20 Years Longer...

What effect could the following figures have had on history a life 20 years longer than they had?

Gustavus Adolphus II (age 37 at time of death, less than a month shy of his 38th birthday)[1]
Charles X Gustav of Sweden (age 37 at time of death)
Henry V of England (age 35 at time of death)
Richard I of England (age 41 at time of death)
William the Silent (age 51 at time of death)

William the Silent and Richard I are probably pushing the envelope of life spans in their respective eras, but, there were other figures of those eras that lived so long, so, what the hell?:)

You don't have to try and make a cohesive whole here, just tell me what you think each would or could have accomplished (or what the consequences would have been for other notable figures of the era/time frame of those 20 additional years) individually, and how they would have or could have changed the course of history had they lived an additional 20 years, with their OTL death (and cause there of, ie; William the Silent and Richard I not shot at all, Henry V and Charles X Gustav don't contract the illnesses that killed them at all) as the POD.




[1] Added in edit. This one could be interesting as it could directly impact Charles X Gustav. Bonus points for scenarios where BOTH Gustavus Adolphus II AND Charles X Gustav get twenty extra years in the same TL.
 
Last edited:
Charles X Gustav of Sweden

Will put forward himself as candidate for King of Poland after John Casimir abdicates or dies, but will lose. Will later try to take Norway from Denmark.

Henry V of England

Succeeds Charles VI in France and defeats the Dauphin. Joan of Arc is still going to have her vision, but if Orleans has already fallen, the nationalist rising will take another form. Eventually, England and France will be separated again.

Richard I of England

War in France; Philip eventually submits on the basis of status quo ante bellum. When he is old enough, the future Louis VIII might take Richard on, but there will be no invasion of England. Meanwhile, Richard will look for another war to take part in, possibly against the Muslims in Spain. His natural ally there is Navarre, which gets more territory via a land swap with Castille or Aragon.

John's inept treachery gets him disinherited, probably in favor of Arthur, although Richard might let John remain Lord of Ireland.

William the Silent

Not too much different. Unlike Henry and Richard, he had a worthy successor (son Maurice) in OTL. William would recognize the ability of his son and put him in charge of the armed forces while handling diplomacy and civil administration himself.
 
Shogun what history are you usually adept with? If you've been in high school with a good history class, chances are you've heard of William the Silent...
 
Someone who could have lived 20 years longer? John II Komnenos, the best of the Komnenid emperors. The incident with the poisoned arrow didn't have to happen. What would have been different had he lived 20 years longer?
 
Someone who could have lived 20 years longer? John II Komnenos, the best of the Komnenid emperors. The incident with the poisoned arrow didn't have to happen. What would have been different had he lived 20 years longer?

John was a good emperor, but the first part of Manuel's reign was fairly successful, too. Can you make a case that a longer life for John will mean no Myriokephalon?
 
John was a good emperor, but the first part of Manuel's reign was fairly successful, too. Can you make a case that a longer life for John will mean no Myriokephalon?

From what I've read John focused most of his campaigning against the Turks who were the greater threat to the Byzantines while Manuel kept shifting from East to West.

Perhaps if John lived 20 years longer he could leave Manuel in the West to deal with the Hungarians, Serbs and Normans as he did historically while he deals with the Turks, Armenians and Crusaders.
 
Someone who could have lived 20 years longer? John II Komnenos, the best of the Komnenid emperors. The incident with the poisoned arrow didn't have to happen. What would have been different had he lived 20 years longer?

I didn't ask about Komnenos, I asked about the figures in the OP.
 
Unfortunately, thread drift is inevitable.

How's it drift when the figure in question wasn't mentioned (even in the most remote sense) in the OP?

That's not drift, that's threadjacking. It's basically the equivalent of telling the OP: 'I don't care about this topic, I'm going to talk about something I'm interested in!' and, frankly, that's kinda rude.
 
ehh ... no ... its merely expanding on the thread topic which is WI: someone lived longer than they did and what would happen if thats the case ...
 
Gustav II Adolf is easy - he was relatively healthy when he died in combat at Lützen 1632.

The big question for Sweden is if he sires a male heir (quite possible, the queen was quite fond of him) and if he declares himself protestant Emperor, an idea he was toying with winter 1631-32.
 
Gustav II Adolf is easy - he was relatively healthy when he died in combat at Lützen 1632.

The big question for Sweden is if he sires a male heir (quite possible, the queen was quite fond of him) and if he declares himself protestant Emperor, an idea he was toying with winter 1631-32.

Interesting.

He was doing quite well in the Thirty Years War, had a very well trained, equipped and disciplined army, with an excellent crop of subordinate officers, it makes me wonder just how much more he could have accomplished on the battlefield and what the gains, both for himself and his allies, he could have made if he continued to crunch the Imperial forces in the field and gained more support in the north German states.

Had he survived Lutzen, where would he have gone next? That is, where would his campaign have taken the armies of Sweden and her allies? Is it clear what his next objective was, following a victory at Lutzen?
 
Giving the Protestant Lion of the North 20 more years would almost certainly have butterflied beyond recognition the development of Central Europe. While the maintenance of a Swedish Baltic Empire was probably not feasible in the long run, a surviving and successful Gustav Adolph would have most likely led to a permanent division between Protestant Northern Germany and the Catolic Hapbsurg and Wittlesbach south. The entrhonement of local sovereignty created at Westphalia would not have happened. I could see the development of a single North German state and perhaps a Wittlesbach ruled SOuthwestern German state, the collapse of the HRE, and the withdrawal of the Habsburgs to their heritary lands and an earlier focus on the Balkans. So giving Captain Gars his 20 years would be a Mothra sized butterfly. As for the others in the OP. Charles X was already broken, I see little impact there, nor do a see a significant impact from William the silent.
Now the case of the English Kings is more interesting. Giving Richard 20 more years at least butterflies away the reign of John Lackland, the James Buchanan of English Kings. Richard would have been able to stand up to if not defeat Philip Augustus so the Anglo-Norman state would have lasted longers, keeping both the crown and the major barons divided in focus between England and Normandy. Whether a longer-lived Richard could have forged a more permanent Anglo-Norman-Aquitane state is questionable, but if he could have annuled his going nowhere marriage, re-married and quickly sired a capapble male heir (big if's) he could have delivered to a 16 -18 year single heir the complete Plantagent domain. In that case, it is more likely that the west of France, especially Aquitane and Brittany, would not have become French as easily as in OTL, with all the long term butterflies that brings. Otherwise Richard's death brings a succession crisis between Arthur of Brittany and John's heir (OTL Henry III, if he exists or some other TTL heir) nd some type of division of the Angevin patrimonies.
With Henry V the problem remains that by the 1400's there was a French identity and no single ruler no matter what his capabilities was going to rule England and France. And even with 20 miore years his son is still a dithering incompetent. His extra years larely postpones the collapse of the English position in France but does not have long term potential for changes. A better candidate for significant impact with 20 more years would be Edward, the Black Prince. His survival to become King Edward IV allows his son Richard to mature before becoming King and even if the English position in Aquitane was not much improved, his survival might well butterfly away the Bolingbroke usurpation and therefore the Wars of the Roses (and Henry V as a King!) and in the long run the Tudors and all that entails. That calls fora timeline but I am not competent to write it.
 
Giving the Protestant Lion of the North 20 more years would almost certainly have butterflied beyond recognition the development of Central Europe. While the maintenance of a Swedish Baltic Empire was probably not feasible in the long run, a surviving and successful Gustav Adolph would have most likely led to a permanent division between Protestant Northern Germany and the Catolic Hapbsurg and Wittlesbach south.

As it pertains to Sweden and empire, could a surviving Gustav Adolph have given strength to Swedish colonial ambitions elsewhere? Like in the Americas and East Indies, perhaps Africa?

...a surviving and successful Gustav Adolph would have most likely led to a permanent division between Protestant Northern Germany and the Catholic Hapbsurg and Wittlesbach south.

