doctrine, anti-capitalism was the order of the day. External critics and foreign potential investors argued the regime hampered potential further economic gains by insisting on a heavy-handed approach. All manufactories were government-run. The coffee, rubber, and sugar plantations were staffed by worker’s councils and many believed output was only a fraction of its potential. Indeed, more than one would remark that the average Brazilian worker seemed work-shy.
   Costa himself ignored the critics, branding the developments in Brazil as a result of “People’s Catholicism.” He argued that market forces would have left the Divine Republic as a backwards, extraction-based fief of European manufacturers. Instead, Costa championed forced industrialization. Unlike his predecessors, he was more focused on the economic rather than social implications of Catholic-Republican doctrine. The faithful were to have protected worker’s rights and a planned economy would be the only way to bring about the Kingdom of God on Earth. Costa deliberately contrasted Brazil’s responsible economic management and protection of worker’s rights with what he framed as the satanic proliferation of capitalism and private enterprise in neighboring Colombia. Advertising in Europe promised a better life, a free stake in a communal homestead, and a place to live. A not insignificant number of people took the Divine Republic up on the offer, particular dissatisfied Catholic-Republicans from southern Naples, who poured into Brazil in the 1880s and 1890s.
   With this shift towards emphasizing People’s Catholicism, the more frightening social aspects of Andrade’s and Silveira’s regimes were scaled back. While freedom of speech remained strictly prohibited, and overall authoritarianism continued to rule, any sort of terror-tactics against the populace were largely discontinued. There would be no more public executions and mass-arrests under Costa’s watch. Work camps and prisons would be gradually emptied of all but the worst offenders. So long as one was outwardly a faithful Catholic, kept their head down, and did their duty, they would be left alone for the most part. The Eyes of God was not disbanded, but redirected to only pursuing the most radical opponents of the regime.
   This easing up may not have satisfied the most vociferous hardliners, those that would have had the government emulate the tactics of Louis XX in France or Archbishop-President Toro in La Plata, but the general public seemed receptive. Costa was clear that this was no liberalization, which he condemned as the root of modern evil, but rather a pragmatic show of mercy to the Brazilian people. The Catholic-Republican movement could not survive fully on terror, but needed admiration as well. Notably, there would be no easing up of harsh practices in Africa and other Brazilian colonies. Likewise, a greater degree of surveillance and occupation was continued in the Andean territories.

Joaquim Arcoverde de Albuquerque Cavalcanti (1891-1899)
The Next Generation Takes Control (1891-1895)
   Costa died in 1891 at the age of 61 after a rule of thirteen years, the longest of any Archbishop-President. His tenure had seen tremendous economic growth and advances in industrialization. The easing up on social control was enough to satisfy moderate Reformists without alienating hardline Andradists, finally seeming to put an end to the age-old feud by uniting most of the government under a consensus.
   Yet, this domestic stability did not prevent the election of the next Archbishop-President from being an exciting affair. The various bishops convening in Sao Paolo, there was no clear candidate to succeed the respected leader. Most of those in positions of power were viewed as tired old men, having served as young revolutionaries back when the Brazilian Republic under Lima and Vasconcelos had been toppled almost fifty years prior. These clerics were dwindling in number but had managed to control every election since Araujo had succeeded Andrade back in 1847.
   Against them stood the next generation of upcoming Brazilian bishops. These were men without any memory of the liberal years under Lisboa and who had been raised in the shadow of the deepest terrors of the Divine Republic. Most had creative ideas about how to govern within the existing Catholic-Republican system, not bound by rigid, fixed outlooks like their elders. This group saw Costa’s People’s Catholicism as a blueprint of how to move Brazil forward into the next century and ensure that the Catholic-Republican ideology was not victim to the passage of time. While still hardliners, especially compared to the borderline liberal Araujoist faction that had once been in control, theirs was an ideology seeking to make the movement adapt to the changing world. Expanded social programs, mandatory public service, and modernizing the Brazilian military were among the policies promoted by the younger clergy.
   The election was deadlocked for more than a week. Debate reportedly got heated at times, many elders feeling disrespected by the tacit criticism of their tenure. Yet, in the end sheer numbers carried it for the youth. Bishop Joaquim Arcoverde de Albuquerque Cavalcanti won the election on the ninth day, becoming the first Archbishop-President born after the declaration of the Divine Republic. Cavalcanti spent his first few years in office seeking to implement the aims of his generation. Indeed, his attempt to mandate public service would be part of what caused the Andean Crisis to erupt in Upper Peru.

Joaquim Arcoverde de Albuquerque Cavalcanti, 1891
(Source: Wikimedia)

Andean Crisis (1895-1900)
   It would be in the Andes that hardline Catholic-Republicanism would meet its most formidable foe. Conquered in the 1870s from the collapsing Spanish Monarchy, the people of the region had never truly embraced the doctrine of their ‘liberators’. In the major cities many of the elites were the children or grandchildren of former Spanish colonists who had fled the Catholic Republicans during the population exchanges of the 1830s. Outside of the urban areas, many of the indigenous people resented the domineering attitude of the Church and officials, which contrasted sharply with the relatively lax rule of the Spanish Bourbons.
   Brazil was not the initial source of chaos however, but La Plata. The most hardline Catholic-Republican realm in the world, for decades the government of Archbishop-President Reginaldo Toro had been particularly brutal in its handling of dissent. There were numerous internment camps for alleged opponents of the regime, while religious police enforced public decency in most cities. Mandatory education saw the youth indoctrinated into not only intense zealotry, but doctrinaire and extremist Catholic-Republicanism. Many were taught it was their divinely-sanctioned duty to eradicate opposition and reform the world along La Platan lines. Indeed, it would be La Platan policies that would serve as inspiration for similar reforms from Louis XX.
   These lofty messages contrasted starkly with the lived experience of poverty and neglect experienced by most La Platans. The economy was weak, collectivist farming implemented by the government leading often to famine. Many resented or felt little loyalty to an Archbishop-President that preferred to spend time in his grand palaces and cathedrals rather than with his citizens. In Chile, most looked back to the Spanish period as a time of prosperity and order, especially compared to life under occupation. La Plata was an isolated pariah state, even moreso after the Catholic Republican split of 1884, with only Brazil as an active partner.
   The Mapuche People were the first to ignite the spark of rebellion against the central government in 1895 after several chiefs were unjustly murdered under the orders of Toro. La Platan soldiers were massacred in a series of low-level skirmishes in Araucania. Poorly-equipped and untrained, the Catholic-Republicans found themselves easy pickings for rebel guns. The ‘Massacre of the Maule’ in late 1895 saw soldiers from the government slaughtered by the residents of the region.
   News of the defeat emboldened others who were fed up with Toro’s regime. On the morning of April 12th, 1896, the city of Santiago erupted into a massive pre-planned revolt. The city’s garrison was surrounded as the rebels took control of key points. An assembly of notables hastily declared the “Kingdom of Chile” and dubbed themselves the “Regency of Santiago.” Any royal of suitable pedigree was invited to take the throne, so long as they were able to provide suitable aid to the cause. Many still nurtured sympathies for the Spanish Bourbons exiled in far-off Quebec. Their forces were called the “Caroline Army” in honor of Prince Charles of Spain who had been executed during the fall of Santiago in 1872.

Santiago Rebels, 1896
(Source: Wikimedia)

   The Chilean rebellion spread rapidly through the region. A key issue for the La Platan government was the unwillingness of its soldiers to actually fight. Many sympathized with the rebels and often switched sides. Others were insubordinate, refusing orders or deserting. A substantial force sent to pacify Chile in late 1896 melted away, those that stayed under arms being humiliated with the unsuccessful Siege of Coquimbo. La Platan intervention only served to unite the separate rebellions, the Mapuche and Chileans signing a declaration of friendship in early 1897.
   Archbishop-President Toro grew increasingly panicked in Cordoba, fearing the spread of dissent into the La Platan heartlands or Paraguay proper, some of his critics alleging that he was more focused on maintain the territories he still held over reconquering Chile. While a growing faction in the government urged to call on Cavalcanti for aid, Toro refused, suspicious of La Plata becoming a Brazilian puppet along the lines of the two sister-republics to the northeast.
   Further to the north, news of the Chilean and Mapuche Rebellions emboldened dissidents in Brazil, specifically the ‘irreconcilables’ (descendants of pro-Spanish colonists) and the indigenous population of the region. The groups had different reasons for opposing the continued Brazilian occupation, but were united in their opinion that they ought to be free from the rule of Sao Paolo. Shared between them was a classist resentment against the haughty Portuguese administrators and opposition to proposed mandatory public service for the youth. Likewise, the continued harsher treatment than other regions of Brazil exacerbated frustrations. Settling their disagreements in the trilingual Compact of Tiwanaku, the parties declared the birth of the Andean Free State and pledged to birth a liberal, democratic, federation from the ashes of Brazilian tyranny.
   Aymara and Quechua towns throughout the Andes began to eject their Brazilian garrisons and burn images of Archbishop-President Cavalcanti in March 1897. Indigenous leaders specifically emphasized elements of their syncretism of native beliefs and Catholicism, a style of ritual the Brazilian Catholic Church had intently tried to stamp out. Initially it seemed the major cities would be safe for the Brazilians, but mass uprisings, such as one in La Paz, saw the garrisons drug out and brutally murdered. As in the south, the movement spread rapidly and outpaced the government’s response to it. By the time Cavalcanti got ahold of the situation in late 1897, most of the Andean lands had been lost, only an isolated and hard to supply strip along the Peruvian coast remaining in the control of the government.
   Many Brazilian observers took note of how the indigenous unrest seemed to cease at the Colombian border, Peru proving to be far less restive than its southern neighbor. Naturally, many to believe that the Colombians either instigated or aided the rebellion, though no formal proof surfaced by the turn of the century. Indeed, Bogota walked a fine line with the Andean Crisis, not recognizing any of the breakaway states but notably also refusing Brazilian demands for military access and fleet basing in order to supply their operations.

[Spamage]

Britain: An Empire on the Brink

London Near the Turn of the Century
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Henry X (1878-1884)
The Cape War (1876-1884)
   Britain had pivoted straight from the North American conflict to the Cape War, hoping through the conquest of Prussian South Africa to secure a reliable transport route to the Far East and Australia. Yet, the quick victory hoped for by Henry X and Parliament did not come to pass. The initial gains in 1876 were followed by a tough stalemate. The Cape Republic seized control of the Prussian fleet in the region, using it to challenge Britain on the sea and hamper attempts at supplying reinforcements. Brazil, who had a historic rivalry with the Prussians at the Cape Colony, saw a British South Africa as more threatening to its interests than a weak Cape Republic. Clandestine supplies of Brazilian weaponry aided Lüderitz and his allies as they punished the British invaders.
   While the Congress of Copenhagen cleared up any issues further to the East, the government continued to pour resources into the theater of war, a series of events that gradually sapped confidence in both Henry X and the incumbent government. The key issue was that while seizure of the settlements was easy enough, the Cape Prussians would then just merely pivot to guerilla tactics, making the British positions untenable. Attempts to throw in more manpower just served to strain supply lines, thousands of British soldiers perishing from disease in the unfamiliar climate. While some victories could be highlighted, such as the destruction of the Cape Fleet in 1880, in no way was the war won.
  The pivotal Battle of Neu Potsdam in 1881 was a prime example of the pyrrhic nature of British victories. The Cape Prussians were pushed from the field and routed; the city being occupied by the British. Yet, the populace, loyal to the republic, sabotaged the city and took flight. Both the rail connection and roads to the city were patrolled by dissidents who ensured that adequate supply lines could not be maintained.
   London’s response was scorched earth warfare, hoping to make life so miserable the Prussians would be forced to surrender. Yet, the horrific images and stories emerging from the region damaged Britain’s reputation abroad. Paris, Berlin, and even London’s closest ally Stockholm all condemned many inhumane tactics such as the torching of fields, attempts to starve the populace, and mandatory relocation of captured civilians. Morale of the British soldiers on the ground was likewise hampered, the horrors or war contrasting sharply with the noble ideas of conflict they had been inculcated with.
   With the death of Disraeli and subsequent choice of American Grover Cleveland as his successor, support for the war began to crater. Cleveland himself, like most Americans, saw the war as a needless distraction. Yet, the government was forced to adhere to royal wishes, Henry X remaining a hawk. While Cleveland was not willing to admit defeat, recognizing how damaging that would be to British prestige, less resources were devoted to the conflict, which gradually froze.
   The death of King Henry in 1884 and the accession of the far more peaceable George IV to the throne saw London finally seek peace. After several months of intense negotiations, it was agreed in the Treaty of Brighton that Britain would be granted control of Cape Town and the surrounding region, Cape Prussians being forced to resettle further to the north and west. The Cape Republic meanwhile was formally recognized as the Republic of New Brandenburg, granted independence, and given a free hand to reassert control over the native populace. After eight years of fighting that had devastated the region, peace had been restored to South Africa. It had come at a heavy cost.

