Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

Just some ideas I've been bouncing around...

Emperor Carus isn't struck by lightning preventing the rise of Diocletian especially after Numerian dies and Diocles is accused of his murder and executed. Armenia and Mesopotamia are conquered then Carus returns to Rome. Carinus kills his father before he can disinherit him but he's killed by the army withiun the year and replaced with Constantius Chlorus.

Following Maximian's putdown of Carausius' rebellion encourages Constantius to federalise the empire while keeping the Senate. Constantine codifies these into Rome's first constitution, the Codex Romanum.

  • Phillip, son of Louis VI doesn't meet that black pig meaning the Second Crusade more successful and he supports Antioch. Raymond survives meaning his son is a bit older before he takes becomes Count. But surrounding Masayaf puts him in the line of the Hashashin. Reynald de Chatillon never gets anywhere. Nur Ad-Din distracted by Phillip means the crusaders take Damascus. Jerusalem takes Egypt (committing atrocities along the way) and William of Montferrat is named king of Egypt.
  • Henry II marries Adela of Champagne (helped by him not being a rebel due to Phillip not getting in a fight with the Pope) and to make peace with the Stephenites.
  • No Angevin Empire means better Anglo-French relations. Also doesn't support King Stephen due to not being insulted by Henry's marriage to Aquitaine so Henry arrives in late summer 1152 instead of early 1153. Does have his smaller war over Normandy however.
  • Stephen forces Henry into battle just before winter starts (The Battle of Coventry (Dunsmore Heath), where he meets up with Robert of Leicester.) A truce is negotiated after the battle similar to OTL.
  • Phillip supports Thomas Beckett forcing him to sign the Constitutions of Clarendon and doesn't support Henry's son's (Henry the Young King*, Alfonso.)
  • Malcolm IV of Scotland marries Constance of Penthievre and has a son David II before he dies.
  • The Young King still gets Vexin as part of his marriage deal but with better relations to Phillip. Phillip deals with Toulouse on his own.
 
Last edited:
Just some ideas I've been bouncing around...
So Louis become happily a monk and Eleanor has a decent husband?
Constance of Castile is a strange choice for Henry II. Marie of Boulogne (aka Stephen’s own daughter) would be a much better choice if Marie of France is too young for him (but ATL Marie can be born in 1138/39 if she is Philip II and Eleanor’s eldest child. Adele of Champagne can marry ATL Louis VII/Philip III (if as second child he is born in 1140/41)
The Young King who will marry there? Pretty unlikely Philip and Eleanor would have daughters young enough for him...
 
I retconned this to Adele of Champagne (Stephens nephew.) The Young King still marries Phillips daughter to solve the Vexin dispute.
Why marrying the niece when Stephen has a daughter (Marie of Boulogne, who OTL was destined to convent but still kidnapped and married by force) few years older than said niece?
 
Why marrying the niece when Stephen has a daughter (Marie of Boulogne, who OTL was destined to convent but still kidnapped and married by force) few years older than said niece?

I thought she'd taken vows by the time the war ended. Also Constance marries Raymond of Toulouse (I couldn't think of anyone else.)
 
Fair enough. If so, would Adele marry William of Bologne given he was her cousin?
She can still marry Louis VII of France (here the eldest son of Philip II and Eleanor who will be born between 1138 and 1141) and William will marry his OTL wif

EDIT: here Henry II’s son will be Henry, Stephen, Geoffrey right?
 
She can still marry Louis VII of France (here the eldest son of Philip II and Eleanor who will be born between 1138 and 1141) and William will marry his OTL wif

EDIT: here Henry II’s son will be Henry, Stephen, Geoffrey right?

Fair enough

EDIT: I'm keeping the names as OTL.
 
She can still marry Louis VII of France (here the eldest son of Philip II and Eleanor who will be born between 1138 and 1141) and William will marry his OTL wif

EDIT: here Henry II’s son will be Henry, Stephen, Geoffrey right?

Here's some more stuff...

  • Giactino Bobone elected Pope as a compromise as Celestine III.
  • Qutb ad-Din Mawdud becomes ruler of all Zengid territories and eventually sends Saladin to take Antioch.
  • Constance marries Raymond V of Toulouse tensing Frances relations with Iberia.
 
282-84: Carus
284-85: Carinus
285-306: Constatius Chlorus
306-37: Constantine

Emperor Carus isn't struck by lightning preventing the rise of Diocletian especially after Numerian dies and Diocles is accused of his murder and executed. Armenia and Mesopotamia are conquered then Carus returns to Rome. Carinus kills his father before he can disinherit him but he's killed by the army withiun the year and replaced with Constantius Chlorus.

Following Maximian's putdown of Carausius' rebellion encourages Constantius to federalise the empire while keeping the Senate. Constantine codifies these into Rome's first constitution, the Codex Romanum.

This seems far too deterministic. The rise of the Constantinian family was heavily contingent on the rise of Diocletian, who facilitated the expansion of the imperial apparatus to include many prominent Illyrian noble families (into what we call the Tetrarchy). However, without this innovation, the Crisis of the Third century might continue unabated. The crisis ended due to a threefold reform measure facilitated first under Gallienus, then Aurelian, then Diocletian. First, Gallienus moved the capital away from Rome, thus ending the vicious cycle of "marching on Rome thus leaving the frontiers undefended" that defined the 230s-240s CE. Secondly, Aurelian calcified the defensive posture of the empire by establishing a semi-elastic border supported by defensive hard-points from which field armies could intercept any invaders. Thirdly, Diocletian removed the succession issue completely by formalizing the process of joint-emperorship (which had already begun as early as Decius and Hostilian) thus enabling the empire to maintain a multi-fronted defensive stance without encouraging excessive usurpers.

Whether or not this third measure (undertaken by Diocletian) would come about ITTL is probable, although it may formalize over a series of successive soldier-emperors, rather than a single visionary. This would likely mean a longer 3rd century crisis, and almost certainly no Constantine. While men like Constantius Chlorus were certainly already prominent within the army, and might even see the throne, the sustainability of a longer-term dynasty would be unlikely given the circumstances of the crisis. We might see emperors like Marcus Aurelius Julianus or Lucius Caesonius Bassus claim power before their eventual defeat by more forward-thinking military autocrats. The most substantial impact of this continuing disequilibrium would be the disruptive impact it would have on the Persian front. It is probable that the continuous usurpations might lead to a cycle of military failures, compounding further usurpations, until an eventual equilibrium can be found. This may endure as late as the early 4th century before the Sassanid war machine eventually runs out of steam.
 
Last edited:
Just something I realized no one, at least to my knowledge, is wondering about: given that, up to the Great Northern War, both Sweden and Poland-Lithuania had the access to the Baltic that Peter the Great desperately wanted for his own empire, what if Russia gobbled up Poland-Lithuania almost a century ahead of schedule instead of going after Sweden?
 
This seems far too deterministic. The rise of the Constantinian family was heavily contingent on the rise of Diocletian, who facilitated the expansion of the imperial apparatus to include many prominent Illyrian noble families (into what we call the Tetrarchy). However, without this innovation, the Crisis of the Third century might continue unabated. The crisis ended due to a threefold reform measure facilitated first under Gallienus, then Aurelian, then Diocletian. First, Gallienus moved the capital away from Rome, thus ending the vicious cycle of "marching on Rome thus leaving the frontiers undefended" that defined the 230s-240s CE. Secondly, Aurelian calcified the defensive posture of the empire by establishing a semi-elastic border supported by defensive hard-points from which field armies could intercept any invaders. Thirdly, Diocletian removed the succession issue completely by formalizing the process of joint-emperorship (which had already begun as early as Decius and Hostilian) thus enabling the empire to maintain a multi-fronted defensive stance without encouraging excessive usurpers.

Whether or not this third measure (undertaken by Diocletian) would come about ITTL is probable, although it may formalize over a series of successive soldier-emperors, rather than a single visionary. This would likely mean a longer 3rd century crisis, and almost certainly no Constantine. While men like Constantius Chlorus were certainly already prominent within the army, and might even see the throne, the sustainability of a longer-term dynasty would be unlikely given the circumstances of the crisis. We might see emperors like Marcus Aurelius Julianus or Lucius Caesonius Bassus claim power before their eventual defeat by more forward-thinking military autocrats. The most substantial impact of this continuing disequilibrium would be the disruptive impact it would have on the Persian front. It is probable that the continuous usurpations might lead to a cycle of military failures, compounding further usurpations, until an eventual equilibrium can be found. This may endure as late as the early 4th century before the Sassanid war machine eventually runs out of steam.

TBF it was just an idea and not something I was gonna expand on.
 
It is often the case that people on this forum have miscellaneous or frivolous questions that could be easily answered by the many experts on this forum but are difficult to find the answer to on Google Scholar/Books or Wikipedia because they don't often deal in alternatives.

There are other cases where people have miscellaneous or frivolous scenarios or challenges that they want to share about an idea they encountered that could perhaps provoke inspiration in other users but isn't deserving enough to be posted as a thread on its own.

These issues have been addressed in the Shared Worlds and ASB forums but haven't been dealt with here.

This thread is intended to be a resource for those with questions about a timeline they want to construct which are minor and undeserving of their own thread, and a place to share ideas that people don't have time, skill or knowledge to write themselves.
Jamaican religious Rastafari monarchy inspired by Ethiopian Emperor ( Negus Negasti) would be interesting.
 
Is this realistic?

  • Barbarossa dies during the Siege of Damascus and Henry the Lion becomes King of Germany and Emperor Henry VI. Eugene III lives a couple more years due to the success of the Second Crusade and is still succeeded by Adrian IV (Nicholas Breakspear.) Henry the Lion doesn't feud as much with the Pope (helps Eugene reconquer Rome.) Austria is never separated from Bavaria and Adliade (Barbarossa's widow) marries Henry of Bavaria/Austria forcing Henry to marry Bavaria's jilted bride Theodora to smooth things over with Byzantium. Henry doesn't invade Italy. Orders Scania-Zealand and Jutland to remain separate in the Danish Civil War. Henry on the Pope's side means Octaviano Monticelli (Victor IV) is Pope instead of Antipope. Henry eventually conquers Mainland Sicily ending with Capua and Benevento joining the HRE and Spoleto expanding. Guido de Crema is elected Pope Calixtus III in 1164. Giactino Bobone is elected Pope Innocent III in 1168.
 
Top