A question of history

Hello,

Strictly speaking, this isn’t related to the game itself or matters of the Neath and the Bazaar. But it is related to the Game’s plot, so I chose to post it here.

Now, without giving away too much, the new EF content about July has revealed, among many other things, that in the alternate universe where London fell, France retained its monarchy–it has an Emperor in 1908, when in the real world it became a republic in 1871 (or 1870, I’m not sure of the exact year). Clearly, the disappearance of the seat of power of the British Empire has had some very important consequences for Great Power politics on the Surface, as is to be expected. The total disappearance of the largest city on Earth along with the near-total power structure of its largest Empire isn’t exactly a butterfly beating its wings to create a hurricane, it is a hurricane of itself.

Now, I have been thinking about what might have been triggered by London’s lapse that the Second Empire would have survived. Speculative history is by definition not very tangible, or intellectually acceptable perhaps, but it is fun and the question is interesting. Is there any among you who has any ideas as to what role was played in the real course of history by the British in the buildup to the Franco-Prussian War, and how exactly its disappearance may have altered the fate of these two continental powers (I know that the British chiefly followed an isolationist policy which continued on until the First World War)? Any who would like to speculate how Surface politics might have changed otherwise, in Europe and elsewhere? I never questioned how the world might come to terms with a whole city disappearing overnight, it is a question that must simply be given over to suspension of disbelief, but the latest content has clearly shown that London’s fall has had some effects, unless the writers have made a quite colossal error and will promptly replace ‘emperor’ with ‘president’. I am not an EF myself, but I’ve seen echoes and I am intrigued. If I am mistaken in some of my assumptions, do correct me.
edited by Isaiah Hazardway on 7/2/2015

It’s a Third Empire. The republic simply didn’t last.

Are there any hints in the text as to this, and as to why? The way I see it, there is no reason it should’ve been any different than how it actually turned out.

If you mean, does the text confirm it’s the Third Empire, yes. I don’t see anything that jumps out about causes in the rest, though my history of this era is nill so I may be missing some subtle clue.

My present theory is that Neathean powers will take a heavy hand in The Dreyfus Affair in the next coming years and use that to topple the Third Republic and instal the No-Longer-Dead-From-Zulu-Stabbing Napoléon IV as Emperor.
It’s likely that Napoléon IV may have spent some time in Fallen London and The Masters would surely like to have a strong, central authority as the head of France who can sign away right to the city.

Then again, maybe your actions in the storylet have led them to revise this plan and look to another city?

[quote=Nigel Overstreet]My present theory is that Neathean powers will take a heavy hand in The Dreyfus Affair in the next coming years and use that to topple the Third Republic and instal the No-Longer-Dead-From-Zulu-Stabbing Napoléon IV as Emperor.
It’s likely that Napoléon IV may have spent some time in Fallen London and The Masters would surely like to have a strong, central authority as the head of France who can sign away right to the city.

Then again, maybe your actions in the storylet have led them to revise this plan and look to another city?[/quote]

That is a very good theory. Considering how closely the Republic survived the Affair, a little interference could quickly lead to a coup. I was tempted to think the new Emperor might’ve been Boulanger, but he’s already dead at this point. But so is Napoleon IV, in fact, he apparently died in 1879. So I guess we have no leads on that one either. Did you get the dates wrong or were you suggesting he would be revived?

I thought the sixth city wouldn’t fall for another c500 years?

Regarding the OP, I could see France snapping up British colonial possessions around the world. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Jamaica, British Honduras… it would put them in a powerful position.

[quote=Lord Hoot]I thought the sixth city wouldn’t fall for another c500 years?[/quote]Who can tell?

We know that a few of the Masters are already pretty much done with London and are pushing to move on. Other Masters (most notably Mr Fires, I believe) like London and want to stay more.

I don’t think there’s a set rule for when cities fall. New content seems to indicate that it’s mostly up to the Masters’ whim and the balance of power between them, and the Bazaar.

[quote=Isaiah Hazardway]

That is a very good theory. Considering how closely the Republic survived the Affair, a little interference could quickly lead to a coup. I was tempted to think the new Emperor might’ve been Boulanger, but he’s already dead at this point. But so is Napoleon IV, in fact, he apparently died in 1879. So I guess we have no leads on that one either. [/quote]

Far from it! Napoleon IV died in 1879 in battle with the Zulu during the Anglo-Zulu war. Without a British Empire, presumably that affair remained in the hands of the Boers. He also would not have been tutored in London, instead likely getting educated in Austria-Hungary or Russia (as neither France nor Prussia would be options). Either way, if he were able to garner similar political and popular support to our timeline, simply not dying to Zulu spears would probably lead to him founding the Fourth Empire.