AHC: A China in the West

Agreed here. Just observing on what might have made the Hohenzollern state so much weaker when the shit truly hit the fan.

Ironically the Hohenzollern *state* was actually quite solid in its own right. It had to be, to go from dirt-poor indefensible electorate to a rival to the Russian and Habsburg super-states. It didn't have a smooth rise by any means. The German Empire it created, however, was fatally and fundamentally flawed at multiple levels, which might well raise the question of how much Otto von Bismarck tends to be overrated by virtue of having taken the credit for Moltke the Elder's military victories....as well as reflecting on the difference between the singular Kingdom of Prussia and attempting to conglomerate a bunch of states with a prickly particularist tradition into a singular state, a process that was by no means simple (it certainly was never managed by the Habsburgs, Ottonians, or Hohenstaufens and that wasn't for lack of trying).
 
Ironically the Hohenzollern *state* was actually quite solid in its own right. It had to be, to go from dirt-poor indefensible electorate to a rival to the Russian and Habsburg super-states. It didn't have a smooth rise by any means. The German Empire it created, however, was fatally and fundamentally flawed at multiple levels, which might well raise the question of how much Otto von Bismarck tends to be overrated by virtue of having taken the credit for Moltke the Elder's military victories....as well as reflecting on the difference between the singular Kingdom of Prussia and attempting to conglomerate a bunch of states with a prickly particularist tradition into a singular state, a process that was by no means simple (it certainly was never managed by the Habsburgs, Ottonians, or Hohenstaufens and that wasn't for lack of trying).

Bismarck seems to have made something workable in the short term, but in the long term, none of his successors were up to the challenge.

I recall reading - although not where - that he set up the Kaiser-Chancellor relationship in such a way that was perfectly tailored to his relationship with Wilhelm I, but which was in general a terrible system. That the Imperial German structure in general had such flaws wouldn't surprise me - above and beyond what we'd expect from Prussia building a state around the army.
 
Wow this thread has really gone off topic since I last checked it! :eek:

The point of this thread isn't the strength of empires up their survival as large states. Only Russia counts as in the OTL as it was a large empire and it still exists today despite all the invasions, changes of dynasty and revolution.

As mentioned above Iran could qualify given the right POD. The Ottoman Empire and the Austrian Empire couldn't qualify. The Austrian empire was always divided by internal ethnic strife, and the Ottoman Empire moulted their different ethnic groups over the course of the 19th century, finally losing the Arab population in WW1. Even before this the Young Turks were shifting away from Ottoman nationalism and towards Turkish nationalism. The strength or weakness of the Ottomans in the modern age is totally irrelevent to this challenge, China lost so many wars in the 19th century and came close to being carved up by various powers, but it survived as a country, and that is the important thing. (And please don't even start on Taiwan). And when I mean superstate, I mean a country on the scale of China, Russia, India, Brazil or the USA in land area or size. There was no such empire in WW1 that fit that category. The German Empire at its height was too small.

In my mind you need a POD before at least 1700, if not earlier. The question is what POD would it take to transform any of the major empires that dominated that region from a Muscovy sized country with an empire into a Russian Federation.

Would a long-lasting, Franco-Spanish-Italian empire be viable? I'm pretty sure Mediterenean-wide domination is impossible to last eternally, given the multitude of potential enemies and internal issues, but a single west European empire might be able to forge a single nation identity and fend off external threats.

Yes that would be viable if you had an early enough POD and found factors that would create an identity stronger than French/Spanish/Italian and beyond the dynasty (assuming Bourbon in this case) so that when nationalism kicked in it didn't go the way of the Habsburg Empire.
 
Yes that would be viable if you had an early enough POD and found factors that would create an identity stronger than French/Spanish/Italian and beyond the dynasty (assuming Bourbon in this case) so that when nationalism kicked in it didn't go the way of the Habsburg Empire.

I was thinking of a surviving Western Roman Empire, allowing for foreign Visigothic and Frankish dynasties to come to power, without any major consequences on the actual state (a bit like the Nubians/Kushites who came to power in Egypt but it was still Egypt).
 
It wasn't an illusion as their victories at Kosovo, Nicopolis, Mohacs, and other battles gave them a frontier on Europe and they twice besieged Vienna (which logistically was as far as they would ever have gone). The Middle East conquests weren't really what they were after so much. The Ottomans had the issue of relative decline when European states also adopted professional armies including artillery, and entered their period of greatest weakness just as the societies of Northern Europe were shifting into an industrial era, and this prevented them from being able to adapt as rapidly as might otherwise hve been the case.

Illusion was perhaps the wrong word of choice. :eek: I'm aware of their victories in the Balkans, especially Mohacs and the great strength of the Turkish armies. I merely meant to say that they were able to work on unequal footing with the Europeans prior to their decline; that is, no need to negotiate and no need to make amends.
 
