I mean.....the Lancasters did techincally win the War of the Roses sort of with Henry Tudor so I guess its just because people don't really want to have OTL history repeat itself.
What is a common thing or trope that always seem to happen?
- Thread starter Viking25
- Start date
True, but even then you could just have another branch of the Lancasters get the throne. I have seen Yorkist timelines where the de la poles get the throne so I don’t see why the same isn’t done with the Lancasters. Plus a Beaufort England would be fascinating and very different from Tudor England (especially if the competency of male line Beauforts hold up).
Not really. I mean.....being a random landowner is far different than being the ruler of an entire Kingdom and all the power and respect that entails and really I take a dim view on the idea that some families are just better than some others. Plus Henry was already half Beaufort. They pretty much already won. Just didn't have the last name.
I guess they mean its rather unlikely that one of Timurs descendants would still go and Conquer India with such a far back POD.
Oh sure technically Henry wasn't a Beaufort but he was heavily influenced by his Beaufort mother and followed her advice quite closely and his son did to as well. Sure they didn't get the vanity of having their last name end up on the English Throne but I still count it as a win.
Seeing the history and geography of Germany that’s overwhelming likely to happen, it’s bigger problem that people nerf France
The Ottomans were a gunpowder empire, that was that caused their rise. But at the same time it’s next to impossible to move away from, as for corruption a Ottoman Empire which isn’t corrupt would be a entirely different entity. While people may embrace the idea out of strpereotypes, there are very good institutional reasons why the Ottoman Empire will suffer deeply from corruption.
Again there’s good geographic and demographic reason for British naval dominance, while for USA if it beat Mexico it’s pretty much given that it will outcompete all of Europe,
Uh.......The Ottoman Empire from 1453 - 1567, considered by historians to be the least corrupt state in its contemporary era: Are we a freaking joke? The joke and stereotype that the Ottomans were perpetually corrupt has been proven wrong and debunked thousands of times since the late 1980s, and I am not sure why you would think that, considering every noted Ottoman and Balkan history book published after 1992's Sick Man Theory Conference mentions this.
unprincipled peter
Donor
England/Britain was not overwhelmingly dominant til Trafalgar. As late as 9YW/WoSS they had rivals. Even in ARW France/Spain gave them a run for their money. Britain itself was a bit of a wank. It is absolutely NOT a given that England/Britain has such dominance on the waves.
I've seen TL where Britain is knocked back a peg or two in the world pecking order (invasion setting the country on fire, industrial revolution not being so successful, etc) and still they manage to field (or is it pond?
) the world's premier navy.Sort of related, but belongs on the companion thread: France can never have a good navy
Oh, my mistake. I have just gone through the TL again. I must have misremembered something.
England/Britain was not overwhelmingly dominant til Trafalgar. As late as 9YW/WoSS they had rivals. Even in ARW France/Spain gave them a run for their money. Britain itself was a bit of a wank. It is absolutely NOT a given that England/Britain has such dominance on the waves.
I've seen TL where Britain is knocked back a peg or two in the world pecking order (invasion setting the country on fire, industrial revolution not being so successful, etc) and still they manage to field (or is it pond?
Sort of related, but belongs on the companion thread: France can never have a good navy
The key for British supremacy over the waves (and the Dutch before them) was not the Royal Navy, but their massive mechant navy. Aside making their country wealthier, it provided a strong naval tradition. Meanwhile, France and Spain naval efforts were more driven by the state building a strong war navy from time to time, a bit like Germany, Russia and the US afterwards.
I think this is a case of "backward projection" where people project GOT's Stark attitudes onto the Yorks, in the same way that Lannisters are supposed to be Lancasters. They can usually be spotted because the House of York is portrayed as being immensely adored, honest and loyal, whose members are 100% pure and honest...while the Lancastrians are portrayed as greedy bastards who are hated by everyone, completely lacking in honor, and nothing would delight his subjects more than to get rid of them.
Clichés I've seen.
-Huey Long always has a disproportionate importance and political weight, even if the United States does not exist and Louisiana is French.
-The United States will always end in a war against Japan, in which Japan will be defeated.
-China and Japan always end up at war in the 1930s, even if China and Japan as we know them in OTL don't exist.
-Korea, Hungary and Poland only exist so that the neighbors have a place to fight.
-Any territory that becomes independent will necessarily be much more prosperous and rich than it ever was in OTL remaining united. Bonus points if they absolutely ruin the country they split from in the process.
-The smallest countries always become very advanced democratic and progressive nations, while the largest become horrible autocratic and backward tyrannies. The only exception is United States, of course.
