Monarchs with different personalities

Monarchies may offer a distinct opportunity for certain individuals to have a significant effect on historical events. Since monarchy is usually hereditary in nature, a lot depends on the accidents of genetics.

What if certain historical rulers had the same names, and dates of reigns, but different personalities? This could be because of different genetics, different upbringings, or a combination of the two. Some examples just from European history might be:

- What if Louis XV grew up to be as strong-willed and ambitious as his great-grandfather and predecessor Louis XVI?

- What if Charles I of England had excellent "people skills" and a talent for reaching compromises that were acceptable to almost everyone?

- What if George III of Great Britain was a mild mannered, pleasure loving sort of man, uninterested in politics?

- What if Peter I of Russia was devout and conservative and wanted to keep Russia at a distance from western countries?

- What if Pope Alexander VI was an exceptionally devout man determined to reform the Catholic Church?

- What if Queen Isabella of Castile was religious but had a tolerant attitude toward Jews and Muslims?

- What if Kaiser Wilhelm II was a relative liberal, determined to limit the influence of the military and promote peaceful economic growth in Germany?

- What if Nicholas II of Russia was as tough and determined and ruthless as Alexander III, his predecessor?

- What if Nicholas I of Russia was a reformer instead of an ultraconservative?

- What if Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary was a liberal, reformist ruler?

- What if Selim I of the Ottoman Empire was as ambitious and talented as his predecessor Suleiman "the Magnificent"?

- What if Philip II of Spain was not fanatically Catholic, and was more interested in building up Spain's wealth rather than fighting against Protestants wherever they could be found?
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Er, rather a lot to think about all at once !

I would note that most monarch's personalities have a large degree of nurture not nature in them though

Grey Wolf
 
If Kaiser Bill had not had the withered arm and had been brought up more gently might Germany have become a proper constitutional Monarchy by 1900

Would this have prevented WW1?

If so how long do Russian and Austria-Hungary survive?

Is there a nasty Civil War in Ireland from 1914-5?
 

Redbeard

Banned
If Peter the Great had been a conservative (in caftan and with long beard) the Swedes probably would have consolidated on the south Baltic coast. If the Poles get control over their internal feuds they have a fair chance of consolidating a Great Poland/Lithuania embracing present day Belorus and Ukraine. I wonder if this could also be the big chance of August the Strong of Saxony to have this centred on Saxony. That will make it even more difficult for Brandenburg to develop into the Kingdom of Prussia. Sweden consolidating makes it hard enough.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
More...

I think some other interesting ones would be:

Louis XIV as an ineffectual, weak-willed monarch. Not only would the map of Europe look different to a degree (German territories bordering France would be less likely to be nibbled away, Italy would have more Habsburg domination), but the political nlandscape of the continent would be radically different. Without the glittering example of Le Roi Soleil, the attraction of Absolutism is weakened considerably. Every monarch in Europe wanted to be like the great king in Versailles, wanted to have those riches, that power, those adoring courtiers, and almost everyone assumed the only way to get there was to enforce absolute rule. Without the French court as the political epicenter of Europe, the Netherlands would likely come out more sucessful, as would Habsburg. Maybe Sweden would also be more powerful, though that is more to do with Russia and Prussia than France. At any rate, I would expect a political scene far more ready to accommodate and respect 'balance of powers' arrangements with local and regional councils, parlements, estates-general or similar bodies being an indispensible part of the realm. I doubt the Commonwealth is a model for the future (monarchy was still very highly regarded), but the Stuarts would never have insisted on their divine powers to the degree they did if they hadn't had a model for it.

Pepin the Short a respecter of tradition. The Pippinid (Arnulfing) dynasty had long established effective rule in the Frankiush kingdom, but it was Pepin the Short who deposed the last Merovingian puppet king, giving rise to two powerful traditions in European monarchy: that the actual rulershould wear the crown, and that the pope could and should act as arbiter in disputes over the royal succession, conferring the crown on the fittest candidate. If he had instead established a tradition under which royal families could be perpetuated indefinitely without a shred of real power, with a trusted warleader running the show, Europe's monarchies in subsequent centuries could come to resemble the bakufu of Japan.

Antiochus IV holds grudges. Now, holding grudges is a nonsurvival trait in any Hellenistic monarch, but if this one had been in the habit he could have started something interesting. In the course of the Maccabean / Hasmonaean wars, he had lost twop milöitary units ambushed and slaughtered by Judean rebels and looked on in horror as the troops of the Jerusalem hierophancy forcibly converted Judea, Galilee and Samaria. In response, he sent out his commander Lysias to bring those troublesome priests to heel. Lysias suceeded brilliantly, beating the Hasmonaean forces and investing Jerusalem itself. The city was starving and the walls already breached when the high priest offered very mild terms of surrender (an oath of loyalty in return for continued internal sovereignty, Judean troops for the eastern campaign to come, tribute in gold and silver, and the promise to leave the Samaritans and Galileans alone). Antiochus accepted, in spite of the humiliations and insults he had suffered from the rebels. Had he not, Lysias' troops would have taken the city, dissolved the Synedrion and probably burned the temple. Judaism and very likerly even the Judean state would have survived, but with the temple and the ruling hierophancy gone, Rome could nort have contracted its fateful alliance with the Hasmonaean house, thus would not have become entangled in the politics of Jerusalem on one side. It is therefore doubtful that Pilate would have felt particularly beholden to the Synedrion in political terms. No crucifixion. In fact, probably no Jesus ben Joseph the Nazarene as we know him. Maybe instead, we'd remember the revered teacher Rabbi Jeshua bar Joseph, or the miracle worker Jason Josephou Hyios Nazaraios...
 
carlton_bach said:
Antiochus IV holds grudges.
...
Judaism and very likerly even the Judean state would have survived, but with the temple and the ruling hierophancy gone, Rome could nort have contracted its fateful alliance with the Hasmonaean house, thus would not have become entangled in the politics of Jerusalem on one side. It is therefore doubtful that Pilate would have felt particularly beholden to the Synedrion in political terms. No crucifixion. In fact, probably no Jesus ben Joseph the Nazarene as we know him. Maybe instead, we'd remember the revered teacher Rabbi Jeshua bar Joseph, or the miracle worker Jason Josephou Hyios Nazaraios...

Don't really see it. Rome is going to come east anyway, and by the time Pompey is sorting out Syria, Seleucid authority has collapsed, so someone is going to be running an independent Judaea. Unless that someone is an unusually stable state, Rome is going to get involved in their dynastic politics anyway, whether the contending parties are Hasmoneans and Idumaeans or someone else. Assuming Judaism does survive, there will be also some sort of religious authorities to object to rabble-rousing unorthodox preachers.
 
Duncan said:
Don't really see it. Rome is going to come east anyway, and by the time Pompey is sorting out Syria, Seleucid authority has collapsed, so someone is going to be running an independent Judaea. Unless that someone is an unusually stable state, Rome is going to get involved in their dynastic politics anyway, whether the contending parties are Hasmoneans and Idumaeans or someone else. Assuming Judaism does survive, there will be also some sort of religious authorities to object to rabble-rousing unorthodox preachers.

Judaism at the time was aslready too widespread throughout the Hellenistic world to die out just because the temple in Jerusalem is destroyed. There were communitioes in Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia already. I guess it would come closer to the later model of a faith governed by teachers of sacred law rather than sacrificial priests at a central temple. The Hasmonaean period was a central time for establishing a unified faith throughout Judaea, Galilee and Samaria, with the destruction of local temples and forcible conversion, and one factor that contributed to the creation of this temple monarchy as a much more powerfgul one than the usual hierophancy of Asia Minor or Egypt (Jerusalem was considered the richest temple in the known world by the time of Herod) was that the House of Hasmon, and by extension the temple, had obtained the status of Friend of the Roman People at a very early stage. With the temple destrpyed beforehand, the Romans would not have found a ready-made ally in Judaea by the time of Pompey and very likely would have run the administration of the area through multiple bodies (say, an Idumaean client king, a Judaean synedrion or high priest, perhaps based in Jerusalem, perhaps not, a Samarian synedrion or high priest, a Galilean king and a Koinon of the Decapolis). The place would still be a hell of a trouble spot, but without the focus on Jerusalem, Jesus would very likely not have become the political focus of AD 33. If he had gone to Jerusalem (would a Galilean see the need in a world without a ruling Hasmonaean hierophancy?) he would probably have been killed anyway, but Rome might not have felt the need to interfere. Maybe we would have a heap of stones on every Christian altar? Or maybe it wasn't the Jerusalem Jews at all - again, without their central position, the Samarians could have become Jesus' focus of attention, and his killers. Averting centuries of Antisemitism?
 
Redbeard said:
If Peter the Great had been a conservative (in caftan and with long beard) the Swedes probably would have consolidated on the south Baltic coast. If the Poles get control over their internal feuds they have a fair chance of consolidating a Great Poland/Lithuania embracing present day Belorus and Ukraine. I wonder if this could also be the big chance of August the Strong of Saxony to have this centred on Saxony. That will make it even more difficult for Brandenburg to develop into the Kingdom of Prussia. Sweden consolidating makes it hard enough.

I like this one. It would make Central Asia very interesting in about 150 years' time...
 
"- What if Nicholas I of Russia was a reformer instead of an ultraconservative?"

There was some priest-type guy (can't remember his name) who pushed the young, vaguely-reformist Nicholas into being an autocratic thug. The priest-guy can simply conveniently die and then Nick I might grow up to be an early Alex II.
 
Paul Spring said:
What if Selim I of the Ottoman Empire was as ambitious and talented as his predecessor Suleiman "the Magnificent"?

I think you meant Selim II; Selim I was MORE ambitious and talented than Suleyman.

My favorite Ottoman Sultan Personality WI would be "WI Abdul Hamid II had been less paranoid?" After bungled diplomacy by the Grand Vizier leading to the Russo-Ottoman war of 1877-78, a few assassination attempts, the deposition of his two predecessors, and a rambunctious parliament, AHII decided autocracy was the only way to preserve the empire and hold the throne. If not for this, I wonder how the Ottomans would have developed? Become a successful constitutional monarchy?
 
Top