A Very Different 15th Century
 

I am still in the formative stages of this ATL, but in looking at OTL trends we can see a few things

- in France, the century saw the gradual reassumption of royal power from the great nobles and quasi-independent fiefs

- in England it saw a gradual withdrawal from France, and the breaking of many noble families in civil war, ending in the taking of power of a king who set about reforming the royal adminstration to the benefit of royal power

- in Iberia, it saw Castile move through constant crises, until in the succession to Henry IV of Castile a unification of Castile and Aragon was possible after a civil war in the former.

In France royal power faced complete breakdown and disintegration but survived. In England, it shifted more complexly after a generation of civil wars. In Spain, the patchwork of kingdoms could have moved in different directions but eventually went in the way we know

At the same time the Empire was seeing the power of the Emperor weakened, the growth of the role of princes but at the same time the splintering of their realms by inheritance laws. The independence of the Swiss, and the breakdown of imperial power in Italy

And the King of Denmark was facing repeated crises within the Kalmar Union

So much for OTL...

Grey Wolf

Alternate History is a curious 'discipline'. There is a strong core of people who say you can only change ONE thing and then have to extrapolate from there. I once wrote an essay as to why this was the only 'pure' doctrine myself... But now I completely disavow it.

History is far more random than that. Study any period, any country and you find things which go completely against the expectations of everyone there, even the greatest and most powerful players, they all get caught out. Obvious events fail to happen. Expectations are dashed. People die inconveniently (Arthur Prince of Wales, Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and so on), succession jumps lines and generations. People rise to the fore who had been backseat drivers, or even who had never even been that (eg Baldwin). Military success leads to complete collapse rather than domination. Enemies unite in incomprehensible alliance (Nazi-Soviet Pact anyone), and allies suddenly desert you and make peace. A single generation can bring one family from dominance in one area of Europe to being poised to dominate the whole continent. Outside forces suddenly crash in on what seemed to be politics as usual - whether the rise of Islam, the fall of Hungary to the Ottomans, or the discovery of the New World. Projected trajectories of history are driven off course and diverged without warning. Nothing is simple

So, given this fact, why do people insist on a single POD, and everything steming from that ? It seems because there is a strong core of people who want to view Alternate History as an intellectual pursuit, but have got so immersed in the details, they don't realise that they could attain far more by observing how the tidal waves of several changes crash together and create even greater change.

It is as if only by making one small change and then studying the minutiae of its effects can anything be learnt. But why not have three changes or four or five, then study them, how they interact, how they impact on each other and on the rest of the world ? It to me seems increasingly to be a route that offers far greater lessons in History than the single event POD

Grey Wolf

Nice ideas, I can't wait for the story. :)

An interesting point of view. Personally, I feel that with a shameless use of the butterfly effect, timelines with multiple POD's are far more interesting... :)

I am therefore going to echo out a series of PODs

1. Victory brings defeat

France, Charles VII sees off the English, but cannot cope with the great nobles of his kingdom, several of whom are already quasi-independent (Burgundy and Britanny, but also Angevin and even Orleans) whilst more aspire to this. The result is a break up of France, and the collapse of central power

2. A different unification

La Beltraneja and her uncle-husband Alphonso IV of Portugal triumph over Isabella and establish the unified dual realm of Portugal-Castile. At the same time, Ferdinand of Aragon is unable to impose his will on Navarre as per OTL, but probably can retain Roussillon and Cerdagne as France is not existing as per OTL

3. White Rose Triumphant

Edward IV lives longer, the succession of his son is assured and the civil war on his OTL demise is avoided. Henry Tudor is eventually allowed to return as Earl of Richmond, as he was negotiating for in OTL. Richard, Duke of Gloucester never tries for the throne.

4. The Wings of Saint Andrew

James, Duke of Rothesay marries Cecilia, daughter of Edward IV. James III remains on the Scottish throne for longer, but is eventually deposed AFTER James' majority. James IV with a more secure English border looks to Denmark for adventure, sending a larger expedition to aid his uncle Hans and having knock-on effects as below

5. Bucking the trend

The Kalmar Union survives. The Scots of James IV's expedition have a far greater effect than in OTL. Prince Christian, son of King Hans is killed in battle but the Scots rescue the position. The succession thus goes differently, and with a king who is not the egotistical boor that Christian II was, the union is able to survive

If we keep the Empire the same more or less, we see a greater Imperial presence in Italy as much of the threat from out of France is removed. We also see more direct Aragonese presence in the South

Grey Wolf

why not have Castille end up getting into chaos soemhow so we have al-andalus rising from the ashes?

