Create a modern nation with first-tier or superpower status that doesn't exist OTL starting with a PoD between the Treaty of Westphalia and Waterloo
- Thread starter M79
- Start date
A Francophone North American state based in Canada. If it just had a bit more time to develop and grow.
Never going to happen. The stadtholderships in the Netherlands were elective, not hereditary. And no one in Britain or the Netherlands wanted any sort of political union between the two countries. William's double position was an ad hoc arrangement to get rid of James and get the Netherlands a desperately needed ally against France.
Last edited:
Formally it was elective, well basically only for members of the house of Nassau, Orange-Nassau being most prominent. In practice it was de facto hereditary and the last two stadtholders were even formally hereditary stadtholders.
Afsharid Persia could work, especially since if it survives and stabilises than it might gain British support, modernise, and expand north (as expansion into India is blocked) to perhaps the Kazakh border or so (maybe the Syr Darya/Aral Sea as a northern border) as an ally against Russian influence. Given pre-19th century ethnic identities in the Middle East and how the Afsharids are Sunni, it's possible to avoid the worst of ethnic tensions through state-supported Islamic and Persian pan-nationalist policy. Playing the right cards in the era of world wars would allow it to reclaim any lost land (to Russia, the Ottomans, or Britain) and in general start gaining true independence from European influence. It's obviously an oil superpower since even if it doesn't control most of the Arabian peninsula, that oil has to leave through the Strait of Hormuz. The population (with earlier growth, no giant famine in WWI, etc.) would probably be between 200-300 million in that area, which is a little low for a superpower, but IMO the sheer size, strategic position, and oil makes up for it. I'd say it's basically a weaker USSR (similar economy, but the oil/gas is easier to exploit since it mostly isn't so far in Siberia) with more potential ethno-religious issues, but it's well positioned to dominate the Indian Ocean and have a huge influence in the countries of that area.
It would no doubt be a great power, but it will be bordering many countries such as Russia, China, Ottomans, as well as the future possibility of a United India, combine that with European powers always harassing Iran, it would be much more difficult to be a stable state, It would also not have good navy as most of its coastline is in the Persian Gulf and can be easily blockaded
It would also have the rising Ethnic nationalism and Religious fundamentalism to content with, along with the fact that its Borders are not that geographically consistent. It would be most likely a great power with a good economy but no superpower
Mughals would probably be better, as the Marathas from the get go weren't really administrators or "empire-builders" in the traditional sense. They raided and didn't really do anything to establish their gains in the rest of India while keeping the Mughal Emperor as a figurehead. The Mughals also got pretty close to uniting the subcontinent, and if they can sensibly incorporate the Deccan into the Mughal-sphere, then there really isn't anything stopping them from keeping control of most of India for a while, if not all of India. If it survived into the 21st century, in all likelihood this United India would be a constitutional confederation with the Padshah/ Samraat-I-Hind as a figurehead over a nation that has a mostly united North (Indo-Gangetic Plain) with a patchwork of ancient kingdoms and provinces (somewhat like the German Empire) that have quite a bit of freedom. Think perhaps somewhere between OTL India and a European Federation.
I mean you could also have a United India from the 20th century in which the Muslim League does not gain as much influence in WW2, and India comes out of WW2 united and a very attractive ally for the USA.
Even though Mughals are more likely to unite India as they were closer than Marathas than OTL, Marathas too can unite India and no doubt be able administrators, especially if they either perform well in Panipat destroying the Afghans or even earlier if Shivaji lives much longer thus allowing the empire to be much more unified. If Mughals do win, It would be extremely interesting to see the development and growth of Islam in India due to much stronger Mughals, which will also completely affect India
I, however, Do not think an Unpartitioned India could have survived with a Democracy, it would require a Ataturk or Lee Kuan Yew style Dictator to have basic and much needed social and economic reforms in the country, perhaps a United India would have to remain a One Party state to have continuous development to be a superpower
19th century Ottomans are weak and ideally a strong Persia would redirect OTL Russian attention (i.e. the Russo-Persian Wars) toward the Ottomans. Persia also doesn't have to worry about the Balkans and European intervention in ethnic tensions unlike the Ottomans who always found a way to garner outrage in Europe. China is a non-entity during the 19th and most of the 20th centuries and can't really do much but fight border wars thanks to the logistics of the desert and high mountains. Russia is definitely the major threat along with Britain, but Britain could be persuaded to back Persia to ensure stability in Afghanistan and Pashtun lands (basically let the Persians do all the work and get all the profit) and eventually as a client against Russia. The model would be the OTL Anglo-Japanese relationship of cooperation against Russia and development. Now ideally, the Persians would have enough pull that they'd be able to prevent the British from seizing ports or owning too much of the country.