So this here would pretty much be the end of HRE in every aspect and a two new German polities, divided along sectarian lines, north and south.

How would this Hapsburg-Wittlesbach polity fit within the Hapsburg's overall holdings in Europe?

Further, what would be the make up of the norther German polity and who would be the major players there? Hanover-Hesse? Orange-Nassau? Saxony? Brandenburg-Prussia? Some combination of two or more?

The enthronement of local sovereignty created at Westphalia would not have happened.

Who would the butterflies from this effect most?

Would Brandenburg-Prussia be 'strangled in the crib', so to speak, or, by war's end, would they end up perhaps in a better position than OTL? Worse? Same?

I could see the development of a single North German state and perhaps a Wittlesbach ruled SOuthwestern German state, the collapse of the HRE, and the withdrawal of the Habsburgs to their heritary lands and an earlier focus on the Balkans. So giving Captain Gars his 20 years would be a Mothra sized butterfly.

Could this lead to a more concrete union of Wittlesbach and Hapsburg lines? Bavaria and Austria ending up in some sort of union at the head of the Catholic German states, perhaps a larger German speaking component of the Hapsburg Empire?

Further, once power and position is consolidated in the sort of 'Austria-Bavaria', how long before the Austrian Empire turns it's attentions towards pushing the Ottomans off the continent, and could they do it? Is 'All the way to Constantinople' the ultimate goal, or do they draw the line short of that?

Perhaps I should have gone with Gustav Adolph alone for this thread, as it seems his survival leads to the far broader ranging changes between OTL and a hypothetical one where he lives 20 or so more years.

As for the others in the OP. Charles X was already broken, I see little impact there.

Define 'broken'.

Charles X seems like he could have had some effect of the world had he lived another 20 years, or am I missing something here?

...nor do a see a significant impact from William the silent.

Seems to be the consensus, thus far.

Now the case of the English Kings is more interesting. Giving Richard 20 more years at least butterflies away the reign of John Lackland, the James Buchanan of English Kings. Richard would have been able to stand up to if not defeat Philip Augustus so the Anglo-Norman state would have lasted longer, keeping both the crown and the major barons divided in focus between England and Normandy. Whether a longer-lived Richard could have forged a more permanent Anglo-Norman-Aquitane state is questionable, but if he could have annulled his going nowhere marriage, re-married and quickly sired a capable male heir (big if's) he could have delivered to a 16 -18 year single heir the complete Plantagenet domain. In that case, it is more likely that the west of France, especially Aquitaine and Brittany, would not have become French as easily as in OTL, with all the long term butterflies that brings. Otherwise Richard's death brings a succession crisis between Arthur of Brittany and John's heir (OTL Henry III, if he exists or some other TTL heir) and some type of division of the Angevin patrimonies.

Perhaps I should have created a separate thread for Richard I as well!:)

Very interesting possibilities there.

With Henry V the problem remains that by the 1400's there was a French identity and no single ruler no matter what his capabilities was going to rule England and France.

The brick wall of all Henry V threads, French Identity, strikes once more.

And even with 20 more years his son is still a dithering incompetent. His extra years largely postpones the collapse of the English position in France but does not have long term potential for changes.

What if Henry VI dies at some point during those twenty extra years Henry V lives? Who would Henry's fortunes pass to when he passes in 1442 (given 20 more years)?

At 35/36 at the time of his death, perhaps he and Catherine of Valois have more children and perhaps a more capable heir is produced? Hell, if Henry lives another 20 years for Henry VI to learn from, perhaps he doesn't end up as incompetent as OTL?


A better candidate for significant impact with 20 more years would be Edward, the Black Prince. His survival to become King Edward IV allows his son Richard to mature before becoming King and even if the English position in Aquitaine was not much improved, his survival might well butterfly away the Bolingbroke usurpation and therefore the Wars of the Roses (and Henry V as a King!) and in the long run the Tudors and all that entails. That calls for a timeline but I am not competent to write it.

Yet another figure who probably deserves another thread all their own! (Can't figure out how I forgot him in the OP, then again, I also forgot Gustav Adolph initially, so...)