It doesn't really match the mentality of the Castilian nobles as far as I see them

And power politics...

sorry bloody phone rang

But Granada will survive

Grey Wolf

OK, as I was trying to say when the phone rang...

I don't see the Catillean nobles as giving in anytime soon - hardship and piety are their hallmarks. Instead I would see the powerplays between the Christian states as being more important here

OTL Ferdinand did not feel he had the power (even after becoming joint monarch of Castile-Aragon) to impose his will on Navarre and span it off under his sister.

If Isabella falls, then Alphonso V (not IV sorry) and Joanna la Beltraneja will take power - OTL they even got themselves crowned as monarchs of Castile in Madrid before Isabella struck back.

They are not going to be focused on the Reconquista and they are not obviously going to tie their policy to that of Aragon. With a weaker France, Aragon will be stronger North of the Pyrenees, but with a combination of a weaker France and no Castillean ties, Aragon is going to be stronger, more active and more successful in Italy. There it will probably come down to Aragonese interests versus those of the Empire. Considering that in OTL the Emperor could not even raise armies to intervene half the time, its not as militarily imbalanced as it appears.

Portugal-Castile may or may not be a permanent union. But if they fund Columbus or a soon-afterwards analogue, you get a very different dynamic to New World exploration. Madeira is already Portuguese, Portuguese explorers are everywhere and reach the Indian Ocean in this period. Its going to be interesting to see where they direct their energies and what is missing from OTL

Grey Wolf

I see you found something
 

Hope it keeps you out of trouble! ;)

I had suggested you let the Songhai survive as an idea but maybe having Songhai weaker and not taking Timbuktu (no King Sonni Ali) might along for Mali to persist as a moderately strong West african state (don't get carried away though).

Back to Europe though. On the religious front the beginning of the 15th century saw the end of the Great Schism and the Hussite Wars. Might you consider some tampering there? The Great Schism continues might be interesting.

Tom

Some nice ideas, but I don't think I want to go back to the drawing board. I actually started with an idea of Red's and worked backwards - his was a Kalmar Union idea, and it jived with something I was reading about James IV but did not really seem enough. I have always liked an Edward IV lives longer POD, but also like to see Burgundy and Brittany survive. A bit more research began to give me a more unified picture and getting rid of a unified Spain seemed like an excellent idea (much as I love the country in the present)

The Reformation is going to be a problem. I am wondering whether any of the following will affect it :-

1. Seemingly the most likely, the fact that France or any part of France is wholly or almost completely absent from Italy and Imperial power seems stronger there as a result

2. Spain is not unified in the same way as OTL (maybe no effect at all but you don't get the Reconquista against Granada)

3. Aragon remains powerful in Italy, probably as an adversary of the Empire (maybe no effect, but gives Imperial politics a different thrust again)

4. France as a political entity doesn't exist, or exists in only some rump form. This would affect succession politics, what the empire regards as its Western foreign policy etc

Now, obviously Luther's grievances and all that were deep-rooted but everything has its immediacy and has the path it takes once its let out. IIRC Luther wanted to see Catholicism reform not split the Church, and he was for a few years involved in discussions to that effect ?

Grey Wolf

because it is our good pleasure
 

Having no Francis I is going to make a lot of changes and not just in NoFrance. Before you get to Luther there is the Basle, Pisa and Fifth Lateran Councils to consider.

Eek...

Wasn't Francis I king of France ? I think its more likely in this TL that a different line of the Valois take the throne of France - perhaps a Charles VIII who is the second heir of Charles VII and not Louis, OTL Louis XI.

I know I can look up the rest that you mention, but I don't know if I will get all the significance. I imply that you mean that before Luther etc there are many other chances for the Church to reform and remain whole and Catholic

Grey Wolf

Yes Francis I was the French monarch and he did things like spread the Renaissance to France and is often considered a key figure in the development of Humanism.

As far as Luther he did not not develop ex nihilo. The 15th century Church with its painful recovery from the Great Schism and the Hussite Wars saw a struggle between the Pope, cardinals and bishops for power as well as a desire for reform that was largely thwarted at Fifth Lateran. Some think Fifth Lateran could've accomplished enough that Luther's theology would be less popular.

God, I'm so ignorant

Every time I look into something I then find there is so much I can't even begin to comprehend

And I DID go look round that school and don't think I'd be up to the job

Ah well

Grey Wolf

According to the mentality of the iberian peninsula inhabitants of the age that was unthinkable. You will have conquest of Granada, sooner or later, with or without union of Castille to Portugal or to Aragon.

Holy crap, Im going to get my Kalmar Union anyway :D

I'd better dig up my references so I can constantly nag you about details... :p ;)

Yes please !

For a start, did King Hans have a second son other than Christian ?

And why do I see him sometimes called Christian IV, whereas in all other places it says Christian II ? Not that it matters massively, because I think I am killing him at Oslo

I think my rationale is along the lines that having a stronger Scottish force, Hans and Christian are more rash in their campaign, leading to Christian's death and the involvement of the Scots more deeply in the solution. Its kind of circular :)

OTL James IV had quite a few difficulties with his force - but in the ATL he is in something of a different position, partly due to a better relationship with Edward V's England, and partly due to the different relations with his nobility that come from a different start to the reign. OTL, James could argue that everything committed during his minority was irrelevant to his majority, and by the same token argue away his own involvement in his father's death. If James III is strengthened temporarily by actually gaining the English marriage for his son, then when James IV as an adult is involved in usurping his father it is going to shake the nobility up quite a bit.

My thinking is still working its way through some of this :)

Grey Wolf

@Grey Wolf

Im at work now. Will do some recearch tonight.

Well, nothing is permanent in history, that's not what I meant. But I was looking at it like this :-

1. Portugal-Castile (I see it written with only one L, you use two Ls - which is correct? Is it like Hanover/Hannover where the former is English and the latter the German ?)
This is the period of exploration as well as outward-focused actions such as Madeira. Quite probably it will be Portugal-Castile that conquers the Canaries in this ATL.
Now, how old is Alphonso V ? Joanna is his niece, but that's nothing too unusual, especially for the Portuguese. I assume the union will be able to bear children ?
I am also assuming that upon Isabella's defeat she will go the way that Joanna did in OTL upon hers - into a convent. Ferdinand will have to find someone else to marry

2. Aragon
Ferdinand is not going to be any stronger than in OTL within Iberia; he will still pass over Navarre to his sister.
Roussilon and Cerdagne are possible, though, because of what I have done to France
Additionally, not being involved in Castile and without a strong France, Ferdinand may very well remain interested in Naples.
This again is an outward focus

3. Granada
Ferdinand and Isabella in OTL manufactured a civil war out of an unstable situation, then turned it into a war of conquest.
I do not see either Portugal-Castile or Aragon being either focused on Granada or in Aragon's case strong enough to take them on alone.
Thus, I think Granada will survive into the sixteenth century

Grey Wolf

I did some reading...but I didn't really know what was going on! There seems to have been some council which hopped around a bit, ending up at Lausanne and for a time bringing unity with the Orthodox church seemingly near before it all fell apart again... Not sure how that fits in with Luther ?

Also, Imperial politics seem to generate Luther. I've yet to work out what happens in the Empire, but my initial thinking is along the following lines, and sees the Empire only affected by the absence or difference of external forces.

1. Italy
France is not going to be up to anything there, in fact whatever remains of France is not going to be doing anything anywhere. This does not, however, mean that one of the French successor states won't be meddling in NW Italy, but it seems unlikely they will even get near to Milan let alone further.

2. Burgundy
With the break-up of France into the fiefdoms in the middle fifteenth century, a marriage alliance with another French magnate seems far more likely than looking out towards the empire.

3. Aragon
With Ferdinand of Aragon more focused on Italy and the Western Mediterranean its quite likely that there will be tensions between the Empire and Aragon

As I said, how this affects internal Empire politics I haven't worked out yet, but those seem to be the key to Luther etc as far as I can see

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Well the Scotish expedition I dont know anything about.

Hans had several sons, but none were capable/trained to step in if their oldest brother.

Now, Hans's brother Frederik is a different ballgame. In OTL he declined a suggestions from some nobles to take the throne when Hans died. Later he becam King Frederik 1, after Christian 2. had managed to turn everyone against himself.

So I would suggest that you install Frederik after Hans and Christians death. This way you dont even have to destroy the danish line of kings. Just skip a step... :D

The Cristian 2. vs Christian 4. I cant explain. There is a Cristian 4. later in OTL but obviousley he should not be confused with Christian 2.

As the France POD I am looking at a tripartite one which is cumulative. The explanation below uses analogues of OTL events - obviously once event 1 kicks in, event 2 will not be as per OTL, and event 3 will be in very different circumstances. Still, I hope it makes sense

1. 1440 noble conspiracy including the Dauphin (Louis), the dukes of Brittany, Alencon, and Bourbon and the Count of Anjou

In the ATL this derails Charles VII's reforms, in the military and civic fields

2. mid 1460s
Analogue of 'le bien public' (the Public Weal) rising, seeing an alliance of the King's brother Charles, the duke of Brittany, the heir to Burgundy (Charles, Count of Charolais), the heir to Anjou (John of Calabria), the duke of Bourbon and the Count of Armagnac

In the ATL this effectively breaks up the kingdom. Charles deposes his brother Louis XI and becomes Charles VIII. But the feudal magnates have virtual independence. The kingdom becomes like the Empire with the princes/dukes able to act independent of the king

Burgundy and Brittany were already virtually independent OTL. Add Anjou, to this, and to a lesser extent Bourbon and Armagnac

3. mid 1470s
The collapse of royal power in the mid 1460s means no French support for the Lancastrians when Warwick flees to France, thus no Lancastrian restoration. This clearly begs several questions regarding England which will be dealt with later.
But the third analogue is with the mid 1470s invasion by Edward IV in alliance with Burgundy, agreeing a carve-up of France.
At the same time in OTL Emperor Frederick III offered (for the second time) a kingship to Burgundy. OTL Charles The Rash/Bold asked for too much (probably Provence) but in the ATL, Provence is part of quasi-independent Anjou and Burgundy has been playing different politics than in OTL. Have Frederick III make Charles, King of Burgundy.
With England and Burgundy carving up the North, Charles VIII will find the basis of his support within France diminishing.

Grey Wolf

That sounds like a good idea, though I think I better look to see whether another son of Hans would have been raised to the position of heir and disputed this succession

Do you know what Denmark's relations with the Empire were with in this period ? I hear of and read of nothing, but sharing a border I assume they had something to do with each other, especially as under the Kalmar Union the entirety of Scandinavia (including Finland, Iceland etc) was a unitary power.

Grey Wolf

I doubt it, but cant document it... :o

Considering that Christian 2. married the emperors granddaughter Elisabeth (Karls sister) in 1514, I would suggest that the relations were quite good.

I am leaning towards Erasmus,,,though I'll probably fall over as I'm exhausted

Luther seems a bit less likely, or without the pressure from Maximilian to get electoral support for making Charles, King of the Romans, Luther doesn't get the protection of the Elector of Saxony and is a flash in the pan.

Of course, who is the emperor ? If Burgundy as a kingdom never goes down the Habsburg marriage alliance route, and Portugal-Castile under Alfonso V and Joanna la Beltraneja succeeds in gaining an heir...

With France splintered, and the Habsburgs not rocketed to power... who is likely to be emperor by 1500 ? 1520 ?

Grey Wolf

This map of the Holy Roman Empire of 1500 shows probably no major differences in this ATL. The domains listed as Burgundian Habsburg would be Valois Burgundian (and that would probably include other areas), but apart from that ?

Grey Wolf

Bright day
What happens to the Lands of Czech Crown? As I undestand you get away with Hussites, so what Luxemburgs do? Was it free for Jagellonians to claim it?

Post Scriptum: and when at it, I think Czechiia looks bit too much its modern equivalent...

You may well be correct ? I don't know - its just the best online map I have found so far

You are definitely correct about how the Empire impacts upon Bohemia, as well as Hungary and Poland. Its gonna get way confusing !

Hopefully over the weekend I can sort out the rough idea of where everything is, and what impacts upon what. Changing the marriages begins to unravel everything. Some people don't exist, others have to find other people to marry...