Bismarck seems to have made something workable in the short term, but in the long term, none of his successors were up to the challenge.

I recall reading - although not where - that he set up the Kaiser-Chancellor relationship in such a way that was perfectly tailored to his relationship with Wilhelm I, but which was in general a terrible system. That the Imperial German structure in general had such flaws wouldn't surprise me - above and beyond what we'd expect from Prussia building a state around the army.

That is a general analysis, yes. Unfortunately that ignores several things, first of which is that Wilhelm I was actually a strong and clever monarch who managed successfully to strengthen his dynasty's absolute power and viewed Bismarck as a tool to use in this sense, and of course another obvious problem in trying to square universal suffrage with an unaccountable chancellor.

Illusion was perhaps the wrong word of choice. :eek: I'm aware of their victories in the Balkans, especially Mohacs and the great strength of the Turkish armies. I merely meant to say that they were able to work on unequal footing with the Europeans prior to their decline; that is, no need to negotiate and no need to make amends.

I dunno, their victories up to 1917 in WWI indicate that their state's dismemberment is not precisely a sign that it was any too weak so much as overpowered in war and dismembered.
 
That is a general analysis, yes. Unfortunately that ignores several things, first of which is that Wilhelm I was actually a strong and clever monarch who managed successfully to strengthen his dynasty's absolute power and viewed Bismarck as a tool to use in this sense, and of course another obvious problem in trying to square universal suffrage with an unaccountable chancellor.



I dunno, their victories up to 1917 in WWI indicate that their state's dismemberment is not precisely a sign that it was any too weak so much as overpowered in war and dismembered.

:confused:

I spoke more of the pre-1683 period... where the Turks had a pretty mighty army, and while they may have suffered some routs (Lepanto, ect), but in the 14th, 15th, and century 16th centuries had a far superior to what the Europeans had. They were in looking in the fact they seemed to deal with the Europeans they encountered as vassals or mortal enemies. France was perhaps, an exception.

Also, and maybe it's just my opinion, but I consider the empire from post-Stefano up until it's dissolution different from the empire that existed before that. The empire in WW1 was a military cabal ran by nationalist Turks who couldn't give two figs of their Arab population. In fact, I think the dissolution and reduction to a rump Turkey suited the Young Turks just fine, given they were also keen to Turkify certain parts of the empire should empire survive.

The sick man of the post-Crimea was sick, but had the Tanzimat was still flowing. It wasn't Turkification that was being pressed, but Ottomanization -- that ethnic groups see themselves as Ottomans; I know the Albanians and many Slavic Muslims were test stidoes for these goals. Like Turkification, Germanization, AThe Ottoman Empire after the post-Crimea is sick, but 1877 was really it's ruin. I'd say that's the Ottoman nail, not 1917; 1877 became the maturation of the bystralization of the Balkan nationalities, and starting it's demise.

But, I digress...

The whole idea of the Ottomans is off-topic anyways.
 
After reading this discussion I have to add two things:
- Prussia: Prussia was never a state build around an army. The problem with Prussia was, that under Wilhelm II the army got too much power and the Prussian virtues got corrupted.
- Ottoman Empire: there is one reason why the Ottoman Empire missed the connection with Europe: the Islam and their strict interpretation of it. You cannot have teaching books without images but exactly that happened in the Ottoman Empire.

If there were empires which could have turned into a western version of Imperial China than these would have been Rome and the Empire of Alexander the Great.
 
After reading this discussion I have to add two things:
- Prussia: Prussia was never a state build around an army. The problem with Prussia was, that under Wilhelm II the army got too much power and the Prussian virtues got corrupted.
- Ottoman Empire: there is one reason why the Ottoman Empire missed the connection with Europe: the Islam and their strict interpretation of it. You cannot have teaching books without images but exactly that happened in the Ottoman Empire.

If there were empires which could have turned into a western version of Imperial China than these would have been Rome and the Empire of Alexander the Great.

I don't think Alexander's empire could last. It was much too much reliant upon his own military talents and personality cult.
 
As Barbarossa Rotbart says, other than Rome, Alexander's Empire might be the best choice. The Archaemid Empire was too decentralised to be Persianised but the Diadochi kingdoms lasted a long time, so if Antigonus had won Alexander's Empire might have survived. Or alternately Seluecus survives and completes the reconquest of the empire.

I still think the early Islamic period could have been a good time to establish a superstate. Either an Arabic one under the Caliphate or a Shia Greater Iranian state under a Shah, as suggested above.
 
But we do not know what would have happened if he lived longer and if he had issue inheriting the crown.
The Habsburg Empire could also have become something similiar if they did not divide it in Spain and Austria and if they manage to centralize the HRE.
 
:confused:

I spoke more of the pre-1683 period... where the Turks had a pretty mighty army, and while they may have suffered some routs (Lepanto, ect), but in the 14th, 15th, and century 16th centuries had a far superior to what the Europeans had. They were in looking in the fact they seemed to deal with the Europeans they encountered as vassals or mortal enemies. France was perhaps, an exception.

