Speculation: Greatest City or Nation that Never Was
- Thread starter M79
- Start date
Vienna (Wien). Before 1914, the City had well over 2 Million inhabitants. Due to the loss of much of its hinterland after WW1 and the devastations of both world wars, it still has not recovered to that number. There are few other metropolei that shrunk over the course of the 20th century.
My own country the Philippines. Familiar with the West and its culture, in a strategic position to affect what would happen to the rest of East Asia, had it gained independence earlier than OTL. Instead it remained the last colony of a practically dead empire for another few decades, which were crucial to modern Asian nationalism. By the time we tried our hand at independence, it was far too late for our nation to be anything but the puppet of one or another great power.
Manila itself has a large natural harbor, and was for a long time the main gateway between China and the West. It is an important port now, but it could have been so much more. At the very least, it could have been planned better.
I'll come back with more possible great powers later.
Manila itself has a large natural harbor, and was for a long time the main gateway between China and the West. It is an important port now, but it could have been so much more. At the very least, it could have been planned better.
I'll come back with more possible great powers later.
GdwnsnHo
Banned
Majapahit - It missed a chance to truly unite Indonesia, and create the only nation that could have rivaled China at the time.
Alternatively, Bamburgh / Northumbria - was rapidly becoming one of the wealthiest and culturally 'hot' places in Europe, and then the Vikings came and ruined everything.
Alternatively again, Great Cumbria / Middle Britain. Sadly killed by the Romans building Hadrians Wall.
Alternatively, Bamburgh / Northumbria - was rapidly becoming one of the wealthiest and culturally 'hot' places in Europe, and then the Vikings came and ruined everything.
Alternatively again, Great Cumbria / Middle Britain. Sadly killed by the Romans building Hadrians Wall.
Napoleonrules
Banned
Novgorod.
Poland-Lithuania.
Bulgaria could have overtaken much of the Byzantine Empire and replaced it with something younger, stronger, and able to withstand Arabs, Mongols, and Turks.
Burgundy.
Iroquois Confederation (Haudenosaunee)
Hanseatic League if they had become more centralized could have formed something like Switzerland and led the western explorations, could have even been the patron for Columbus instead of Spain. A friendlier Western conquest? Or just as barbaric.
Poland-Lithuania.
Bulgaria could have overtaken much of the Byzantine Empire and replaced it with something younger, stronger, and able to withstand Arabs, Mongols, and Turks.
Burgundy.
Iroquois Confederation (Haudenosaunee)
Hanseatic League if they had become more centralized could have formed something like Switzerland and led the western explorations, could have even been the patron for Columbus instead of Spain. A friendlier Western conquest? Or just as barbaric.
Uff Da the optimist
Donor
Yeah... sorry about that man.
Mushrooms you know, they really mess up your social skills and make you plunder when you came to trade.
#Viking, not even once
The Middle East: from the cradle of civilisation to... what it is today.
The Carolingian Empire, were it not for the custom of dividing inheritance.
Italy was the intellectual and artistic powerhouse of Europe throughout much of the mediaeval era, but its fragmentation into multiple city-states hindered it in playing an important political role.
China, which was edging towards a industrialisation until the Mongols came along and wrecked everything.
Not sure if Spain belongs here due to its period of unquestioned greatness, but there was really no reason why the 19th century had to be such a Spain screw.
And if linguistic groupings count, the Celts went from dominating most of central and western Europe to just barely clinging on in the fringes of Europe. Plus I suppose the Greeks, whose language is far more constricted and unimportant than it was during its classical heyday.
The Carolingian Empire, were it not for the custom of dividing inheritance.
Italy was the intellectual and artistic powerhouse of Europe throughout much of the mediaeval era, but its fragmentation into multiple city-states hindered it in playing an important political role.
China, which was edging towards a industrialisation until the Mongols came along and wrecked everything.
Not sure if Spain belongs here due to its period of unquestioned greatness, but there was really no reason why the 19th century had to be such a Spain screw.
And if linguistic groupings count, the Celts went from dominating most of central and western Europe to just barely clinging on in the fringes of Europe. Plus I suppose the Greeks, whose language is far more constricted and unimportant than it was during its classical heyday.
TFSmith121
Banned
Ireland - losing 50 percent of its population in a decade
Ireland - losing ~20 percent of its population in a decade in the middle of the Nineteenth Century (8.5 million dropped to 6.5 million, roughly), at a point where industrialization and urbanization was about to kick off in a significant way, can not be seen as anything else but devastating.
In 1840, the Netherlands had less than 3 million people; Ireland's population was at least 8 million, and was close to 6 million by 1850...
Granted, the Netherlands were independent, as well, but if Ireland's population had topped out at 9 million (absent the famine and encouraged migration) that compares with Scotland at 3 million in 1850, from a total of 27.5 million in the UK and Ireland total in 1850 (so adding the "lost" Irish population probably bumps it to 30 million)... if a third of this "larger" kingdom is Irish/Scots/Welsh/Gaelic/Celtic, then "Britain' is going to have to be a very different place.
Certainly more democratic, federal, and equalitarian.
Which has real impact on the future of the UK, Empire, and Commonwealth in the remainder of the Nineteenth Century, and even into the Twentieth.
Best,
Ireland - losing ~20 percent of its population in a decade in the middle of the Nineteenth Century (8.5 million dropped to 6.5 million, roughly), at a point where industrialization and urbanization was about to kick off in a significant way, can not be seen as anything else but devastating.
In 1840, the Netherlands had less than 3 million people; Ireland's population was at least 8 million, and was close to 6 million by 1850...
Granted, the Netherlands were independent, as well, but if Ireland's population had topped out at 9 million (absent the famine and encouraged migration) that compares with Scotland at 3 million in 1850, from a total of 27.5 million in the UK and Ireland total in 1850 (so adding the "lost" Irish population probably bumps it to 30 million)... if a third of this "larger" kingdom is Irish/Scots/Welsh/Gaelic/Celtic, then "Britain' is going to have to be a very different place.
Certainly more democratic, federal, and equalitarian.
Which has real impact on the future of the UK, Empire, and Commonwealth in the remainder of the Nineteenth Century, and even into the Twentieth.
Best,
An Italy unified in the renaissance could've been the 800lb gorilla of European politics.
Late Medieval/Renaissance Italy. Two trading powers in Venice and Genoa. Protected by mountains from the north and great strategic position in the Med for both military matters and trade.
Doh! Ninja'd.
Doh! Ninja'd.
Driftless
Donor
What was the follow on hit to the absolute birth-rates for both Ireland and Cambodia following their respective disasters? Not only were their societies devastated in years of the famine/genocide, but there had to be some impact culturally, economically, etc. a generation later, I would think.
TFSmith121
Banned
Ireland had twice as many people in 1840 as it does
The island of Ireland had more than a million more people in 1840 as it does today... that's not due entirely to the famine, of course, but the famine and migration tie together pretty closely, and the economic and cultural impact of the demographic slide are obvious.
Compare Ireland with other smaller western European states with roughly similar territory and natural resources - the Netherlands and Scotland, for example - and there are some pretty clear differences.
Cambodia's loss will echo over the next century, although the difference in time scale and health generally makes it tough to do a one-to-one comparison.
Best,
The island of Ireland had more than a million more people in 1840 as it does today... that's not due entirely to the famine, of course, but the famine and migration tie together pretty closely, and the economic and cultural impact of the demographic slide are obvious.
Compare Ireland with other smaller western European states with roughly similar territory and natural resources - the Netherlands and Scotland, for example - and there are some pretty clear differences.
Cambodia's loss will echo over the next century, although the difference in time scale and health generally makes it tough to do a one-to-one comparison.
Best,