It could get quite fun as long as people continue to comment !

Grey Wolf

Long time lurker here :)

Just trying to clear up some earlier confusion - th reason you were comming across refrences of Christian II and IV mixed up might be that Christian IV of Denmark was Christian II of Sweden (if my memory serves me), also called "the Tyrant" in Sweden but something quite opposite in Denmark.

?how will this different Italy affect the Veniece-Contantinople/Istanbul Commerical rivalry in the Eastern Med.

I beleive that there was a peice of the Byzanitine empire that remained in Morea Greece till the 1460's, As all of West Europe in in a Uproar, ?what effect will it have on the Ottomans? & southeast Europe.

Portugal was going south in africa to get away from the Eastern Med and It's Problems.

Bright day
After round of sleep I have returned!

With Protestantism you are also getting of the whole "make money" attitude, are you? Without it, there are no explorerous Frisians and no bamking Swiss.
And some dates: 1408- Jan Hus starts preaching Wycliffite reforms
1409- Council of Pisa
1414-1418 Council of Constance (though they info on Hus angered me a lot)- after this it is too late to stop Hussite Wars and possibly Reformation at large though in
1431-1435 Council of Basel talk happened between West and East.

Interdependency- of course, ATL should not even be recogniseable after few hundred years as ever being part of OTL. And do not forget effect of Poland and Kalmar on Russia- and Russia on Turks, Mongols, Chinese, Japanese and America. And Kalma on America... In the end everything is changed.

I don't plan the initial POD until the 1440s so Hus happens as historical, is burnt and the effects within Bohemia are as OTL until something happening elsewhere begins to impact upon it.

Regarding banking, I think the Protestant ethic is over-stated. Banking from the Italian states and from trade in the Low Countries, as well as in S Germany is already around - see the Medici bankers to the Burgundians, and the Fuggers bankers to the Habsburgs

Regarding Portugal, amalgamated with Castille I think it most likely that Portugal-Castille will fund Columbus - OTL the King of Portugal was most regretful when Columbus returned with his discoveries, partly because it had been a near thing for him to back him. A Portuguese-Castillian discovery of the New World will have some curious side-effects, for example no treaty with the Pope delineating a Westward border of influence

Grey Wolf

In-between-black-and-white-canis-lupus:
I think that what is best is to first have a single PoD. Start extrapolating from there. But THEN, have screwball things like you mention start happening every once in a while.

Well yes, in the sense that the Castillian POD doesn't occur at the same time as the French POD, that's not really possible even I wanted it to be as events don't ever occur concurrently.

I don't know what's so screwball about what is happening - if they are seemingly implausible, please post explanations

The rough guide to PODs for this ATL should be along this line :-

1. 1440s France, weakness of Charles VII
2. 1460s France, defeat of Louis XI
3. POD 2 impacts upon England (no France in play in 1470)
4. 1470s France, invasion of England
5. 1480s Castille, victory of Alphonso V of Portugal
6. 1480s England, no early death of Edward IV
7. POD 6 impacts upon Scotland (James III's success boosts him)
8. 1490s Scotland, later overthrow of James III
9. 1490S Kalmar Union, greater support of Scotland, death of Christian

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

The PODs outlined in the previous post of mine are intended to echo out and by the natural course of things affect other countries. The Empire and the Italian states will be amongst the first to be affected, with the Habsburgs not gaining their massive territorial boost in the West, but probably remaining as emperors. There will be knock-on effects for this in Bohemia, Poland and Hungary, partly through different marriages once people begin not to be born!

Regarding SE Europe, there seems to be an independent duchy remaining in Athens, the descendants of a band of Catalan mercenaries who took it earlier in the century. Venice remains in Negroponte (Euboea), and the Knights of St John in Rhodes.