The Afsharids also have a naval tradition to draw from which OTL successfully fought Arab pirates and conquered Bahrain. Rule over Balochistan extends the coastline and gives a good port at Gwadar.
In a lot of ways it's pretty much a smaller, sunnier version of the Russian Empire, and that's how I imagine it developing to an extent. Now unlike Russia or the Ottomans, they can much more afford to adopt an opportunistic strategy in great wars of the 20th century and simply join in on the winning side to seize land or a piece of Africa from Russia/Ottomans/Britain. IMO a Black Sea port would be a great acquisition since it adds an outlet to the Atlantic (during peace, contingent on good relations with the Ottomans/whoever owns Constantinople). If other potential superpowers--Russia, China, or a Western European power--are weak/don't exist (i.e. no EU) then surely Imperial Iran's rule over Central Asia and huge role in Middle Eastern politics (they will seek influence in the Arab world and dominate much of the Levant) and thus control over the world's oil supply would ensure they'd be seen as the #2 power in the world, even if not on the level of the United States.
This is plausible, but the fact remains that Unless Russia completely collapses and disintegrates, it would remain a threat, so would China if it rises again and a United India would become this Iran's biggest thread due to its sheer population, the best they can hope for by 2000s would be something similiar to Japan, a Strong Economy and Military, but no Superpower
They would no doubt have regional navy, but they would never have a navy that can reach global dominance, which is required for being a Military Superpower
The fact that even in OTL Russia or USSR at its greatest extent never was able to surpass USA tells me that this Iran would not be anywhere close, no matter what, China once rises would surpass it, and Russia would always be an ever-present threat, and if something similiar to EU is formed, then it would have competition there as well, and India, even if divided, would still be a formidable of force
I do not see Iran ever being a Superpower, especially after European Colonization, at best it would be a great power similiar to modern day Germany or Japan, It does not have the favorable geography, would have alot of opponents and not enough population to sustain ever competing with USA globally
I could see a Danubian Federation (it would be a federation in name only. In fact it would be a more centralized Austrian Empire) which would be a more absolutist monarchy under Maria Theresa. She'd have more power concentrated in her hands and with her husband Francis Stephen as Holy Roman Emperor a form of dynastic dual monarchy could exist. On their deaths, Joseph II and Leopold II would inherit the twin titles and keep the crowns within the Hapsburg family.
Such a setup would ultimately have to come to terms with, from within, Prussia Hannover and Bavaria...and from without, Revolutionary and later Napoleonic France, but its conceivable that with the added manpower and wealth of the HRE more tightly tied to the Austrian Hausmacht, The internal threats could be neutralized by both diplomacy and war and Napoleon could possibly be held back with only the Left-Bank Rhine territories lost and that only temporarily. It would force Napoleon to focus more on the old Franco-British rivalry and possibly alter the balance of power between the two.
Such a setup would ultimately have to come to terms with, from within, Prussia Hannover and Bavaria...and from without, Revolutionary and later Napoleonic France, but its conceivable that with the added manpower and wealth of the HRE more tightly tied to the Austrian Hausmacht, The internal threats could be neutralized by both diplomacy and war and Napoleon could possibly be held back with only the Left-Bank Rhine territories lost and that only temporarily. It would force Napoleon to focus more on the old Franco-British rivalry and possibly alter the balance of power between the two.
Nonetheless, the Dutch estates would have to choose consciously to have the King of Great Britain as stadtholder. If there was any alternative, that wouldn't happen.
If William III (1651-*1714) had one son *William /Willem IV (1680-1742), William /Willem IV would be an adult at William's death. He would be Prince of Orange and the presumptive successor to the stadtholderships, and as an adult with the power of the British crown, could probably get the estates to name him stadtholder.
Alternatively, the Princedom and (implicitly) the stadtholderships might be devolved by William III to his paternal cousin once removed Johan Willem Friso (1687-1711), who was stadtholder of two provinces and his OTL heir general. JWF was 15 when W III died OTL, and never gained the other stadtholderships before his death by accident.
But if he did die in 1711 (predeceasing W III), and left no son (or a posthumous son as OTL), then the the "succession" of *Willem IV as Prince and stadtholder would be unavoidable. And if *Willem IV also has one son (*WiIlam/Willem V, 1706-1775), the union would continue, even though both sides would want out of it.
That was 45 years later, and the change was made when there was no risk of a union of... offices, not crowns. Though the first hereditary stadtholder-general William IV was married to George II's eldest daughter Anne, Anne's brother Frederick Lewis had six living children.
Last edited: