Underestimated countries
- Thread starter Fabilius
- Start date
Bright day
More Poland...?
I agree with this, Poor Poland has practically been the training ground Eurasian Armies for century's. It would be rockin to see Sobieski run come up even better against the Ottomans, or Poland punk the Czars, hhmmmm ..... Polish Alaska
Pretty bad when other nations basically wish you into a cornfield.........Multiple times
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
Especially considering as the Aztecs didn't really have long-term empire potential. These modern-day maps with "Aztec Empires" that coincide exactly with OTL Mexico would be something like filling in the whole Middle East on with "Assyrian Empire"
Can I get a Russia?
They seem to have the worst runs of bad luck in history. The only times they get competent leaders, they almost always go insane or die young.
Ive noticed a pattern in Russian history. Its broken occasionally (During Peter the Greats reign, after World War Two), but most of the time it holds true.
Russia is almost always the strongest nation, militarily speaking, just after a huge defeat. Then something comes along, Nicholas I and Stalins purges for example, and screws things up, that or the Russian aristocracy (Tsarist and Communist) screws things up.
But, remember, only two times have the Russians really been 'beaten'. The first was the Mongols, and you can hardly blame them for that, since Russia as a state didnt even exist at that point. The second was the Polish invasion during the Time of Troubles, which only led to a stronger Russia in the end. And pretty much set the Poles up for centuries of persecution.
After the early 1600's, St. Petersburg became their capitol, and I would be willing to bet, the most heavily fortified national capitol in the world, barring Beijing at the time. They then proceded, after a few false starts, to kick the stuffing out of their neighbors and turn a great power into a surly neighbor whose only colony was a rather worthless island in the Carribbean.
And yet, a lot of people seem to have this 'Russia sucks' complex about them. Most people seem to think of Russia as a place that produces crappy machinery, has an inferior military, and generally isnt anywhere near as good as, say, France.
Some of this is, and Im sorry if it sounds paranoid or something, due to the British, whose propeganda during the Great Game was far more widely dispersed than Russia's.
Any time I create an alt-hist timeline for an RP which gives Russia a colony outside of Alaska, I run into, "LOLZ RUSSIA NO GET COLONIES THEY NO HAVE BOATS LOLZ" or something similar. Which is bloody stupid, considering the widespread Russian presence across most of the present day US/Canadian Pacific coast and the protection treaty (unsigned) with one of the Hawaiian islands.
As to the 'no boats' part, the Russian navy was generally in the top five of Europe in terms of numbers (after the 1600's, of course, prior to that I think the Muscovite naval power consisted of fishing boats). I cant seem to find much regarding the actual quality of their sailors, but I would assume that traditional Russian love of artillery carried over to the sea, so their cannoneers would at least be somewhat effective
And, of course, theres the Russian Winter. I find it absurd the number of people who will claim that 'The Russian army had nothing to do with the defeat of Napoleon, it was all the winter.', despite the fact that there are historical records SHOWING that the winter Napoleon faced in Russia was a fairly mild one. The same goes for World War Two, where the only BAD winter was 41-42.
Its damn frustrating when people then accuse the Frenchmen who recorded the weather during Napoleons campaigns of being biased towards RUSSIA.
Sometimes I wish AIM had a 'slap' function.
Anyway, thats my rant. And before anybody asks, I am not Russian. I think Russia is the only place in Europe I dont have ancestors from. That and Greece.
They seem to have the worst runs of bad luck in history. The only times they get competent leaders, they almost always go insane or die young.
Ive noticed a pattern in Russian history. Its broken occasionally (During Peter the Greats reign, after World War Two), but most of the time it holds true.
Russia is almost always the strongest nation, militarily speaking, just after a huge defeat. Then something comes along, Nicholas I and Stalins purges for example, and screws things up, that or the Russian aristocracy (Tsarist and Communist) screws things up.
But, remember, only two times have the Russians really been 'beaten'. The first was the Mongols, and you can hardly blame them for that, since Russia as a state didnt even exist at that point. The second was the Polish invasion during the Time of Troubles, which only led to a stronger Russia in the end. And pretty much set the Poles up for centuries of persecution.
After the early 1600's, St. Petersburg became their capitol, and I would be willing to bet, the most heavily fortified national capitol in the world, barring Beijing at the time. They then proceded, after a few false starts, to kick the stuffing out of their neighbors and turn a great power into a surly neighbor whose only colony was a rather worthless island in the Carribbean.
And yet, a lot of people seem to have this 'Russia sucks' complex about them. Most people seem to think of Russia as a place that produces crappy machinery, has an inferior military, and generally isnt anywhere near as good as, say, France.
Some of this is, and Im sorry if it sounds paranoid or something, due to the British, whose propeganda during the Great Game was far more widely dispersed than Russia's.
Any time I create an alt-hist timeline for an RP which gives Russia a colony outside of Alaska, I run into, "LOLZ RUSSIA NO GET COLONIES THEY NO HAVE BOATS LOLZ" or something similar. Which is bloody stupid, considering the widespread Russian presence across most of the present day US/Canadian Pacific coast and the protection treaty (unsigned) with one of the Hawaiian islands.