Regarding Byzantium, I am not seeing any particular effects to throw off the fall of Constantinople. Constantine IX makes his plea to the Pope. He's told he will only get it if he agrees a union of churches. He agrees but nothing is forthcoming. Constantinople falls, he dies. His niece marries the Prince of Muscovy with Papal pushing, again looking for a union of churches, but nothing comes of it

I am not seeing the different events in Iberia, the collapse of unified France or the knock-ons within the Empire and Eastern Europe as having gathered to sufficient a level that they throw off any of this history

Grey Wolf

This is what I meant by "screwball":

History is far more random than that. Study any period, any country and you find things which go completely against the expectations of everyone there, even the greatest and most powerful players, they all get caught out. Obvious events fail to happen. Expectations are dashed. People die inconveniently (Arthur Prince of Wales, Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and so on), succession jumps lines and generations. People rise to the fore who had been backseat drivers, or even who had never even been that (eg Baldwin). Military success leads to complete collapse rather than domination. Enemies unite in incomprehensible alliance (Nazi-Soviet Pact anyone), and allies suddenly desert you and make peace. A single generation can bring one family from dominance in one area of Europe to being poised to dominate the whole continent. Outside forces suddenly crash in on what seemed to be politics as usual - whether the rise of Islam, the fall of Hungary to the Ottomans, or the discovery of the New World. Projected trajectories of history are driven off course and diverged without warning. Nothing is simple

Portugal
 

Hmmm, thisd family tree excerpt of the Portuguese royal family asks more questions than it answers

As Alphonso V already has children from his first marriage, what happens if he has children from his marriage to Joanna la Beltraneja ? Will they simply split the realm with Joao getting Portugal and the new child Castille ? Given that any child would be a baby when Alphonso dies in 1481, what then ? Will Joao and Joanna somehow handle a regency between them ?

Could Joao in any circumstances have inherited Castille ? Remove Isabella from the scene (she's in a convent, I am pretty sure that's what they would do). If Alphonso and Joanna have a child...and it dies before maturity ? Is Joanna young enough to marry again and have children ? Definitely, in fact if she has a child with Alphonso she would be only in her mid-late teens, so she would be prime target for remarriage

Remariage would open up a different succession for Castille. Would Portugal easily accept being separated from Castille ? And if Joanna and Alphonso have a child who lives, and then Joanna remarries ? It all gets confusing again !

Grey Wolf

Portuguese Addenda
 

Reading more about the last years of Alphonso V it becomes clear that he was about fifty when he died, and died something of a broken man after the collapse of his Castillian schemes. He even retired to a monastery for the last few years.

Thus, in the ATL it is very possible he lives another 10-20 years, long enough to sire a child with his niece and see him grow to adulthood. A lot of the other questions still remain, but I think for the ATL we will assume that Alphonso lives sufficiently long to both have an heir and secure the succession within Castille

That still leaves him with two heirs though ! One for Portugal and one for Castille. Is there any historical record of what his intentions were ?

Grey Wolf

I would just like to scream AGGHHHHHH !!!

I've spent most of today trying to create an Excel document to list all the rulers of the important or relevant European states from 1440-1520...

Here are a few screamworthy points :-

1. Why the hell does everyone in Portugal, Castile, Aragon and Navarre (and throw in Naples for good luck) have the same names ??? And half the time the same regnal numbers whilst being kings of somewhere else - eg 2 different John IIs, two different Alphonso Vs !

2. What the hell is wrong with the major German rulers ??? I try to log Bavaria and find there are bloody 3 of them (and one of them seems to have two rulers at the same time anyway !) and Saxony has 2 different existences...

3. Poland, Hungary and Bohemia are complete nightmares !!! No one spells the same name the same way, so the one guy might be called a different name in all three realms, and he'll have a different regnal number in each. Added to that when you do find the standardised Latin or English version of the name, then you can't tell them apart from each other anyway ! And what the hell is it with the reign of Ladislaus Posthumus ???

Compared to this the War of the Roses, and the Sforzas in Milan and Medici in Florence look bloody simple !

Grey Wolf

Suleyman the Magnificent. Without a powerful Hapsburg controlling the Empire and Iberia Europe is in deep doo-doo. It will be very difficult to marshall the forces necessary to repel the Ottomans in this time-frame. While Vienna and lands beyond are still somewhat protected by extreme distance, the Mediterranean will be indefensible without united resistance - this would have very positive results for Granada, leave Italy very vulnerable to conquest, leave the south of France open to raids, and would be totally disastrous for Venice and Genoa. If allied to Grenada, not even the Atlantic would be safe.

In this timeline, I wonder if some radical realignment of Europe would occur our of neccessity as the Ottomans graduate from the historical serious threat to mortal danger to Christendom.