Scene from the Cape War, 1881
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Disraeli’s Reforms (1876-1881)
   While the Cape War took drew much public notice, Henry X and Prime Minister Disraeli simultaneously were embarking on a wide range of domestic reforms, aimed at eliminating any lingering grievances brought to the surface by the North American War. North American propaganda during the conflict had alienated a significant portion of the working classes, many who did not wish to be sent overseas to fight for the glory of the Crown or for distant American cousins who hardly seemed as fellow countrymen. A two-pronged approach was adopted to deal with lingering resentment, a combination of succoring and repression meant to ease any lingering social tensions and bring order to the populace.
   The carrot offered to the British people were a series of social programs rolled out in the late 1870s. Disraeli implemented a public health insurance bill for urban workers. Through a combination of worker, employer, and government contributions, a modest healthcare program was initially established for larger employers. Likewise, child labor restrictions were expanded and enforced, the government also directing a substantial amount of funds to expanding the local network of schools throughout the Empire. Industrial working hours were slashed to a maximum of 10 and basic accident insurance promised at a later date.
   Though it took a good deal of persuasion to pass some of these seemingly socialist policies through the conservative Parliament, Disraeli was able to win support by coupling it with a crackdown on socialist subversives and agitators. Through infiltration, police action, and public policy a concerted effort was made to clamp down on those ‘seeking to destabilise the social order’. Outspoken opponents of the government often found themselves arrested on normally minor charges, substantially weakening the cohesion of the Labour movement. In the press these left-wing figures were often framed as anti-British, ensuring public opinion largely remained on the side of Disraeli. The Liberals, glad to see any left-wing opponents prevented from capturing their voting base, tended to tacitly support the clampdown on Labour socialism in the late 1870s. In addition the moves against the socialists, and in response to developments in France, further crackdowns in Ireland sought to decapitate any lingering Catholic-Republicanism and nationalistic sentiments.

George IV (1884-1896)
The Great Divide (1881-1899)
   The Transatlantic Empire experienced a major symbolic moment in 1881 as the population of America surpassed that of England. The development had been a long time coming, only delayed for several decades by the repeated loss of territories to the North American Alliance in the 1830s and 1870s. Population growth on the British Isles simply could not outpace the allure of cheap land, ample work, and new opportunities that drew immigrants to North America by the thousands. It was largely a symbolic development, the number of seats in Parliament allocated between the two having been comparable for years, but demonstrated the growing weight of American interests in British affairs. No longer would the Americans be content to leave the governing of the Empire solely in the hands of British officials, especially as the demographic gulf continued to widen. Prime Minister Disraeli, ailing in his final weeks of life, gave an eloquent summary of the situation, stating “the daughter has at last outgrown the mother. She will guide the realm for the next two centuries as the matriarch has for the former two.”
   Fundamentally, two very different visions of governance and policy were emerging on either side of the Atlantic, the two political environments forced to work with one another by historic circumstance. In Britain proper there was a greater emphasis on limiting royal authority, pursuing economic reforms, naval expansion, and further engagement in European and African affairs. Many activists felt their goals were being blocked by an “American Veto” as inaction or opposition among the North American MPs prevented the implementation of reforms. The Labour Party, and smaller wings of both the British Conservatives and Liberals, wished to expand on Disraeli’s tepid efforts at social reform.
   The Americans were far more socially conservative than their fellow subjects. Instilled with a sense of staunch royalism, they defended George IV and later Mary III against what was seen as the ingratitude of the English MPs. Economically, the Americans balked at the growing social democratic current in the British Isles. The American people benefitted as many firms relocated operations to America, favoring the lower taxes and cheaper wages offered there. Cities such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Norfolk exploded as shipping centers, where manufactured goods from further inland were sent to Britain and the Empire at a far lower price than those manufactured in England or Scotland. Meanwhile, the Americans felt London ignored their very real concerns about the Francophone powers, pushing for a larger land force than navy.
   This geographic divide made for some strange bedfellows. American Liberals often found themselves more in agreement with British Conservatives on foreign policy matters, favoring expanding the Empire while the opposite held true for the American Conservatives and British Liberals. Though there were three parties, there were essentially five major factions. The growing strength of the Labour Party was primarily concentrated in Britain, the movement failing to gain much traction among the working classes of Norfolk or Philadelphia.
   With this divide making governance rather difficult, the Crown was able to maintain its preeminent position in British affairs. Not only were Henry X and George IV forced to make highly political decisions, they staunchly defended their prerogatives to do so. Given the fractious nature of Parliament, ofttimes Prime Ministers depended on royal horse-trading and personal requests by the King to cobble together a governing coalition. In Buckingham Palace there was little desire to adhere to the Labour vision of a monarchy boxed in by constitutional norms. There was even less will to give up on royal control over foreign affairs, George IV himself publicly arguing that the dynastic relationship of the Royal Family to the various other ruling houses gave him a unique position from which to advocate for Britain.

The First American Prime Minister (1881-1886)
   The choice of Grover Cleveland as Prime Minister in 1881 was a shocking one, many of the haughty English MPs and Lords looking down at the new leader with disdain. They saw an up-jumped, provincial American at the head of the government, an underestimation of Cleveland who would prove to be one of the pivotal British leaders in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
   Grover Cleveland, despite being a conservative and cabinet member of Disraeli’s, adhered to the general American Conservative sentiment that saw the foreign adventurism in the Cape War as a costly waste of time and resources. He capitalized on the backlash to the war that was felt on both sides of the Atlantic. His deliberate pullback of support for the conflict caused many rows with Henry X, but with the King’s death Cleveland could credibly claim to have been opposed to the continuation the costly war. During his tenure, Britain did little to actively implement control over its African claims, a move many of Cleveland’s liberal critics would charge as causing the empire to fall behind other European powers in the Scramble for Africa.
   Rather than focus on empire-building, American Conservatives believed the true enemies were closer to home. Cleveland and his allies emphasized an anti-Francophone policy on both sides of the Atlantic. France proper was an authoritarian monstrous realm in their eyes, while the Francophone powers in North America were treacherous and could not be trusted. Working in concert with George IV, a massive arms buildup and modernization of the British Navy was conducted by Cleveland, who saw it as a matter of survival for the Transatlantic Monarchy. Likewise, Parliament was persuaded to fund the expansion of defensive fortifications within British North America, aimed at preventing the type of invasion that had been experienced in the 1870s.

Prime Minister Cleveland, 1887
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Manchester Strike and Aftermath (1886-1888)
   To many in Britain proper, the American Cleveland represented the embodiment of the hated ‘American Veto’ as his military buildup came at the cost of further social reforms. Indeed, there would actually be some modest cutbacks and freezes to many of Disraeli’s vaunted social programs. Government funding for worker’s healthcare was cut, forcing employees seeking health insurance to pay much higher rates. Public protest and opposition were stifled by the continued clampdown on socialist movements.
   With public opinion muted, and little outlets for true opposition, matters were bound to come to a head at some point. This occurred in 1886, with the unsanctioned strike of coal workers in Manchester. Demanding better working conditions, lower payments for health insurance, and implementation of the long-promised accident insurance, thousands of workers walked off their worksites in April 1886.
   A wave of social solidarity erupted among many in the British working class, perhaps the result of a long, subtle stifling of the socialist movement in Britain. Rail workers soon joined the strike, sharing the concerns of the coal miners. Raucous protests in some cities went so far as to call for the establishment of a republic, nationalization of many vital industries, and a redistribution of noble estates. While the small group of Labour MPs rushed to support the strikers, most Liberals decried the disorder, signaling a lasting break between the two movements that would endure. Conservatives, naturally, were outraged by all the developments.
   With the tacit support of George IV, Prime Minister Cleveland embarked on a massive crackdown in mid-May. Firm in his belief that the realm would not be held hostage by bands of malcontents, the strikers were ordered to disperse of return to work at once. When they refused, he ordered the British military to ensure the operation of the vital industries. Picket lines refusing to disperse faced open fire in Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds, leading to the deaths of hundreds. Social leaders were arrested, while those refusing to return to work were summarily terminated. Facing such intense institutional opposition, the strike gradually wilted. Its effect would be long-lasting, however.
   Britain had been divided on how to handle this novel, mass Labour movement. Many in the northwest of England and Wales either openly or tacitly supported the efforts of the workers. The British middle class, a substantially growing group, found itself inconvenienced by the events and shared little sympathy for the perceived radicalism, still even they decried the excessive force used to bring back order. Further afield, the Americans were almost universally opposed to the Manchester strike, backing Cleveland regardless of partisan affiliation. Most of the foot soldiers who clamped down on the strikes were themselves American, a legacy of that region’s reliance on service in the army over the navy. Similarly, strikebreakers, generally Irish or American, were brought in to work, adding another nationalist element to the conflict. 
   Cleveland emerged from the Manchester strike as a divisive figure. His popularity was not formally put to the test until the Election of 1888. Initially it seemed the Conservatives would keep their majority, many Liberal ridings in the areas most affected by the Manchester strike flipping to the Labour Party, but this was offset by a substantial shift among middle-class voters who bolstered the Liberals overall. Coupled with the loss of seats in Ireland to nationalists, a Conservative government came to look unlikely. By the thinnest of margins, just 30 seats, Cleveland and the Conservatives were forced into the opposition, putting an end to more than two decades of unbroken Conservative rule. William Gladstone and the Liberal Party took up the mantle of government for the next seven years, though the Gladstone government achieved little due to a tenuous majority.

Suppression of the Manchester Strike, 1886
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

On the Royal Succession (1880-1894)
   A key issue throughout George IV’s reign was the future of the House of Hanover. Though the family remained large, and the King’s younger brother stood as heir to the throne of Scandinavia, George IV had no sons of his own. His first, happy marriage with Princess Amalia of Prussia had seen the birth of Princess Mary in 1880. Yet Amalia died in 1882 attempting to birth a son, the child likewise perishing stillborn. Henry X, despite being a doting grandfather to young Mary, had insisted that George remarry, choosing the exiled Princess Caroline of the Netherlands as his son’s second bride.
   George’s second marriage was disastrous. Caroline was 12 years younger than her husband and they had little in common, their house becoming a tempestuous maelstrom. The couple fought often and could not stand one another. Despite this, a second daughter was born to George IV in 1890, Princess Helen. After Helen’s birth Queen Caroline was left at Windsor Castle while the King chose to reside in Buckingham Palace, the two growing accustomed to lives apart. It became clear that the United Kingdom would have a female sovereign, the first since Queen Anne had passed away in 1714. This alone would not be controversial, given England’s storied history of female rule, but it did raise the question of the future of the royal family. Beyond Mary and Helen, their uncle Charles was the heir to the throne, raising the prospect of an Anglo-Scandinavian Personal Union, something desired neither in Stockholm or London.
   Thus, Princess Mary’s decision on whether to marry and if so to whom would have great consequences for Britain. Still, the matter was expected to be irrelevant for the time being, George IV himself just 43 in 1894 and Princess Mary all of 16-years-old. Fate decided otherwise. 

The Great Royal Progress (1896)
   Eager to both demonstrate his gratitude for the loyalty of his American subjects and to demonstrate the advances in technology throughout the British Empire, King George IV announced the novel decision of a visit to British America. For the first time ever, a reigning British sovereign would cross the Atlantic.
   The Royal Progress, as the journey was called, was an undoubted success. The King arrived in New York harbor on April 20th, 1896 to tremendous fanfare, celebrating the reconstruction of the city and opening a memorial to those slain in the Quebecois-New Englander attack. From there, George IV toured Pennsylvania by train, greeted by throngs of Americans the whole way. Throughout the Midwest and Tennessee, he was feted by local leaders. All-in-all, the journey bolstered the strong royalist sentiment in the region, people seeing George IV as their defender against the rapacious and greedy Parliament in London.
   Yet, tragedy marred what had been a near-perfect tour. George IV fell ill in North Carolina, his condition worsening as the Royal Progress approached the city of Charlotte. Malaria was the culprit, the king falling victim to the hated disease. George had initially insisted on pressing forward, thus had issued no guidance when he fell into a coma on August 8th, 1894. He died just two days later, having ruled for just ten years. His reign had seen Britain often consumed by internal matters, be it the Manchester Strike and Cleveland’s handling of it, diverging priorities of the Americans and British, or the future of the monarchy itself.