As to the 'no boats' part, the Russian navy was generally in the top five of Europe in terms of numbers (after the 1600's, of course, prior to that I think the Muscovite naval power consisted of fishing boats
). I cant seem to find much regarding the actual quality of their sailors, but I would assume that traditional Russian love of artillery carried over to the sea, so their cannoneers would at least be somewhat effective And, of course, theres the Russian Winter. I find it absurd the number of people who will claim that 'The Russian army had nothing to do with the defeat of Napoleon, it was all the winter.', despite the fact that there are historical records SHOWING that the winter Napoleon faced in Russia was a fairly mild one. The same goes for World War Two, where the only BAD winter was 41-42.
Its damn frustrating when people then accuse the Frenchmen who recorded the weather during Napoleons campaigns of being biased towards RUSSIA.
Sometimes I wish AIM had a 'slap' function.
Anyway, thats my rant. And before anybody asks, I am not Russian. I think Russia is the only place in Europe I dont have ancestors from. That and Greece.
Flocculencio
Donor
Similarly, if you had been mature enough not to sneak in a pointless and puerile insult, you would look like something other than a wanker
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
Personally, I think Russia's OTL status might be more than could have been expected. If not for Ivan the Terrible, Muscovy might have remained just one more backwards Eastern European state. If not for Peter the Great, Russia would never have joined the Great Powers of Europe and quite possibly remained semi-backwards and semi-modernized, like China or the Ottoman Empire.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
Bah, you've been reading that forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Alba again.
Finland. Except in some Finwank AH written by a Finnish cyberpunk fan
Portugal and SE Europe.
How about a TL where the Finns build an empire in Scandinavia? eheheh
Portugal I think is really forgotten. It is a small country that because of its long history has got a lot of potencial for ATL.
Liechtenstein and Monaco are independent because they were allowed to be independant. Bremen has greater potential as sovereign independant state than either of them.
Hmm, how many Hansa-centric TLs?
I agree with this, Poor Poland has practically been the training ground Eurasian Armies for century's. It would be rockin to see Sobieski run come up even better against the Ottomans, or Poland punk the Czars, hhmmmm ..... Polish Alaska
Pretty bad when other nations basically wish you into a cornfield.........Multiple times
I was joking. For most part, unless it another Nazi Win, there is a Poland, and it is doing fairly well.
Last edited:
Except that Ivan IV went insane, and Peter the Great died rather young, as I recall he was 30-something when he decided to jump into the freakin' Baltic to save some sailors. Of course he didnt drown, that wouldnt be the ultra-man that was Peter the Great. No, he died of a cold...well, more like pnemonia, but meh
You'll also note that they both killed their heirs by beating them to death with knouts.
As I said, Russia has these runs if increadibly STUPID leaders (Peter III, anybody? Paul I to, but he wasnt as bad as people make out.), interspersed with the occasionally brilliant man/woman (Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Alexander II to a degree), who dies or goes insane. Catherine the Great is an exception to this, but it could be argued that she was insane, considering that, by the time of her death, she was related to most of the European royalty
As to remaining semi-modernized, Russia often DID remain semi-modernized. Peter the Great and Catherine the Great built Russia into a great power, with a somewhat effecient military and a damn good navy. Them along comes Paul and 'poof', the military is back to marching around in knee high boots instead of target practice.
I can even think of one case, Stalin, where a leader essentially did this to himself. In the 1920's the Soviet military was definitly a force to be reckoned with, its tank designs were FAR better than Germanies, its air force was the largest in the world, and it had a decent navy.
Then Stalin went nuts and executed all of his good officers.
And the Soviets, although they continued to modernize in a hap-hazard fashion, got their assess kicked by FINLAND.
Canada for one. Virtually the only time it's mentioned it's been conquered by the Americans. If it hasn't been conquered then there is always an independent Quebec (regardless of the time period).
South America: LOTS of potential there for interesting PODs. Brazil as a Nuclear power? Some kind of Pan-SA Union? Argentina as a 'Middle Power'?
Africa: Nothing I can't add that hasn't already been mentioned by others
India: Ye gods--agree with the Caliph on this one. C'mon people--a billion people? Hello?
South America: LOTS of potential there for interesting PODs. Brazil as a Nuclear power? Some kind of Pan-SA Union? Argentina as a 'Middle Power'?
Africa: Nothing I can't add that hasn't already been mentioned by others
India: Ye gods--agree with the Caliph on this one. C'mon people--a billion people? Hello?
Faeelin
Banned
Just like Holland?
Granted, the Low Countries were slightly richer and better off than Scotland, but what is that against the pluck and stubborness of the Scots?
Exactly- one good thing about having no potential is that no one bothers to try and add you to their state
Max Sinister
Banned
@DGNT:
Peter the Great was 52 when he died. Otherwise, you're right... there were many incompetent rulers of Russia, Ivan IV and Peter I killed their heirs (maybe historic psychologists should research whether there's a connection), and IMO even Catherine wasn't that Great - yes, she enlarged the country, but OTOH she threw the Russian peasants really into serfdom.
That's the crux of modernization: You have to repeat it again and again, as fast as possible, always when important changes happen, or all the modernization will be futile.
Peter the Great was 52 when he died. Otherwise, you're right... there were many incompetent rulers of Russia, Ivan IV and Peter I killed their heirs (maybe historic psychologists should research whether there's a connection), and IMO even Catherine wasn't that Great - yes, she enlarged the country, but OTOH she threw the Russian peasants really into serfdom.
That's the crux of modernization: You have to repeat it again and again, as fast as possible, always when important changes happen, or all the modernization will be futile.