So, Edward becomes Edward IV in 1377, reigns until 1396 (or so)...could be interesting.
 
Henry V:
He continues a highly successful reign and is crowned King Henry II of France. Charles VII is defeated and is pushed south, but Henry V never fully defeats the French. Joan of Arc leads a revolt but this one is crushed by stronger English. Henry and Charles VII continue fighting and he dies in 1442, leaving Henry VI as ruler of France and England...
 
Sigma,
I apologize for Charles X Gustav, I got him confused wth Charles XII who was broken when he died. However, unless Charles X could have established a Baltic/Polish empire which would have effectively blocked the westward expansion of Petrine Russia I don't see any significant changes there. Getting anything accomplished and keeping it accomplished in the area of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was somewhat lije herding cats.
As for Henry V/VI, as I recall Henry VI really did have mental stability issues which an extended tutilage and assuming the crown as an adult would not have resolved. It is a good point that Henry V could have had additional male heirs and if he or they evaded the Valois inheritance of mental weakness said alternate heir may have prevented the Yorkist intrusion into governance during Henry's period of incompetence. But the probelms with Henry VI were deeper than those with, say, Richard II. Richard of Bordeaux was spoiled, willful, self-centered and unprepared to be King, which is not unusual for someone who gains power (or fame) as a child (think of Justin Beiber, Macauly Caulkin, or LiLo). He probably would have benefitted from 20 years of guidance by his father, my proposed Edward IV, and by assuming the throne as an adult. While he probably would not have been as accompished as his Father and Grandfather he may well have been a competent king and continued the mainline of the Platangents. Henry VI was not and would not be even a minimally competent King so I am afraid that the benefits of an extended life for Henry V would not long outlive him.
 
Sigma,
I apologize for Charles X Gustav, I got him confused wth Charles XII who was broken when he died. However, unless Charles X could have established a Baltic/Polish empire which would have effectively blocked the westward expansion of Petrine Russia I don't see any significant changes there. Getting anything accomplished and keeping it accomplished in the area of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was somewhat lije herding cats.

Just out of curiosity, what would we be looking at if Gustav Adolphus gets his 20 extra years AND Charles X Gustav still succeeds him AND Charles also gets 20 extra years?

As for Henry V/VI, as I recall Henry VI really did have mental stability issues which an extended tutilage and assuming the crown as an adult would not have resolved.

Wasn't aware of that. That's the sort of thing that would make Henry V's survival of 20 more years almost a moot point. Can't get around something like that.

Unless...

It is a good point that Henry V could have had additional male heirs and if he or they evaded the Valois inheritance of mental weakness said alternate heir may have prevented the Yorkist intrusion into governance during Henry's period of incompetence. But the problems with Henry VI were deeper than those with, say, Richard II.

So another viable male heir could solve that problem, possibly.

Fight for the throne or viable heir is installed over Henry when it becomes obvious Henry's a catastrophe waiting to happen?

Richard of Bordeaux was spoiled, willful, self-centered and unprepared to be King, which is not unusual for someone who gains power (or fame) as a child (think of Justin Beiber, Macauly Caulkin, or LiLo). He probably would have benefited from 20 years of guidance by his father, my proposed Edward IV, and by assuming the throne as an adult. While he probably would not have been as accomplished as his Father and Grandfather he may well have been a competent king and continued the mainline of the Platangents. Henry VI was not and would not be even a minimally competent King so I am afraid that the benefits of an extended life for Henry V would not long outlive him.

Sounds like someone who got 'too much too soon' and that the best tonic to fix him is Edward of Woodstock getting another 20 years to keep him from getting 'too much, to soon'.

I'm feeling somewhat inspired to start a thread just for Edward, The Black Prince just to explore the concept.

Maybe I will...
 
So another viable male heir could solve that problem, possibly.

Fight for the throne or viable heir is installed over Henry when it becomes obvious Henry's a catastrophe waiting to happen?

Primogeniture being the rule of succession pretty much rules out saying "not Henry".

And civil war is not going to help matters.
 
Top