[Spamage]

Queen Mary III, 1896
(Source: Made by Me, Via Midjourney)

Mary III (1896-)
A New Reign (1896-1900)
   Young Queen Mary III was awoken in the middle of the night to the news of her father’s passing. The new sovereign showed herself resolved to do her duty, quickly arranging the return of her father’s remains and a meeting with Prime Minister Salisbury (who had succeeded Gladstone by this point).
   In her initial dealings with Salisbury, Mary III made it clear that despite her age and sex, she would not cede any of her royal prerogatives. Rather than modeling herself off of her docile and peaceable father, a man content to disturb little as sovereign, she fully intended to reassume her grandfather’s active and energetic role in government. Salisbury, ailing and ready to retire, proved pliable. While some corners of the Liberal and Labour parties advocated for a reform of royal powers given the unique situation, this would not come to pass.
   The young queen sought to use the death of George IV to bring her realms closer together. Yet, while George IV was mourned among the British conservatives and in America, the sovereign’s death was met with indifference in Scotland, Northwest England, and Ireland for various reasons. Many socialists saw him as the King content to sit back and let them be brutalized, while a growing number in Ireland felt marginalized and uninvested in the affairs of the Empire, overshadowed by both England and America. Still, his funeral in late 1896 was a tremendous show of British pomp, dignitaries from all across the globe attending. Likewise, Mary used her coronation in early 1897 to further underscore British grandeur.
   The most pressing issue in the eyes of many of her male ministers was whom the Queen would wed, if anyone at all. Mary sidestepped the matter initially, declaring she intended to become familiar with governing before she would find a husband. Indeed, the Queen energetically seized back the reins of power from Parliament to a large extent, inspired by various female historical figures such as Elizabeth I, Marie Fernandina, and Maria Augusta. Mary focused primarily on diplomacy, seeing domestic politics as full of perilous landmines. Ties to her uncle, King Charles XIV of Scandinavia, were reaffirmed, though she sidestepped his insistence that she marry one of her male cousins.
   At the turn of the century Britain stands in a unique position, divided but still stable. With outposts across the world, London has many matters to attend to, especially after years of diplomatic lethargy and isolation. At home republicans and nationalists remain confined to the fringes of an increasingly divided domestic political situation, though socialism has continued to grow in the British Isles proper. Handling the Transatlantic Empire will undoubtedly require a good deal of tact and care.

Prussia: The Eagle Pacified

The New Berlin Rises from the Ashes of the Old, 1899
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Frederick Louis (1876-)
A New Prussia (1876-1900)
   The Prussia of the 1880s was an entirely alien state to its militaristic predecessor. The sheer level of destruction inflicted on Brandenburg and East Prussia over the course of two major wars eradicated any lingering militaristic tendencies among the populace. The most zealous defenders of the old order had been slain, dying in the streets of Berlin alongside King Frederick IV. The populace was exhausted by warfare and militarism. Drafts had taken their toll and many families simply wanted time to mourn their dead and move on with their lives.
   Young King Frederick Louis, haunted by the horrific downfall of Old Prussia, would seek to establish a wholly new government. Gone was Prussianism, the doctrine of militant absolutism and suppression of domestic opinion. Out went his father’s surviving ministers and sycophants. All the work of reforming Prussia into a more moderate state, undone by his father in the aftermath of the First Great Eastern War, was at last seen through to completion. Queen Mother Catherine de Bourbon, the widow and constant defender of the late King, found herself sidelined to her estates in Potsdam, where she would eventually pass away in 1899.
   The state instead pivoted; a moderate constitutional monarchy being established along Habsburg lines. The military, or what was left of it, was defanged and demobilized. The Junkers found their lingering influence limited by greater rights for the commons, the Crown seeking to play the various factions against one another. Indeed, at a time when autocracy seemed to be making a comeback in France, many in Austria and Scandinavia took great pride in the continued openness of Prussian society. There would be no backsliding there.
   Beyond political reform, physical reconstruction was also necessary. Extensive economic aid from its former enemies went a long way to repairing the damage wrought by Frederick IV. Berlin, flattened during the dramatic conclusion of the last Prussian War, was rebuilt as a modern city. Notably, as a stipulation for their economic assistance, little to no defenses were allowed by Austria and Scandinavia around the city.
   Diplomatically, Prussia would now demonstrate itself to be a staunch and reliable ally of Vienna. Prussia joined the Central European Common Market in 1884 and continued to abide by the Family Pact. Beyond his own marriage to Maria Louisa of Austria, Frederick Louis reiterated his dynasty’s ties to Vienna by having his younger brother Ludwig married to his wife’s sister, Archduchess Maria Vittoria of Austria. Young Crown Prince Frederick Charles, meanwhile, was betrothed to Ulrika of Hanover, the daughter of the heir to Scandinavia. Indeed, throughout the 1880s and 1890s it seemed Stockholm and Vienna had little to fear from Berlin, under the current King at very least. After more than a century of intermittent warfare, it was clear the Prussian eagle had finally been tamed.

King Frederick Louis of Prussia, 1890
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Naples: A Realm of Unease

City of Naples, 1900
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Philip V (1876-1888)
Italian Ire (1876-1888)
   No power felt as wronged by the nineteenth century as the Kingdom of Naples. Dating back to the days of Pietro Verri many Italians had dared to dream of unifying the peninsula. With the nationalist revolutions of the 1830s it had seemed as though it would come to pass, yet these risings were crushed by the established authorities. In the 1870s, with the War of the Regency, it had been believed that Padania and Lombardy-Venetia, the two colonial fictions hoisted upon the Italian people, would collapse. Yet, with the Peace of Sevres again Naples was ignored. While minor gains, such as Sardinia and Corsica, could be pointed to, the entire Po Valley remained outside of Neapolitan control. This sense of national humiliation seeped its way into the public discourse and the political campaigns of the Kingdom.
   The abdicated Charles VIII died a broken, embittered sovereign. He had given everything to his realm, even enduring attempts on his person that left him permanently disabled, yet it seemed to have been for nought. Outraged about Naples’ treatment on the world stage Philip V was out for revenge. He was supported by a broad coalition of Neapolitans who mourned the loss of “Papa Carlo” and his dreams of Italian unification. The 1876 Election saw political leaders seeking to outdo one another with promises of glory and revenge against the established enemies. The borders with Lombardy and Padania were both closed, a massive defensive line being established in the north. Only the reactionaries and Catholic Republicans demonstrated themselves seemingly uninterested in the prospect of further nationalist crusades.
   While Vienna and Paris looked on with loose concern at developments in the Kingdom, neither felt matters required intervention. The Austrians were more concerned with the Agram Decrees and internal reform while Charlotte was pushing domestic repression of her political opponents. Furthermore, both powers were deterred by the close ties between Naples and Russia, emphasized with the tour of King Philip in Russia during the late 1870s. Naples found another, more unlikely ally in the Spanish Union, Ramon Nouvilas and Philip V signing a defensive pact with the Treaty of Valencia in 1880. 
   Domestically, Philip V worked in concert with political leaders to enact a bevy of reforms throughout the 1880s. Military readiness was expanded, a national service program having expanded the rolls of the Nation Guard. Leaning on its historic role as a shipbuilding realm, the Neapolitan Navy was revolutionized along the lines of a modern, 19th century fleet, using lessons learned from the far-off North American War to improve coastal defenses and enhance naval capabilities. Infrastructure improvements improved transportation, while government statisticians calculated logistics for mobilization, timetables for action, and tactics of defense.
   Culturally, with the passage of the National Curriculum Act of 1882, the government sought to introduce the youth to the concepts of nationalism, patriotism, and duty at an early age. Education was made compulsory, causing substantial improvements in literacy as a staunchly Italian generation was molded in the schools. Ironically, it would be Philip’s educational policies that would serve to inspire his neighbor and rival Louis XX with his own meddling in the national curriculum.
   Matters seemed to be coming to a head in 1888. With his military reforms enacted, the Chamber of Deputies consisting of a hawkish majority, and Neapolitan defenses completed, Philip V was set on war. In a dramatic private meeting on October 13th, 1887, the king conferred with his generals and the elected leadership, making it clear he would be using his diplomatic prerogatives in the Constitution of 1872 to launch operations against the French and Habsburgs in the coming year. Philip believed that Paris was vulnerable, given ongoing operations in Algeria. The generals were ordered to formulate specific plans and logistics for the spring of 1888, while the elected leadership was urged to come up with revenue to fund a war effort. The room was stunned, but largely deferential. Prime Minister di Rudini underscored his support of the king’s plan. In order to make it appear as though Naples would be the aggrieved and defensive party in any future struggle, secrecy was ordered.

King Philip V of Naples
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The Quiet Coup (1888)
   Indeed, it seemed the whole of Neapolitan society was being harnessed by the Crown for an eventual, dramatic final showdown that would determine the fate of the Italian Peninsula once and for all. Yet, this was not to be. The group that would be most necessary to the prospective campaign, the military, was strongly opposed to another war with France and Austria. Neapolitan generals saw the King’s plans as suicidal and viewed the elected leadership as demagogic, willing to promise the world to the Italian nationalists in exchange for votes. A war against France and the Habsburg Monarchy given the current diplomatic situation was to be avoided. President Suvorin in Russia, focused on the Qajar-Ottoman War and not wanting to see instability spread, gave tacit approval for action to be taken. Luigi Acquaviva, a nobleman and head of the Neapolitan Army, resolved to act before matters got out of hand.
   Military leadership found an ally in the royal family. Prince Alfonso of Naples was a brother of the late King Charles VIII and a widely respected figure at Court. The husband of Archduchess Maria Sophia of Tuscany, Alfonso had been instrumental in organizing the Neapolitan occupation of Tuscany in 1864. Yet he, and many other members of the royal family, had looked on Charles VIII’s political reforms with great skepticism. It was only loyalty to his elder brother that kept Alfonso in line. With Charles dead, and getting wind of Philip V’s plans for renewed warfare, the now 63-year-old prince was easily swayed into action.
   Dubbed the “Quiet Coup”, King Philip V was arrested by detachments of soldiers on the morning of February 7th, 1888. The king had been too busy pouring over his war plans and military strategies to take notice of the growing threat. The king, his wife Bertha of Quebec, and the couple’s three children were detained in the Royal Palace of Naples. Despite extensive protests and commands to the soldiers guarding him, Philip V found himself without allies. He refused to abdicate, believing the people would liberate him from his situation, despite the urgings of his wife, who argued they could seek refuge in either Vienna or Quebec, where she had family.
   Simultaneous operations saw most of the elected leadership detained. Prime Minister Antonio Rudini was arrested, being moved out of the capitol under armed guard. The legislature was shuttered under the pretext of a terrorist attack, explosives having been detonated in the city in order to further the illusion of disorder. When the body was reconvened on February 10th, most of the vociferous nationalists were absent, having been likewise detained. Likewise, the Catholic Republicans found themselves barred from entry, either being arrested or chased out of the city. A state of emergency was declared, di Rudini being ousted as Prime Minister by a majority in the rump body as an emergency committee was established.
   In effect, the military-backed coup marked the ascendancy of the moderate conservatives. Francesco Crispi, the respected former Prime Minister of Charles VIII, was reinstated with military backing in order to increase the perceived legitimacy of the coup. Though he personally was an Italian nationalist, like several others involved in the Quiet Coup, he believed Philip’s plans were suicidal. The coup made for strange bedfellows. Crispi was reinstated as Prime Minister with the votes of the reactionaries (who appreciated the more authoritative push of Alfonso and were not set on unification), royalist conservatives, and a portion of the liberal Progress Party (of which Crispi had long led).
   Within several days Philip V had pivoted to offering his abdication, so long as his son Louis became king, but the demands of the conspirators insisted that he renounce the claims of his descendants as well. Finally on February 11th, hearing news that the legislature had been shuttered and would not be coming to his aid, he consented to abdicate in totality. In a show of mercy by his uncle, Philip V and his family were granted exile rather than imprisonment, being relocated to the Russian-held Konstantingrad where friendly authorities could keep an eye on them.
   Due to the sensitive nature of the situation, it was paramount that Philip’s warmongering be kept private, conflict with Austria or France being the last thing desired by the new King. Unbeknownst to the Neapolitans was the fact that neither power proved to be in an interventionist mood. Paris was on the verge of the Coup of 1890 and all the growing extremism that entailed while Vienna was more focused on the spiraling Panic of 1888. Indeed, when news arrived of the Quiet Coup Emperor Charles VIII of Austria was fairly indifferent. The new King Alfonso III was his brother-in-law, and it was hoped that the coup would bring Naples closer to Austria by degree, if not by absolute. In France, Charlotte took up the cause of her cousin the deposed Queen Bertha, but found Louis XX disinterested in the situation for the time being, given extensive commitments in North Africa and Anatolia.

Detention of the Nationalists During the Quiet Coup, 1888
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Alfonso III (1888-1894)
Democratic Backsliding (1888-1894)
   The Quiet Coup was met with a surprising degree of indifference on the part of the Neapolitan populace. Despite the former support for the liberalizing tendencies of Charles VIII, there was a significant portion of society that felt exhausted by the constant politicking. By 1888 the never-ending nationalist refrains had begun to get stale. This was coupled with an older generation that had never truly become used to the degree of openness championed by the late king. The ultranationalist youth, inculcated with the curriculum introduced under Charles VIII, were not yet of a sufficient age to be any significant political force. There were also many pragmatic nationalists who judged that the rash, headstrong approach of the deposed king would have only led to ruin.
   Alfonso III sought to restore power to the Crown, undoing what he perceived as the humiliation of the monarchy by his late brother’s constitution. The state of emergency that had followed the Quiet Coup was extended repeatedly through 1890. Decrying “mob rule,” a crackdown on anarchism, liberalism, Catholic-Republicanism, and socialism saw many dissidents driven underground. Though the pretense of democracy was preserved, including continued elections and parliamentary procedure in line with the Constitution, most people saw the government for what it was; a top-down military dictatorship run by conservative elites. One exiled socialist agitator, Antonio Labriola, summed up the views of many, writing from exile in Marseilles, “They allow us to vote for a yellow party or a blue party, knowing full well that the government’s policies will be the same regardless.” Electoral turnout cratered, not that the government truly seemed to care.
   The suppression of the Catholic Republican movement in Naples was probably one of the most controversial decisions of King Alfonso. The king used the British anti-socialist policies of the 1870s as a template, seeking to squeeze the movement out of existence.  Thousands chose to migrate to South America rather than live in such repressive conditions. Of those that remained, the most vociferous activists began to organize secret meetings and discussions, the actions of the Crown only further serving to cement their republican beliefs.

[Spamage]

The Crown and the Mitre (1889-1894)
   The Catholic Republicans in Naples found an unlikely ally in the Vatican. Pope Clement XIV (Luigi Oreglia di Santo Stefano) had been elected to the Papacy in 1886 as a compromise candidate, relying on the votes of the French, Neapolitan, and Spanish delegations. There was a general desire in the Church to avoid the embarrassment of the 1878 Conclave which had been deadlocked as Austria, Naples, Spain, and France had all jockeyed for a majority, the issue only being resolved on the thirty-eighth ballot with the election of the Austrian-backed candidate following a last-minute deal between Vienna and Naples. With the death of that pontiff, Clement was seen as a noncontroversial placeholder, yet another forgettable pope in a century that had seen the authority of the Vatican wane.
   Yet, this was not necessarily to be the case. After a century of subjugation to secular authority, some clerics believed it was time for a more assertive papacy. Clement XIV subscribed to the growing ‘Conciliatory’ movement within the Catholic Church, a theological argument that sought to bridge the divide between the more radical Catholic-Republican factions and the existing Church establishment in the rest of the world. The Conciliatorians argued the faithful were one flock and ought not be divided merely because of the government of their country. While many suspicious conservatives framed this as an effort to bring in the radical Catholic-Republicans from the cold, they found themselves outmaneuvered by a more optimistic, or perhaps naïve, reforming faction in the Church.
   Clement XIV broke with tradition, expanding the college of cardinals through the inclusion of numerous American prelates (primarily from Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Quebec, and Louisiana). Arguing that a growing number of Catholics now resided in the New World, it was hoped a more geographically representative Church would better serve the needs of all the faithful. While most cardinals still resided in Italy, France, Austria, and Spain (up to 80%), the inclusion of fresh figures undoubtedly changed the calculus for the future of the Church. The Pope was also sympathetic towards calls to reform the Church in line with a changing world, though he held off on announcing any sort of Church Council, especially after Vienna and Naples made it clear such an act would not be tolerated.
   Clement XIV's first overtly political act, and the one that began his feud with King Alfonso III, was the decision to accept the request for sanctuary made by several dozen Catholic Republican dissidents in 1889, fleeing arrest in Naples. When several Roman police officers attempted to enter the Vatican to seize the fugitives, a scuffle broke out with the Swiss Guard. Personally offended, the Pope issued a private protest to King Alfonso, following up with a public sermon condemning those that would persecute the faithful for political gain. Clement had never been warm to Alfonso, having been elevated through the patronage of the deposed Philip V, but previously had been quiet on his opinions.
   Alfonso was outraged by papal meddling, and felt betrayed by the Pope. Priests in Naples were prohibited from reading Clement's statements on the matter to their congregations. The prospect of the seizure of Church estates was raised and arrests of Catholic Republicans were dialed up. Patrols around the Vatican were aimed at preventing further flights into sanctuary by ideological opponents of the regime, though dozens did successfully scale the walls to safety.
   Despite his sympathies for the Catholic-Republicans in Naples, it must be noted that the Pope did not necessarily fully embrace their ideology, having privately condemned the brutality used by the governments in La Plata and Brazil to enforce compliance. Likewise, he overlooked the persecution of Catholic Republicans in Austria, Germany, and Eastern Europe, showing a clear-eyed view of the power dynamics at play. Still, after a century dominated by conservative do-nothings, the presence of a more activist pope was noted by many in Europe, especially given he seemed to be the most open-minded regarding the previously shunned ideology.

Pope Clement XIV
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Francis III (1894-)
The Transition of Power (1894-1900)
   Alfonso III died in 1894, the first major test for the established regime. It was rather sudden, neither supporters nor opponents of the government having time to organize a response. His son, taking the throne as Francis III, was an unknown quantity. Francis had not been brought up to be king, having been 42 when his father had seized the throne during the Quiet Coup. Indeed, his whole childhood and youth had seen him groomed to succeed his mother as the Archduke of Tuscany. He had a much more docile temperament as a result of his upbringing, though seemed earnest in his desire to be a stabilizing influence in Naples. Still, he could point to an impressive pedigree, his mother cementing his ties to the Habsburg Monarchy, while his late wife was a daughter of the beloved King Charles VIII of Naples and sister to the deposed Philip V.
   There were hints of discontent in the weeks following his taking the throne. A growing legitimist movement among liberals and nationalists called for the restoration of the exiled Philip V or his eldest son Prince Louis, protests being met with extreme police force. Attempts by some Catholic Republicans to proclaim a Sicilian Republic in Palermo saw soldiers open fire and kill any malcontents, Pope Clement XIV condemning the new sovereign for the bloodshed just as he had his father. Only in Tuscany, his patrimony, did the new king face no expressions of displeasure for the populace. Though Francis may have been kinder than Alfonso, his government clearly intended to continue the general policies of his father with the backing of the military. Still, the nascent government faced a significant loss in 1898 when General Luigi Acquaviva, the man instrumental in the Quiet Coup and a steadfast link between the Crown and the military, died.
   Though domestic politics seems placid, some in Naples quietly wonder whether this is merely an illusion, the repression of the various populist factions lulling the establishment into a false sense of security. Exiled agitators paint the realm as top-heavy, ready to collapse into infighting the moment that the oppressed populace sense weakness, though other observers argue this is merely wishful thinking, noting the broad conservative sentiments expressed by a significant portion of society. Still, it is noted that the ultranationalists, weaned with the dramatic Italian vision of Philip V, have started to come of age. What that too could mean for the kingdom remains to be seen.

King Francis III, Heir to an Uncertain Future, 1900
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Spain: A Nation Damaged

Zaragoza, the new Spanish capital, 1890
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Ramon Nouvilas (1876-1881)
Reconstruction (1876-1881)
   With the conclusion of the Spanish Civil War and the triumph of the Catholic Republicans, President Nouvilas governed a broken nation. The people were tired of war, thousands had been dislocated by the fighting, and it was felt as though the Spanish culture had been irrevocably damaged by the intense conflict. The remainder of the 1870s saw extensive efforts made to repair infrastructure, modernize the ruined cities, and unite the divided populace. Madrid, though partially repaired, would not reassume its former glory. That city remained a backwater, seen as a haven of liberalism, and the capital was relocated to Zaragoza permanently.
   Two major factions emerged in the government: the Church and the military. Both had been instrumental in supporting and carrying out the revolution, but they now found themselves at loggerheads. Most military leaders balked at the calls of radical clerics for further revolutionary acts, such as the imposition of a surveillance force or a renewal of the inquisition. The Church, meanwhile, perceived the generals as constantly siphoning off gold from the state coffers with their demands for raises and improved benefits. They also distrusted the religious convictions of most officers, pushing for the chaplains to be provided with disciplinary powers, a proposition staunchly detested by the general’s staff. Only the strong leadership of Nouvilas kept any feuding at bay.
   While Nouvilas had come to power at the head of a Catholic-Republican movement, the man himself was far more of a Catalan nationalist than a religious radical, and this showed in his governance. He often tended to side with his fellow soldiers over the clerics in the Cortes. While initial policies such as the redistribution of land were not reversed, the government shied away from repressive tactics along the lines of La Plata. Spain aligned itself with the moderate Catholic Republic in Colombia, signed a defensive pact with Naples, and dropped the proscriptions against the emigrants that had been enacted in the immediate aftermath of the conflict. Church leaders could only watch with disdain as they felt their movement was slowly betrayed by the very man who had established it.
   Yet, Nouvilas had little time to savor his role as president, falling ill and dying in 1881. Naturally, there were some suspicions of foul play, given the President was just 68, but nothing was ever definitively proven. Just several years after his victory, the leadership of the nation was once again questioned. Well aware of any potential power-vacuum, on his deathbed Nouvilas made it clear General Rafael Tristany, one of his primary aides in the former conflict and a fellow Catalan, would succeed him. The late president was given a funeral fitting of one of the late Bourbon monarchs, a massive public ceremony aimed at further cementing the triumph of the Catholic-Republican regime.

Rafael Tristany, Second President of the Holy Union of Spain
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Rafael Tristany (1881-1893)
The Center Under Siege (1881-1884)
   Tristany was proclaimed president with little opposition just hours after the death of Nouvilas on June 6th, 1881, confirmed with a voice vote in both the Chamber of Deputies and the Cortes. From the start, he emphasized his was to be a government of continuity and this sentiment would characterize his tenure. Though critics would charge that his leadership would lead to the stagnation of the Holy Union of Spain, especially as it assumed a reactive role to global developments, Tristany believed that the country lacked the capability to be a major player on the global stage until the wounds had healed. By 1881 Spain had yet to recover to its pre-war population, a milestone that would only be reached in 1886, 16 years on from the start of the Spanish Civil War.
   Tristany’s government was immediately plagued by intrigue. Beyond the existing tensions between the Army and the Church, royalists and liberals lurked in the wings, each waiting for their own chance to seize control. Nationalist jealousies likewise hindered unity in the Catholic-Republican cause. The long-exiled King Henry V reportedly saw the death of Nouvilas as his chance to launch a restoration campaign, only being dissuaded by his host Emperor Philip of Quebec who believed that lingering exhaustion from the Spanish Civil War would undermine the royalist cause.
   That did not stop the King’s supporters from taking action. The mutiny of several dozen royalist soldiers in Santiago de Compostella ignited a regional protest in Galicia in late 1881, rebels aiming to open up the port of Vigo to royalist vessels. Galicia was one of the regions most loyal to the deposed Crown, many civilians backing the mutiny. Only the resolve of the local general Arsenio Linares y Pombo kept the situation under control, the failure of the royalists to seize Vigo resulting in the quick implosion of their movement. Tristany dubbed Linares a “Champion of the Republic” and rewarded him at a ceremony at the Cathedral of Zaragoza. What followed this flash of unrest in Galicia was a suppression of all things deemed royalist, soldiers rooting out what they saw as disloyalty to the regime.
   The liberals were just as active and better organized than the royalists, many clandestine networks of opposition dating all the way back to the Civil War. Both the Church and the military were filled with crypto-liberals, the unrest of the civil war having made verifying loyalty to the regime rather difficult. Their attempt to topple Tristany’s regime manifested itself with the Andalusian Rising (1882-1883), a mass rebellion in Southern Spain seeking to reignite the old conflict. Initially the movement seemed promising, several divisions of soldiers defecting and former liberal officers pouring in from their self-imposed exiles in Britain, Austria, and Naples. Ramón Blanco, one of Serrano’s former lieutenants, led the movement from Granada, proclaiming the Second Spanish Republic.
   Yet, without much foreign support, the cause quickly faded. By mid-1883 any momentum for the rebel cause had evaporated, the purported liberal army morphing into local guerilla resistance, which did little to endear them to the local populace. Granada itself was easily captured in May 1883, Ramon Blanco fleeing back to exile in Britain as his movement floundered. Tristany proclaimed that the Holy Union was under siege from satanic enemies within and without, preparing a systemic review of the loyalty of all members of civil society in order to prevent further scheming.

Fall of Granada, 1883
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Plot of 1885 and Aftermath (1885-1891)
   No longer held in check by respect for Nouvilas, the Church seized on his death to reassert itself and take a leading role in the regime. Annoyance with the military-led Holy Union had been growing for quite some time. While the government preached Catholic doctrine and organized itself in line with other Catholic Republics, it was still primarily a military dictatorship. Radical clerics found themselves repeatedly sidelined and it was clear that Nouvilas, and later Tristany, were counting on the attrition of time to weed out outspoken clerics who could be replaced by moderates after their deaths. Though the Church controlled the Cortes by design, they often found themselves locked out of decision-making.
   The suppression of the Andalusian Rising and subsequent commitment to purge the government of those deemed loyal to the opposition alarmed many clerics, who saw it as an excuse for the government to meddle in the Church and remove any that stood against it. Archbishop-Cardinal Antolín Monescillo y Viso of Toledo, the head of the Spanish Church and governor of the province of New Castile, organized a broad conspiracy to assassinate Tristany, topple the regime, and reorganize the Spanish Union on more radical lines. Monescillo alleged that he had support from Brazil, who was seeking to dislodge Spain from its Colombian alliance after the split in 1885, though hard evidence of this never materialized. There was also a nationalist component to this plot as well, the Castilian prelate having grown tired of "rule by Catalans."
   The plan was for Tristany to be assassinated on the streets of Zaragoza, at which point the bishop-led Cortes would declare its right to replace the deceased president. Monescillo would take the role, setting up an Archbishop-Presidency like in the other Catholic Republics. While some organized opposition was expected in the military, the conspirators believed that the common soldiers were fundamentally faithful and would rise up against their officers after hearing the call.
   Yet, as fate would have it, the movement failed. Tristany had long been monitoring high-ranking clergymen and when the Archbishop of Zaragoza carelessly forgot some of his written plans, they fell into the government’s possession. Without proof implicating the others, it was decided it would be best to let the plot proceed and the others incriminate themselves. A week before the Plot of 1885 was to be enacted, the Franciscan monk assigned with the assassination was arrested, as were most clerics. Monescillo and the others were incarcerated in Burgos without trial.
   A full-scale purge of the Church was avoided, though Tristany distributed pamphlets throughout the nation framing the plotters as agents of Satan. He was keen to avoid the sort of authoritarian displays that were increasingly in vogue, a sentiment many of his supporters disagreed with. Still, it was now unquestionable that the military was the primary apparatus of the Spanish Holy Union, with the Church as a subordinate body. While Tristany could not have the incarcerated prelates removed from their bishoprics, and the Vatican steadfastly stood up for their cause (especially after the elevation of Clement XIV in 1886), regents were set up in the sees to conduct the secular business of government. As the men died in captivity new, loyalist bishops began to fill the Cortes.
   Public reaction was fairly muted, the people bought off with a wide package of reforms increasing worker’s rights, standardizing hours, and providing recourse for wrongs. While most Catholic Republicans fell in line with punishing the conspirators, the irreconcilable radicals mostly drifted in a different direction, either towards reactionary-socialism or more intense forms of regional nationalism. Yet another strand of political thought joined the ideological laundry list of opponents of the regime as Tristany portrayed his government as holding the center down in the face of royalist, liberal, and radical attacks.

Archbishop-Cardinal Antolín Monescillo y Viso of Toledo; Shortly Before the Plot of 1885
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Arsenio Linares y Pombo (1891- )
Ending Stagnation (1891-1895)
   With Tristany's death in 1891 it was feared there would be yet more power struggles, but the transition would prove to be smooth, opposition within the government having been eliminated after the Plot of 1885. General Arsenio Linares y Pombo, the ‘Champion of the Republic’, was chosen as Tristany’s successor by the Cortes and House of Deputies. He was a man who had crushed royalism, enjoyed national support, and embraced the established order. Yet, while a product of the regime, Linares sought to rejuvenate the ailing Holy Union and bring about a more assertive Spanish policy.
   While Spain’s population had recovered from the Civil War, economic growth lagged behind. Many European powers had avoided doing business with the Holy Union, wary of its Catholic Republican roots. At the same time the government had consistently villainized the bourgeoise and capitalist classes, curtailing large-scale private enterprise. The result had been economic stagnation during the days of Tristany, Spain beginning to lag behind the rest of Europe. It was notable that Zaragoza's largest trading partner was Colombia, a whole ocean away.
   Linares sought to change this, hoping a dynamic, growing economy would catapult Spain back into a major European power player. Alfonso's Quiet Coup in Naples had strained Spanish ties with their nominal ally, so they had to look elsewhere. Despite acting as a haven for political refugees, Britain proved all too eager to open up an economic relationship with the Holy Union. As it had done in Colombia, Britain used the opening of Spanish markets as a means of commercially enriching itself. Spain, meanwhile, did benefit from technological improvements, though some workers lamented tying the Holy Union to such a capitalistic state. In addition to trade, Linares embarked on a substantial spending spree, using Colombian, New Holland, and British financing to embark on programs aimed to increase the productivity of farms, expand ports, and improve internal transportation.

[Spamage]

Spain Awakens (1895-1900)
    With the turn of the century, Spain has finally stabilized. With a growing population and economy, many hope that the worst days are behind them. Yet, the future of the Holy Union is unclear. Increasingly, some factions within the government call for "Colombian Reforms" to be implemented, resulting in an opening of the political process to the disenfranchised masses. Linares, despite his flexibility on economic matters, has thus far refused these calls. Himself a committed Catholic, he has shown little inclination to weaken the power of the Church.
   The Spanish people had little appetite for any sort of foreign adventures or diplomatic affairs and, as a result, the country had largely operated as a non-aligned power as Europe split into the French, Austrian, and Russian camps. As the turn of the century approached, many questioned if this attitude would be sustainable, especially in the aftermath of major developments such as the Danube Crisis.

Arsenio Linares y Pombo, Third President of the Holy Union of Spain
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Mexico: Collapse of the Old Order

Mexico City, 1900
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

King Luis I (1876-1888)
The Rough Peace (1876-1880)
   The Kingdom of Mexico had been on the winning side of the North American War, though many in the realm felt they had been short-changed. Despite the tremendous economic sacrifices inflicted by the punishing British blockade, Mexican territorial gains were far less substantial than those of Quebec, Louisiana, and New England. Whereas those powers had won extensive territories around the Great Lakes, Caribbean, and New York respectively, Mexico had only won Belize, Barbados, and Guadaloupe. In a rare show of defiance to the beloved sovereign, several dozen members of the Lower Assembly boycotted the King’s speech celebrating the end of hostilities. Nationalists pointed to the sacrifice of the brave sailors during the Battle of Campeche and argued that the government had betrayed their memory by not extracting larger concessions.
   This incident would be symptomatic of the later reign of King Luis I. By the 1880s, some felt the government was getting a bit tired. As the king entered his 70s and then 80s, he was seen as a shadow of the young man that had led the Mexican people to victory in the 1830s. While Luis himself was personally quite popular, this masked growing discontent behind the scenes. It was taboo to criticize the king himself, but this did not stop critics from savaging the bicameral National Assembly. Likewise, Prime Minister José María Gutiérrez de Estrada was portrayed as an inept buffoon. While first-past-the-post voting kept more radical groups out of government, it also increased their willingness to operate outside of the system.

Bubble of 1880 and Recovery (1880-1885)
   The most significant development in the reign of Luis I after the conclusion of the North American War was the Bubble of 1880 and the ensuing economic fallout. Eager to bolster growth and rid itself of a surplus of public lands, the Mexican government had offered surveyors one quarter of land for free and rights to purchase the remaining three fourths at cost in 1875. This led to a bonanza, hundreds of surveying companies set up on short notice as the elites poured their funds into an exciting investment opportunity. With the Treaty of Albany and an end to the blockade, this coincided with the resumption of immigration from Europe. Land prices soared, speculators seeming to have found a goldmine of opportunity.
   Surveyors were accused of corrupt practices, including the abuse and forcible removal of those “found” to be residing on public lands. Indeed, a good deal of resentment to the rapacious urban elites was stoked by the boom. Inflated parcels of often worthless land were sold to unwitting immigrants at inflated prices, leaving them nearly destitute as their savings were depleted. Likewise, the quality of the surveying was often questioned, any capable individual able to pose as a surveyor. The small middle class felt excluded from potential economic gains as nobles, capitalists, and those with existing sources of wealth just further compounded their savings. Needless to say, the buildup to the Bubble of 1880 went a long way to increasing already significant class tensions in Mexico.
  Yet, the party was not to last. The bubble burst on March 5th, 1880 when one previously deemed reliable surveying company was forced into bankruptcy, land prices having evidently climbed too high for would-be buyers and the company over-leveraged. Throughout the spring, land prices began to descend, leading to stock sell-offs, which then forced further offloading landholdings. As the share prices stumbled, more and more companies were forced into bankruptcy. Stock for the companies went unsold, thousands seeking to cash out before their savings were made worthless. Even, embarrassingly, some members of the Royal Family were caught up in the crash, King Luis’ second son Prince Augustine losing thousands of pesos in the crisis.
   The bursting of the bubble spread to additional sectors of the economy. Losing money on their loans caused banks to withhold financing and seek to increase their capital reserves. Bank runs in Mexico City, Veracruz, and León saw some driven to insolvency. As other companies followed the surveyors into bankruptcy, unable to operate with the higher interest rates demanded by banks, the urban areas began to fill with the unemployed. The conservative government, staffed by the very elites that had participated in the speculation crisis, rapidly moved to guarantee the savings of depositors, in effect shielding them from potential losses. While this brought some semblance of stability to the banking system, the vast, unbanked masses felt it was a reward for risky behavior. Likewise, a scheme guaranteeing a minimum amount of return for investors who turn their shares over to the government was detested by the left, which viewed such blatant corruption as unacceptable.
   All of this took place in the backdrop of the Election of 1880, the second vote under Mexico’s Constitutional Charter of 1872. While Catholic Republicans were barred from running, other radical strains of thought were not. Socialist, nationalist, anarchist, indigenous, and regionalist parties all campaigned alongside the existing conservative, reactionary, and liberal parties. Socialist tirades against the corruption of the existing government and its role in the Bubble of 1880 drew mass crowds and support from the downtrodden. Nationalists mocked the decision to make French a coequal language to Spanish and reiterated anger over Mexico’s abuse in the Treaty of Albany. Liberals called for the government to put the unemployed to work with modernization schemes and for investigation. Conservatives, meanwhile, framed the novel opposition parties as seeking to impose French radicalism on the people and defended the government’s actions in the ongoing economic crisis.
   The conservatives were saved by the first-past-the-post system of government, maintaining a narrow majority in the Lower House of 128 seats out of 250. Many districts had them winning with a mere 30% of the vote, the opposition too divided and expansive to yield a coherent message. The liberals carried 81 districts, aided by their compactness, support primarily coming from urban areas. The socialists had gained 32 seats, despite a respectable 19% of the national vote, with smaller parties taking the rest. For the regional assemblies, the more radical opposition did better, taking control of Yucatan, Oaxaca, and Chiapas thanks to a robust showing for indigenous parties. Notably, a woman, socialist Dolores Jiménez y Muro won a seat in San Luis Potosi, despite females being barred from the vote. There was a sense of disappointment as King Luis appointed his second prime minister, conservative Jose Maria Roa Barcena, many feeling like a true opportunity for change had been missed, given the seven-year mandate of government.
   Barcena’s tenure saw a slow recovery from the misery of the Bubble of 1880. Attempts to rein in the more radical actions of the opposition-held regions came to dominate the political scene throughout the 1880s. When Yucatan legalized unions and there was a series of strikes, Barcena and King Luis ordered in soldiers and countermanded the laws of the region, drawing protest from the local assembly which went so far as to censure the King. Little came of this and some felt they had overplayed their hand by doing so. Barcena’s primary concern was to preserve order, demonstrated repeatedly by a bolstering of urban police forces, clampdowns on strikes, and enhanced protections for the estates of the Church and nobility. The opposition grew incensed meanwhile, as the eventual recovery relied on extensive foreign investment and continued immigration, which some socialist leaders felt undermined the strength of their labor movement.

Twilight of the Father of the Nation (1885-1888)
   Mexico hosted elaborate celebrations for Luis’ Golden Jubilee in 1885, dozens of foreign dignitaries watching ceremonies incorporating Indigenous, Spanish, French, and Louisianan themes. Playing on Augustus’ famous lines, Luis was proclaimed to have “found Mexico a city of torches and left it a city of electricity.” Indeed, whatever the criticisms, his remarkably long reign had defined the epoch. Mexico proper’s population had more than doubled from 6 million at his coronation to 13 million in 1888. Railroads crisscrossed the land, cities were rapidly expanding, and the nation’s nascent industrial capacity had begun to increase. Taking the throne of a war-torn viceroyalty, Mexico had been molded into a modern power under his leadership.
   The Election of 1887 demonstrated that the future after King Luis would be more uncertain. Determined not to be bested by the first-past-the-post system, the socialists formed an electoral alliance with the indigenous parties (dubbing itself the People’s Alliance) and organized a no-contest agreement with the liberals in numerous districts. As a result, the vote led to a far different result in 1887, no single group garnering a majority. The conservatives found themselves reduced to 102 seats, the liberals at 79, and the People’s Alliance garnering 55, the remainder of the seats going to nationalists or independents.
   While the obvious path to a majority was a coalition of the Liberals and the People’s Alliance, King Luis leaned heavily on the more moderate Liberals to back the conservatives. The aged monarch was wary of the radicalism of the socialist movement, convincing enough liberals to defect in order to confirm yet another conservative government led by Félix María Zuloaga. He argued that the conservatives had received the most popular vote, ignoring the non-competition agreement between the other two factions. The king got his wish, but his meddling saw a schism form between the 38 liberals that defected to vote in favor of Zuloaga’s government and the 41 that remained in the opposition. This crippling of the liberal movement would come back to haunt his heir.

King Luis I, During the Celebration of his Golden Jubilee, 1885
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

King Felipe (1888-1893)
Tenuous Coalition (1888-1891)
   Luis died on April 17th, 1888, ending a reign of 53 years. Most Mexicans could not remember a time without him leading the nation. His son, King Felipe, had been groomed to rule his whole life, giving numerous addresses over the years to the National Assembly on his father’s behalf. For better or worse, this meant he was tied to Luis’ political legacy, but lacked his authority. Had Luis died a decade or two earlier, this may not have mattered, but the actions of the late king since 1880 had only served to embolden his opponents. In particular, the meddling of the Crown in the government had given that role a decidedly partisan sheen.
   From the start, the new king was challenged, pent up frustrations from decades being vented at long last. The coronation was held amid great fanfare in Mexico City, but the opposition criticized the expense at a time when many Mexicans were struggling. The leadership of the People’s Alliance went so far as to boycott the ceremony, lowering the new king’s opinion of them.
   Strikes among agricultural and mining workers proliferated throughout 1889, clandestinely organized by trade unions seeking to test the limits of the new monarch. Inspired by the British government’s handling of the Manchester Strike, Felipe proved particularly resolute in his response, ordering mass arrests, strikebreaking operations, and prohibiting protests in the name of public order. Chastened, most workers returned to their posts, but the incident left a lasting impression of the King in the minds of Mexico’s working class. Without Luis I’s authority to keep them in line, the fragile coalition government collapsed in July 1891, forcing an election three years early. A group of Coalition Liberals, discontented over the handling of the strikes, broke with Prime Minister Zuloaga and rejoined the opposition.

Mexican Mine Workers, A Key Constituency for the People's Alliance
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Election of 1891 and Aftermath (1891-1892)
   From the start, it was evident that the Election of 1891 would be extremely significant. Frustrated over the late King Luis’ scheming to keep the conservatives in power, the People’s Alliance grew yet further with the Compact of Colima, which saw the nationalists agree to campaign alongside the socialists and indigenous parties in exchange for concessions relating to military expenditure and Mexico’s diplomatic policies. While the Opposition Liberals sought to join the electoral alliance, they were castigated as being complicit in the current state of Mexican society. The conservatives framed Mexico as under siege from the Red Terror once more, calling on patriots to save the country from radicalism. Campaigning was heated, rallies descending into riots all throughout the country.
   When the votes were counted, the near-unthinkable had occurred; the People’s Alliance won a majority of seats in the Lower House, carrying 137 to the conservative’s 86 and the Opposition Liberals 27. Liberal strength had been utterly shattered given the infighting in the party, while the conservatives were at long last forced to reckon with their increasingly unpopular record. The triumph of the People’s Alliance consisted of sweeping victories to the south and north of the capital. Mexico City itself remained a haven of the Opposition Liberals, while the conservatives excelled in the far north of the country.
   King Felipe was at a loss for what to do. As sovereign, he was tasked with the selection of a Prime Minister, but he could hardly stomach any of the leaders of the People’s Alliance. Most of the new members were young firebrands and the electoral base of that movement consisted primarily of the middle and lower classes, leaving him with few leaders of sufficient standing in his own eyes to take the role. Only the intervention of the Crown Prince Luis, who had connections within the People’s Alliance, saved the situation. Amador Salazar Jiménez, an up-jumped socialist organizer from one of the nation’s vast estates, found himself summoned by the king and named the new head of government.
   Prime Minister Salazar found himself boxed in from the start, the Upper House fully staffed by King Felipe’s appointees. Further attempts at land reform, building on early efforts during the reign of Luis I were voted down. Legalization of collective bargaining was also stymied. Efforts to tax foreign investment did pass, but found themselves extremely watered down by the conservative higher-ups.
   The ‘Thirty Hours Session’ held in the Lower House on October 19th, 1891 was a direct attempt by the Prime Minister to illustrate his point. In a rapid-fire session, the whole People’s Alliance wish list was passed piece by piece in the Lower House, the Upper House opening up a counter-session where items were then introduced there only to be voted down. The conservatives and liberals in the Lower House boycotted the proceedings. The political temperature continued to rise, the various delegates returning to their homes fired up over the continued stalemate. The King, in a decidedly direct statement, damned Prime Minister Salazar by name for undermining the confidence of the people in their government. Salazar, incensed, countered by lambasting the King in public, accusing him of stymying the voice of the people.
   This situation could not endure. Publicly, factions were forming. The King was supported by the landowning elites and nobility, northern Mexico, the Church, most of the armed forces, and the urban elites. Salazar was staunchly defended by the common sailors in the navy, urban workers, the peasantry and indigenous population, and the educated youth. There were private calls for him to emulate Alfonso III of Naples and shutter the legislature, force new elections, and suppress the People’s Alliance, but King Felipe was too invested in the existing system his father had established. 
   Most damaging for the King was feuding within the royal house. The Crown Prince, Luis, was rather different than his namesake grandfather. Born in 1870 and coming of age in a Mexico still reeling from the Bubble of 1880, he had become profoundly sympathetic to the left-wing causes permeating society. Luis and his more conservative father often feuded, the relationship becoming outright hostile after the prince was coerced into marrying Princess Frederica of Quebec in 1891 against his will. Chafing against his father’s control, young Luis idolized his first-cousin-once-removed, the French sovereign Louis XX. The Crown Prince was not subtle in his backing of Salazar’s policies over those of his own father.

Campaign Rally of the People's Alliance, 1892
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

[Spamage]

Election of 1892 and the Abdication (1892-1893)
   Hoping to salvage the situation and restore a degree of order, the King unilaterally dissolved the government on February 5th, 1892, calling for a new round of elections. Felipe said that he was fully committed to Mexican democracy, but that the prospect had been undermined by demagogues such as the Prime Minister. Salazar attempted to salvage the situation, declaring that the King could not make such a major move on his own, but found himself outmaneuvered and placed under arrest for trespassing in the capitol building after the dismissal of government. Likewise, the People’s Alliance delegates who refused to leave the floor of the legislature were forcibly ejected by soldiers under the command of the king’s brother Prince Augustine.
   It was hoped the arrest of Salazar would have a chilling effect on the left-wing movement, but the opposite proved to be the case. On May 10th, 1892, despite the Crown having clearly taken sides in the vote and a deliberate effort to suppress the votes of the left, the People’s Alliance gained seats, emerging with 152 compared to 98 for the conservatives and liberals. Many voters were incensed with the meddling of Felipe in the business of government and exhausted with the role of the Upper House in preventing policies from being enacted. Indeed, the calls for reform of the Upper House had been rewarded by the electorate.
   What the King and his allies ignored were the lasting anger towards their policies after decades of conservative government. The Bubble of 1880, influx of foreign investors, and continued wealth iniquity only served to exacerbate class tensions in a stratified society. It seemed as the conservatives were only willing to play by the rules of the constitution when it suited them, but undermined them in underhanded ways when the opposition enjoyed successes. Ensconced in their bubble, they could not understand the frustrations of the average voter with the existing order. At the same time, the subtle influence of events in France demonstrated to the socialists that they need not surrender to the old order.
   Felipe was dejected. He had staked his whole reputation on denouncing the rise of what he saw as dangerous radicals, only to be undermined by the increasingly confident Mexican people. His own son and heir had come over to the side of his enemies, while the future of the country seemed doomed. Both Quebec and Louisiana urged more decisive action, as did portions of the conservative movement, but the king was humiliated and unwilling to escalate the crisis, fearing revolution. In a speech aimed at soothing tensions, he announced a new willingness to compromise with the new government, pardoned Salazar, and named a more moderate Prime Minister José María Pino Suárez. The Crown Prince was given an audience with his father, where they ostensibly made up, embracing one another.
   Both sides played nice at first, moderate reform carrying the day through the remainder of the year. Under Suárez’s leadership, acting as an honest broker, a progressive income tax system was enacted. Railroads and electrical firms were nationalized to the chagrin of some capitalists, but the People’s Alliance was willing to hold back on larger-scale disruptions to the economy for the time being. Collective bargaining was not legalized nationwide, but the National Assembly agreed that the regions could decide to permit it at their discretion.
   Yet, this fragile peace shattered as details of a conservative plot against the regime emerged in January 1893. Though King Felipe had been unaware of the scheming, his brother Prince Augustine, General Miguel Miramón, and former Prime Minister Zuloaga had coordinated an effort to topple the government, declare a state of emergency a la Naples, and enforce a new, harsher constitution on the kingdom. The men had been given extensive aid from financiers in British America, Louisiana, and Quebec, all wary of further nationalizations of foreign property. The news roiled society, the plotters fleeing to Cuba and the protection of the Louisianan government. Protests erupted, denouncing King Felipe and going so far as to call for the deposition of the monarchy.
   Prime Minister Suárez confessed to the King days after the news had broken that he had lost control of the Lower House, the tepid cooperation of the People’s Alliance with the Upper House now dead. Salazar, who had kept a low profile, reemerged, seeking his old job back and openly denounced the incumbent Prime Minister as a conservative plant. Seeing the writing on the wall, King Felipe decided the best action for the future of the realm would be his abdication. While initially seeking to bar his son Luis from succeeding him, trying to name his eldest daughter Fernanda as his heir, his wishes were ignored. Felipe’s abdication took effect on February 7th, 1893. After spending fifty years of his life preparing for the throne, he had ruled for less than five. Defeated, Felipe moved to exile at the court of his cousin Henry-Phillippe in New Orleans where he died in 1898.

Protests Against Monarchy After Plot of 1893
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

King Luis II (1893-)
The Red King (1893-1900)
   Luis II, dubbed the ‘Red Prince’ by conservatives, was now the ‘Red King’. The first telegraph of congratulations for the new king came from his cousin at the court of Versailles, a clear sign of who Luis II’s foreign admirers were. From the outset, he paradoxically demonstrated himself a jealous defender of royal authority and a proponent of the long-desired reforms, aiming to co-opt the People’s Alliance for his own purposes. Former Prime Minister Salazar, long a thorn in his father’s side and a onetime ally of the new king, was mysteriously assassinated just weeks after he had taken the throne, a move that raised many eyebrows. Treated as a hero of the People, Salazar was laid to rest in an elaborate funeral in Mexico City, Luis II and his wife Queen Frederica themselves in attendance. While the King denounced the exiled conservatives as responsible, many noted how he was the beneficiary of the man’s death.
   One of the first actions of the new sovereign was an outright replacement of the long obstinate Upper House. Staffed with his father’s and grandfather’s appointees, Luis sought to leave his own stamp on the body. Dozens of delegates were dismissed in order to refashion its political outlook, some having served for over twenty years. Tomás Mejía Camacho, one such delegate, gave voice to the sense of unease felt by the establishment, stating “We are at the whims of a young tyrant”. Conservatives, nobles, and the old establishment saw the young headstrong king as a usurper.
   Free from any conservative veto, a bevy of reforms were passed in order to placate the numerous factions within the People's Alliance. Laws regulating working conditions were rolled out and all foreign-owned business entities were forced to separate from their ownership or face nationalization. In order to appease the nationalists, Luis formally ended the use of French at court, reversed his grandfather's recognition of it as a coequal language, and barred its teaching in Mexico's schools. Building on this, Mexico also suspended its participation in the North American Alliance, Luis II arguing that his grandfather had been duped in the Treaty of Albany. Seeing the loyalty to his father in the Mexican Army, officers were extensively rotated or replaced, in order to weaken the bonds of loyalty between the officers and the common soldiers. Nobles were barred from unilateral military appointments, which were now to go to those seen as more loyal to the King, regardless of their social class.
   Eager to placate the Church, seeing it as a means of controlling the more conservative-minded peasants who were wary of radical action, Luis and the Archbishop Próspero Alarcón of Mexico City negotiated the Concordat of 1893 with the blessing of Pope Clement XIV. The Church was protected from property confiscation and taxation, but agreed to not oppose the government and to back the King's anti-poverty efforts. The Church in Mexico, long shielded from the Catholic Republican sentiments of South America, had traditionally backed the Crown, so returning to the fold of the new king felt natural, even if he was far more radical than his predecessors. Prelates such as Alarcón had increasingly come to denounce capitalist excess and the poverty it inspired, so backing reform came easy.
   While these actions inspired dread from the establishment, they felt secure so long as they themselves were unmolested. That changed with the introduction of the Repossession Act. Despite the best efforts of the late King Luis I to ensure the creation of a class of smallholders, many rural Mexicans remained as tenants on larger estates of the elites. While not serfs, and free to sell their labor, they still faced extensive economic challenges in the form of high rents and local oligopolies of business elites who manipulated prices as they saw fit. The Repossession Act aimed at eliminating this state of affairs once and for all. Any tenant that had resided on the same plot of land for twenty years, or their family had held the land for the same period, could assume ownership of it from its existing landlord, with the government reimbursing the landlord at half the assessed price. The Mexican Censuses of 1875 and 1890 were deemed sufficient proof to establishing proof of residency. Luis strongly backed the measure, carving out exceptions solely for the Church and the royal patrimony, which were deemed essential organs of the government. The measure was adopted on August 10th, 1893 to go in effect the following spring.

Luis II of Mexico, 'the Red King', 1893
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Border War and Retribution (1894-1900)
   The conservatives did not take Luis’ actions lying down, the government’s authority over northern Mexico ebbing in 1894. The passage of the Repossession Act at long last forced them to take action, armed rebellion breaking out at last. Several regional assemblies held by the conservatives banded together, passing resolutions declaring that King Luis was a usurper of his father's throne. Sonora was the first, followed shortly by Mexican California, Chihuahua, and Coahuila. While the exiled King Felipe showed himself unwilling to act, his brother Prince Augustine seized the leadership of the movement, dubbing himself "Regent of Mexico" and damning his nephew. He was joined by the aged conservative Tomás Mejía Camacho, a respected general from the North American War as acting Prime Minister. Proclaiming that Felipe’s abdication was illegal, this movement rapidly pushed south into Durango and Sinaloa, numerous battalions of conservative soldiers mutinying. They benefitted from geography, their remoteness deterring an immediate response. Louisiana conveniently served as a source of weapons and advice, though the government in New Orleans steadfastly maintained that it recognized Luis II. The Kingdom of Mexico was divided into the Royalists and the Augustinians.
   Support for the rebellion was more muted in the south, the common people rallying to the side of King Luis II. Hopes for an all-out civil war were dashed. When conservative nobles and landholders fled to the opposition court at Chihuahua, their tenants often seized their land in their absence, forcibly breaking up the vast estates that remained as a legacy of Spanish colonialism. Revolutionary sentiment swept through the Mexican heartland, businesses and homes of those deemed anti-government finding themselves brutalized by mob violence. Most conservative and liberal voters among the common classes decided it was easier to keep their heads down and comply rather than risk their lives in the heart of Royalist territory.
   The defections in the military essentially gave the king a free-hand to refashion the force and further cement its loyalty to him. Those officers who still dared to question the king found themselves either sidelined or dismissed as the 'Border War' erupted. The conflict was so named for the illicit aid flowing into Mexico from Louisiana. Fighting proved challenging for both sides. Peasant militias, still loyal to the crown despite the defection of their home regions, raided supply lines in the north, while an Augustinian push on Monterrey saw the city captured in late 1894, but extensively damaged in the process.
   The capture of Monterrey was the high-point for the rebellion. While foreign support prolonged their cause, they simply lacked the numbers to compete with the increasingly Royalist Mexican Army. Luis II was personally on the field at the Battle of Durango that saw rebel leaders forced into the city, which was shelled into submission in mid-1895. The victory at Durango coincided with the birth of a royal heir, Prince Guillermo, a development portrayed by the Church as divine support for the Royalist cause.  
   With the fall of Durango the way to Chihuahua was open. That city, the heartland of the brief Augustinian uprising, fell in early 1896 during the last convulsions of the brief rebellion. Rather than return to a life of exile, Prince Augustine surrendered in person on January 15th, 1896. He and the would-be Prime Minister Tomás Mejía Camacho were executed without trial by firing squad just a week later, a move that shocked royal families all throughout the continent.
   Victory in the rebellion cemented the sovereign's already extensive authority. Luis II engaged in a campaign of retribution against his enemies. Officers who had taken up arms for the Augustinians were forced into exile, facing treason trials should they return, most going to either Louisiana, Colombia, or British America. Likewise, nobles that had refused the King's call to surrender after the Fall of Durango in 1895 had their lands confiscated, titles removed, and were barred from holding office. Opposition newspapers were shuttered under the pretext of public decency, while the common Augustinian soldiers were required to swear an oath of loyalty to the Crown. The territories that had attempted to secede saw their regional assemblies formally shuttered indefinitely, falling under the direct control of the crown.  
   Eager to demonstrate he was following his grandfather's constitution, and would not be outright suppressing the vote like in France, Luis II held elections as planned in 1899. Yet, with a growing atmosphere of repression and some instances of outright vote-rigging, the result was a foregone conclusion. In the 1899 Mexican election, the People's Alliance won 208 seats, those few brave conservatives still willing to campaign reduced to 33 and the liberals down to just 9. The Mexican government would remain pliant to the wishes of the sovereign.  
  

Victorious Royalist Soldiers in the Later Stages of the Border War, 1895
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Schism in the House of Bourbon (1892-1900)
   Diplomatically, the early reign of Luis II had seen a realignment in Mexican diplomacy. The King capitalized on an existing resentment of Louisiana dating back to the North American War. For decades many felt the haughty Louisianans had treated Mexico as an extension of themselves merely because Luis I had been the son of King Louis-Philippe. This could not stand, especially after the Border War. Indeed, the rift between Mexico and Louisiana seemed only to grow given New Orleans' role as a haven for the exiled Augustinians. From the Louisianan perspective, meanwhile, Mexico had become a center of disorder in North America, its unrest threatening to spill over into Louisianan territory and upset the tenuous balance that had been achieved between the Francophone, Anglophone, and Liberian constituencies.
   On a more personal level, the once-close ties between Louisiana and Mexico were diluted by the passage of time. Whereas King Luis I was the brother of the Louisianan King Philippe earlier in the century, Luis II was a first-cousin-once removed of Henry-Philippe and the two men had never even met. While their Hohenzollern wives were niece and aunt, those ties were clouded by the disputed Quebecois succession. In terms of guidance, Luis II looked more towards his mother’s Mexican Cámara family or relatives in Paris rather than his Orleanist cousins to the north.
   This rift seriously undermined the former stability of the North American alliance. Coupled as it was with the disputed succession in the Empire of Quebec, it changed the calculus in the continent. In New England some called for a rapprochement with the remilitarized Britain, while Quebec desperately tried to keep Louisiana and Mexico from escalating tensions, even though both families in those realms challenged Empress Wilhelmina's taking of the throne.

Scandinavia: Twilight of the Oldenburgs

Streets of Stockholm 1900
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Catherine II (1876-1898)
Catherinian Reforms and Domestic Peace (1876-1888)
   Scandinavia emerged from the chaotic early 1870s as one of the preeminent European powers. Prussia at last had been subdued, the Baltic League secured mastery of that sea, and Ottoman weakness allowed for the establishment of protectorates in Egypt and Palestine. Yet, the cost had been heavy. The national mobilization against Prussia had been expensive, coupled as it was with continued disruption to trade through the closure of the Suez and Cape War. Hanover, one of the primary acquisitions from the Peace of Prague, stood in ruins and would require extensive reconstruction. On top of this, Stockholm’s numerous colonies remained a net expense and unemployment was high.
   Catherine II proved herself adept at navigating the situation, announcing the Catherinian Reforms in mid-1877. Inspired by Disraeli’s efforts in Britain, Scandinavia too embarked on extensive social reforms at home, aimed to weakening the potential of any domestic socialist movement. Unlike in Britain, where the Americans and the established conservatives gradually watered down these changes, the Catherinian Reforms proved to be a lasting shift in the domestic order. Passed by the liberal-conservative grand coalition, both established parties were made complicit in the policy. Unemployment insurance was rolled out alongside a basic social security system aimed at preventing poverty caused by economic disruptions. For more immediate relief, the government also established a sizable public works program for the reconstruction of Hanover, Scandinavian (but notably not Hanoverian) citizens being given jobs establishing new rail connections, expanding ports, and rebuilding the battered cities. Likewise, measures to expand the nascent electrical and hydroelectrical systems in major cities were pushed. Passed piece by piece in 1877, the numerous initiatives took effect in January 1878.
   These programs, though greeted with acclaim, were bound to be expensive, especially given Scandinavia’s already extensive debts accumulated over the prior decade. In order to ease the concerns of investors and bold-holders, the tax system was overhauled, especially for the wealthy, in order to bring in more revenue. Likewise, the military mobilization was wound down, even moreso than other powers, Stockholm secure in the assurances and nominal alliances it shared with Austria, Russia, and France. Further revenue was gained through the auctioning off of vast tracts of colonial lands in Africa to corporations involved in resource extraction, a move that would later have substantial implications.
   Initially the Catherinian Reforms seemed to bear little fruit, the effort to lower unemployment countered by the return of so many men from the frontlines. Inspired by the presence of the exiled Dutch royals, some radicals were particularly vocal in their calls to topple the monarchy, though widespread social disruption was avoided. The Scandinavian recession lasted through 1879, but from there the situation began to recover.
   Indeed, the recession lasted through 1879, but from that trough, the economy began to recover. The Catherinian Reforms, coupled with the reopening of the Suez on January 1st, 1880, did a great deal to improve the situation over the coming years. The Election of 1882, which was the first since the formation of the grand coalition, saw the Liberals ascendant. Norwegian Ole Anton Qvam took the office of Prime Minister, his tenure characterized by spending freezes to alleviate Scandinavia's debt burden, gradually paying down the outstanding war debt during the 1880s.

[Spamage]

Queen Catherine II of Scandinavia, 1875
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The Empress of Africa (1876-1898)
   Nothing consumed Scandinavian attention during the latter half of the nineteenth century more than the development of its African colonies. The proclamation of Catherine II as the “Empress of Africa” in 1876 presaged a massive push by the crown to make good on its claims from the Stockholm Conference and Treaty of Limassol. Interest in Africa was twofold. It was believed by the government that continued investment could turn the broader empire from an expense to a valuable source of revenue, while the vast manpower base of the colonies was seen as a necessarily supplement of Scandinavia’s notoriously small population.
   Thus, the 1880s and 1890s were a boom time in terms of Scandinavian colonization. Thousands of adventurous entrepreneurs, explorers, and scientists converged on the region, seeking to capitalize on the situation. Lake Catherine, the source of the Nile, was claimed for the crown in 1882 by Otto Nordenskjöld. 1894 saw the opening of the Central African Railway, stretching from Buea to Mombasa, after 12 years of construction. Situated along the Congolian forest-savanna mosaic, it proved to be a substantial propaganda coup, regardless of its small grade and at times tenuous connectivity. Plans for a Cairo link connecting the Central African Railway up the Nile were widely discussed throughout the 1890s.
   Scandinavia portrayed itself as a benevolent colonizer, especially in comparison to the Brazilians, Portuguese, and New Brandenburgers. Yet, this was not wholly accurate. While certainly there were no labor duties or aggressive punishments on the scale of the mission-states, Scandinavian domination merely took a different form, most locals being paid scant wages and beholden to corporate estate-holders seeking to maximize profits. White immigrants were given preferential hiring on any truly lucrative jobs, such as railroad construction or management positions. Many anthropologists in the region framed the indigenous population as needing extensive guidance and direction, seeking to portray Stockholm as their benefactor.
   In the puppet states, such as Egypt, Palestine, and Luanda, the local elites found themselves handsomely rewarded for cooperation with the Scandinavians, tariff duties leading to widespread corruption and graft. Yet, the common people here too faced higher prices as a result of their economic ties to Stockholm. Furthermore, the presence of Scandinavian garrisons was a daily reminder of national humiliation. This growing resentment manifested itself in a variety of ways as the century wore on. While outright opposition was silenced, a wave of religious and cultural organizations began to proliferate these regions, particularly Egypt, Palestine, and Scandinavian Sudan.
   The implementation of the Imperial Tariff in 1888 only further increased the misery of many East Africans, who now had to spend more for Scandinavian-produced goods on their meager salaries. While there were extensive profits to be had, especially as companies established massive rubber plantations in Kenya and Tanzania (now free from Brazilian competition), the wealth went to the Scandinavian shareholders and executives, not the local population.