-Regardless of how horribly bad the TTL recording of the Republics is, from 1780 extremely violent republican revolutions will begin to break out all over the world.
-Despite the fact that, as a consequence of the previous point, in TTL, Republic is synonymous with excessive violence, chaos, destruction, tyranny and death, people will still love the idea of forming republican governments and will focus all their efforts on this idea .
"Bad people make bad presidents." When someone who is a bad person comes to power, he immediately starts making stupid and evil decisions in such a way that it seems that he is deliberately trying to sabotage his own country to leave it in the worst possible situation.
"If you're bad, bad things happen to you." Unless history is going to see to what extent the world can become horrible, the bad president of the previous point begins to suffer completely random misfortunes before 2 years, or the population decides that it is time to organize one of those republican revolutions before mentioned to remove him from power.
-There is no 50% approval rating. The population comes in two flavors. 1, absolutely adores his ruler and will fully support him even if, based on the knowledge of the time, he is making completely meaningless decisions. 2, THE ENTIRE population ABSOLUTELY hates their ruler and are so desperate to get rid of him that, if they were the Republic of Poland, they would happily welcome Hitler's Third Reich as a liberation to get rid of the President of Poland.
-There will always be a crisis modeled on the Great Depression, sometimes with elements of the 2008 crisis, regardless of the economic policy of that universe.
-Of course, since most authors overestimate the economy to the extreme, this means that before three months the Government will fall into the most absolute anarchy, will suffer a civil war or a communist revolution completely out of the blue, or all at once , and you will expect me to believe that this is a direct consequence of the economic crisis.
-The Anglosphere is always well and in excellent health, even if they have had to fight much more devastating wars than OTL. Needless to say, the Anglosphere is vastly stronger, richer and more integrated than OTL, and the other members are more than happy to heed advice from London.
Last edited:
This has been my experience for a lot of it. I have seen waaay to many people refer to Edward of Westminster as being Joffrey incarnate (despite the fact the evidence for that is rather slim and biased against poor ol’Edward) and that pretty much every single York (except George because literally everyone hates him) was the only hope for England’s survival. Like, yeah the parallels are there but they’re not exact copies of each other.
Oh and I see a lot of people say that Margaret of Anjou was pure evil and none of her actions were justified/justifiable.
I admit to being unfamiliar with the history of the actual Wars of the Roses, beyond the general details that the Yorks and Lancastrians believed they deserved the throne. The fiction written about it has not only not helped me, but it killed my interest, precisely because that projection of GOT in medieval England was too noticeable for how the situation is described. And if GOT didn't convince me too much from the start, because of all that jumping between "this is a gray story" and "we have defined heroes and villains" it only makes it worse.
It sounds like people assumed she was Cersei Lannister and consequently projected all the hatred they had for Cersei onto her. I did a quick search and saw that she wanted to secure the succession for her son, which sounds a lot like Cersei hell-bent on Joffrey sitting on the throne even if he had to murder half the country in the process.
It's a cliche in alt-history but mostly because the ACW's foundation is baked into a post-Articles of Confederation America if the Constitution is anything like that of OTL. The US from early on was divided on the subject of slavery and it was clear that one side would have to win. Either slavery would be free to expand until the land was unsuitable for plantations or it would be contained and slowly strangled. We had several compromises that only inflamed tensions between Slave and Free and people were already fighting and dying over the question of slavery in Kansas prior to the ACW. If the POD is after the Constitution, barring some break up of the country that decisively tips the balance one way or another, I'm certain the ACW will happen in some form.
Even fucking Richard III gets this treatment. Seriously why? I appreciate a good anti hero too but their was no need to make him an Edward Cullen Style Pretty Boy and portray him banging his niece as a good thing.
Post-1914, but hands-down the most pervasive trope has got to be the Cold War ending in nuclear armageddon. Like, every single time. It's like everyone sees the real world peaceful ending on one extreme, nuclear armageddon on the other, and has no imagination for anything in between.
edit: I'll add another: More wives for Henry VIII. It's been done to death. Come up with some, any other POD for the guy. The soap operatics of his reign are so overdone.
edit: I'll add another: More wives for Henry VIII. It's been done to death. Come up with some, any other POD for the guy. The soap operatics of his reign are so overdone.
Well, to be far to Richard III writers, it's probably a combination of people being taken in by the very strange and well-organized historical revisionism that surrounds him, as well as the fact that he gets one of the most exaggerated depictions from Shakespeare, thus giving people an easy alt to run with.