Central African Railway, 1895
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Panic of 1888 and Economic Impact (1888-1892)
   The Panic of 1888 had profound effects for Scandinavia, perhaps only second to those felt in Russia. Its advent and the economic disruption caused by it had the effect of forcing Scandinavia to look inward both economically and politically, a noted shift from its historic sentiment. Herself unnerved by the ease at which the boom had become a bust, Catherine II proved a largely willing partner to an increasingly economic nationalist government.
   Scandinavia, itself a debtor nation, had faced the risk of its own bankruptcy with the Russian vow to cease payment on foreign debt under Chicherin, a substantial portion of which had been held by Stockholm. The toppling of the whole system of foreign credit risked obliterating the domestic economy and shattered the sense of economic complacency that had prevailed in the 1880s. Even with Swiss intervention and the Convention of Bern, unemployment still rose precipitously. The Catherinian Reforms kept the social situation from spiraling out of hand, only nominal striking occurring in some cities (in contrast to what was observed in Britain), but that did not mean the realm would be free of political ramifications stemming from the crisis.
   In the eyes of many, the whole affair underscored the perils of international trade and reliance on foreign investment, a new generation of policymakers calling for a substantial pivot in economic philosophy. The Conservatives, led by Swede Erik Gustaf Boström, swept into office in the election of 1889 due to a dominant performance in rural areas, ending a decade of Liberal rule in the Riksdag. While their hands were initially tied as the largest party in a hung Riksdag, they found an unlikely ally in the Socialist Party to enact protectionist policies, aimed at shielding Stockholm from further international economic chaos.
   Inspired by Austrian protectionism in the form of trade barriers for external powers with the Habsburg Trade Bloc, Scandinavian policymakers sought to emulate the policy with their own European and African territories. The overwhelming passage of the “Imperial Tariff” in 1889 simultaneously eliminated any existing trade barriers between Scandinavia, its colonies, and satellite states, while tremendously increasing tariffs to most other major powers. Only a carveout was made for China, with the profitability of Hainan seen as paramount.
   The effect of this new policy was noticeable, from the start. While Liberal critics howled of slowed growth, there was no major economic disruption at home. Still, economic engagement with Russia plummeted as the two powers moved towards an uneasy relationship. Even trade with nominally friendly powers such as Austria and Britain declined, much to the chagrin of Catherine’s allies in those capitals. Domestically, the group most supportive of the Imperial Tariff was the agricultural industry. With cheap imports from Russia or British America now made far more expensive, agricultural profits throughout Denmark, Hanover, and Livonia soared, bringing local prosperity to these constituent realms. Many cynical observers noted that Prime Minister Boström, himself from an agricultural background, benefitted from the Imperial Tariff.
   The Imperial Tariff would cause chaos in the Socialist Party, that movement splintering over the debate. As in France, Scandinavian socialists divided between those who wanted to work with the government in the existing system to enact change (the Social Democrats) and those who wanted to operate outside of the order (socialist republicans, communist, syndicalists, and reactionary socialists). While the broad spectrum of socialists agreed with the sentiment of the Imperial Tariff, as it also protected domestic laborers from cheaper British and French competition, the very act of siding with the Crown to do so was controversial.

Prime Minister Erik Gustaf Boström, a Fixture of the Late Catherinian Era (1897)
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The Late Catherinian Era (1892-1898)
   Boström proved to be one of the most formidable Scandinavian politicians in the century. When a follow-up election was held in 1892, the Conservatives achieved an outright majority thanks to socialist infighting and the continued unpopularity of the Liberals. Queen Catherine herself, once on the forefront of social policy with the Catherinian Reforms, demonstrated a tendency to lean towards the right in the later part of her reign, working in concert with her prime minister. She felt that many socialists were ungrateful for the generosity of the Scandinavian system at a time when social reforms in Russia and Britain were being undercut, while the liberals were blamed for the Scandinavian involvement in the Panic of 1888.
   Now with a secure majority, Boström and Catherine II were able to fully cooperate on a wide range of issues. Concerned by the Russian naval buildup under Suvorin, specifically the reestablishment of the Russian Baltic Fleet in 1882, the Queen had long sought to prod the government into action. Throughout the 1880s the Liberals had proved obstinate, dovish towards Russia and not wanting to provoke future conflict. The Conservatives had no such compunctions.
   In a direct counter to Suvorin’s naval reforms, Scandinavia responded with an aggressive naval expansion in the 1890s, which culminated in 1899 with the launch of the HMS Viborg, a state-of-the-line type of battleship armed with massive artillery and steam propulsion. Though just one ship, as with the launch of the first Zeppelin in Vienna, some noted that the HMS Viborg presaged a new naval era, France, Russia, and Britain all hurrying the production of their own similar vessels.
   Boström also introduced a system of national military training for all men aged 18-25, seeking to augment the smaller number of would-be Scandinavian soldiers. Young men were required to spend a year away from home training as a reservist, with follow-up review sessions for two weeks out of each subsequent year. While the number and quality of potential soldiers did greatly increase, many resented the undue burden of spending a year away from home, especially as the lodging and food provided were often noted to be subpar. Still, the mixing of all the different Scandinavian nationalities did go some way to blending the varied national identities and regionalist sentiment to some extent.
   The remainder of the 1890s would see Boström legislate on a wide variety of issues. The Scandinavian patent system was revamped, hoping to draw in new inventors. Emigration to the Americas or New Holland was discouraged, the government enacting a tax on the assets of those seeking to move away. The education system was reorganized, national languages being moved to secondary status in favor of standard Swedish in Livonia and Finland. Denmark and Norway were exempted due to their language’s similarities with Swedish. Schooling was made compulsory and child labor prohibited.
   Yet, further social reform was halted. Despite apparently having some personal sympathy for the cause, Queen Catherine II did little to aid the growing female suffrage movement. Boström also ensured that no further accommodations were made towards trade unions and other reforms championed by the Social Democrats. While the Conservatives were rewarded in the Election of 1897, Boström once again serving as Prime Minister, their majority in the Riksdag had dwindled significantly, both the Liberals and the Social Democrats enjoying a resurgence in strength.

HMS Viborg, the Ship that Launched a New Naval Era, 1899
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Perfidious Stockholm (1876-1898)
   The late reign of Catherine II could best be described as the gradual alienation of Scandinavia from many of its nominal allies. In 1876, frustrated by the alliance between Paris and Stockholm, Habsburg diplomats had cynically remarked that, “by being an ally to all, Scandinavia is a friend to none.” Time and unintentional actions would change the situation markedly. By the turn of the century, aside from its dynastic ties with Britain and legacy of cooperation with Austria, the Scandinavians had few close friends around the world.
   Qajar Iran was alienated by the establishment of Hashemite Palestine and felt that Scandinavia had unjustly encroached on its backyard. Whispers of Scandinavian intrigues on behalf of the Saudis did little to help matters, the defensive alliance between the two lapsing with Scandinavian inaction in the Qajar-Ottoman War. The Ottomans themselves could not forgive the Swedes for their duplicitousness during the Second Great Eastern War. Russia was insulted by the marriage and happy union of Prince Charles to Grand Duchess Charlotte, daughter of the deposed Czar. Likewise, Moscow was frustrated by Scandinavian meddling in its economic affairs in the aftermath of the Panic of 1888. Versailles, meanwhile, was perturbed by Stockholm’s status as a haven for political refugees and the screeds against Louis XX and Charlotte that were published by Scandinavian booksellers.
   Even the “unshakable” bonds between Vienna and Stockholm were strained by Catherine’s neutrality in the July Crisis in 1897 and her ambivalence about the Third Imperial Reform. While Vienna saw her as an obstinate, noncommittal ally, the Scandinavians began to wonder if they were truly benefitting from continued ties with Austria now that Prussia was clearly no longer a threat. Was not a Habsburg-led centralized Holy Roman Empire what the great Gustav Adolf fought so hard to prevent in the 1600s? With Charles XIV taking the throne in 1898 (a brother to the regent of Austria and uncle to the Queen of Britain) this matter gained a new sense of urgency, some wondering why the Scandinavian people need be beholden to foreign dynasties and if the realm had lost its historic diplomatic flexibility.

Charles XIV (1898-)
A New Reign (1898-1900)
   Queen-Empress Catherine II of Scandinavia died suddenly in Stockholm on September 28th, 1898 at the age of 56. With her passed the House of Oldenburg, a family that had ruled Denmark proper for 450 years and 27 days. She was succeeded by her second-cousin Prince Charles of Britain, who was named King Charles XIV just hours after the death of the beloved queen. Himself a great-grandson of the revered Frederick VI and Catherine I, it was hoped the transfer of power would pass without incident. Many understood the succession to be a watershed moment in Scandinavian history, the durability of the established order being put to the test under a new dynasty.
   Charles had been groomed to rule for more than twenty years. When it had become clear that Catherine II was unable to bear children in the 1870s, she had chosen her heir from among her closest living relatives. As a younger son of Henry X, and merely 17 at the time, the Queen had hoped to mold Charles into an heir fitting of Scandinavia. She had done well, Charles learning Swedish, Danish, and Finnish in addition to his preferred English. As Crown Prince he had dutifully aided his cousin, marrying Charlotte Romanov in line with her wishes in 1874. He was reasonably popular, though had never been actively put to the test. Notably, Charles held a more liberal sentiment relative to his conservative predecessor.
   Yet, the succession was bound to be controversial. By naming Charles as heir, Catherine II had overlooked the claims of her three first cousins, the Hesse-Darmstadts, children of her late aunt Alexandra’s illicit marriage with Prince Alexander of Hesse-Darmstadt. As her first cousins, there was little doubt they had a claim on the Scandinavian throne, only barred by King Gustav IV’s decision to forbid them from inheriting in 1845. Even after snubbing them, Catherine had sought to keep the family close, marrying Josepha (the sole daughter) to her client, King Constantine I of Greece.
   Yet, as a junior member of the Hessian line, and with little prospect of inheriting anything of note, the two sons proved to be more obstinate. William of Hesse-Darmstadt had fled to Quebec, well out of Catherine’s reach, where he had married Ernestine of Quebec, a lesser member of the Quebecois royal family. Alexander, the youngest of the three, had himself fled first to London, then Paris, where he was a noted guest at Versailles. To the critics of the new sovereign, the Hesse-Darmstadts became something of a panacea, any misstep or unpopular move by the sovereign contrasted with the idealized image of Hesse-Darmstadt action.
   Charles XIV’s early reign was not helped by the death of his brother and the continued uncertainty surrounding the British succession as well. Despite acting as sovereign of Scandinavia, the new king maintained a vested, perhaps overly so, interest in his homeland, frequently telegraphing the young Queen Mary III with advice. As second in line for the British throne after Mary’s half-sister Princess Helen, more than one Scandinavian publication has questioned if Charles XIV would force the realm into union with Britain or abandon the Scandinavians to one of his children, neither prospect popular among the general public.
   The assassination of Prime Minister Boström on January 17th, 1899 by Hans Jæger, a Norwegian anarchist, further undermined the stability of the new reign. Jæger, who had been caught up in the enforced morality of the Conservative government, killed himself before he could be apprehended. A nationalist element emerged, some Norwegian nationalists claiming that he had been unjustly accused and was innocent. Indeed, many claimed that France or Russia was truly responsible for the killing.
   Prime Minister Boström, an institution in Scandinavian politics for a decade, had been removed from the political scene at a time his steady hand was most necessary. With his death, the Riksdag named Dane Tage Reedtz-Thott as the new Prime Minister, though he would demonstrate himself less active than his predecessor, content to follow rather than lead. Given the growing infighting among the narrow Conservative majority, many expected Charles XIV would have to call an election relatively soon. The king's coronation in early 1899, under the shadow of Boström's death, proved to be an uneasy occasion.

Coronation of King Charles XIV of Scandinavia and Queen Charlotte of Russia, 1899
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Senussi Rebellion (1896-1900)
   There was little time for Charles to bask in his new role, inheriting as he did an ongoing conflict in the Sahara. In 1896, unrest on the frontier of Egypt had at long last erupted into outright revolt. With the fall of Algeria, subjugation of Morocco, and continued Scandinavian dominance over Egypt and Palestine, many Arabs resented the continued encroachment on their region throughout the late 19th century. It was one thing to be beholden to a Turk or an Iranian, even a Shi’ite Iranian, but the influx of colonial powers was a whole different matter.
   Into this vacuum the Senussi had emerged. During the Turkish Civil War, they had nearly toppled Ottoman control over Tripolitania completely, only being brought back into line after a truce was signed with the victorious Royalists under Abdülkerim Nadir Pasha in 1882. For the remainder of the 1880s and 1890s they had existed on the periphery, taking advantage of lax Ottoman border policies to thrive on the margins of both Egypt and Tripolitania. King Ahmed of Egypt, though loyal to Stockholm, thought dealing with the group as not worth his time.
   With the death of Ahmed in 1892, his son Saleh I proved more energetic. Feeling the need to demonstrate his authority, especially given the constant presence of the Scandinavians, he had instigated a fight with the Senussi in 1896 when he had called for the group to turn over their leader Muhammad al-Mahdi as-Senussi to his custody. The result had been an eruption of low-level guerilla warfare at once. Stockholm professed itself frustrated with Saleh’s actions, but did little to involve itself initially, believing the situation would work itself out.
   Yet, in the initial fighting the Egyptian military proved incapable, many soldiers either unwilling to fight or outright sympathetic with the Senussi calls for an expulsion of the Europeans from North Africa. Indeed, many Scandinavian merchants, officers, and officials in Egypt reported a feeling of wariness in Egypt, questions over the loyalty of the populace now coming to the forefront as the Senussi continued to successfully evade defeat. One of Catherine II’s final orders had been the sending of Scandinavian divisions to Egypt to aid their cause against the rebels.

King Charles XIV, A Sovereign Beset by Controversy, 1899
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)