Also, and maybe it's just my opinion, but I consider the empire from post-Stefano up until it's dissolution different from the empire that existed before that. The empire in WW1 was a military cabal ran by nationalist Turks who couldn't give two figs of their Arab population. In fact, I think the dissolution and reduction to a rump Turkey suited the Young Turks just fine, given they were also keen to Turkify certain parts of the empire should empire survive.

The sick man of the post-Crimea was sick, but had the Tanzimat was still flowing. It wasn't Turkification that was being pressed, but Ottomanization -- that ethnic groups see themselves as Ottomans; I know the Albanians and many Slavic Muslims were test stidoes for these goals. Like Turkification, Germanization, AThe Ottoman Empire after the post-Crimea is sick, but 1877 was really it's ruin. I'd say that's the Ottoman nail, not 1917; 1877 became the maturation of the bystralization of the Balkan nationalities, and starting it's demise.

But, I digress...

The whole idea of the Ottomans is off-topic anyways.

The Ottomans did lose territory, yes, to the Great Powers deciding the ordinary rule of in viability of borders didn't apply to Muslim Great Powers the way it did to Christian ones. At the same time the British won jack and shit against them in a battle until they started using the earliest equivalents to WWII doctrine and had 10:1 superiority in numbers......

After reading this discussion I have to add two things:
- Prussia: Prussia was never a state build around an army. The problem with Prussia was, that under Wilhelm II the army got too much power and the Prussian virtues got corrupted.
- Ottoman Empire: there is one reason why the Ottoman Empire missed the connection with Europe: the Islam and their strict interpretation of it. You cannot have teaching books without images but exactly that happened in the Ottoman Empire.

If there were empires which could have turned into a western version of Imperial China than these would have been Rome and the Empire of Alexander the Great.

Prussia: Um, yes actually Prussia was a state built around an army. Brandenberg gained the territory it did from building the largest, most powerful war machine in Europe. This and nothing more was behind its rise.

Ottomans: No, they had their period of greatest weakness during the Napoleonic Wars and the Great Powers decided that their own principles established in the Congress of Europe did not apply in a Muslim Empire. If it had been applied consistently the Great Powers would have suppressed that peasant revolt in Attica, not taken it as an excuse to fulfill fanboyism of the Classical Greeks by creating a new Greece. Islam had nothing to do with the Ottomans falling behind any more than the Orthodox Church stopped Tsarist Russia from industrializing. That analysis is, to put it bluntly, absurd.
 
I still think the early Islamic period could have been a good time to establish a superstate. Either an Arabic one under the Caliphate or a Shia Greater Iranian state under a Shah, as suggested above.
No. Because it really cannot work. The Umayyad Caliphate was such a superstate and it broke appart after the Abbasids had usurped the throne.
 
No. Because it really cannot work. The Umayyad Caliphate was such a superstate and it broke appart after the Abbasids had usurped the throne.

Actually the earliest days of the Abbasid dynasty were such a super-state as well. You're right that the Islamic superstate has deep flaws, in one way if Muhammad had had no living descendants at all it would have been easier, at least in theory, to create such an empire. The same factors of sheer geographic control issues that limited earlier empires and posed potential issues of fragmentation would still apply, however.
 
But we do not know what would have happened if he lived longer and if he had issue inheriting the crown.
The Habsburg Empire could also have become something similiar if they did not divide it in Spain and Austria and if they manage to centralize the HRE.

Who? Alexander? Yeah, but it could have created an interesting fusion of Greco-Persian culture for this superstate. I think Alexander embraced Helenization and Persian culture enough that if the empire continued it could have established a unique identity that would have survived.

I'm not sure about the Habsburgs. I think they would need to unite Spain and Austria by land (like conquer France) to bring them within the same country. I guess that wouldn't be impossible, the Burgundians had a good claim to the French throne, and given the chaos in France during the Hundred Years War it might have been possible for a Charles V like figure to inherit/conquer France earlier. I'm thinking sometime between the 1420s-1450s. That would give the Habsbergs France or parts of France (maybe Henry V gets Normandy and the north and the Habsbergs get the south) and by 1500 the Habsberg Empire controls this and their OTL empire of Charles V. This in time if it survives could exert control over the HRE and centralise, though it might be hard for this empire to exist in the short run as it would obviously severely damage the balance of power in Europe. I'm not sure what POD/s would be needed for this, what do you think Barbarossa?
 
I was thinking of a surviving Western Roman Empire, allowing for foreign Visigothic and Frankish dynasties to come to power, without any major consequences on the actual state (a bit like the Nubians/Kushites who came to power in Egypt but it was still Egypt).

In Scarecrow's The Song of Roland TL, it has a more successful Frankish Empire which conqueres much of eastern Spain, and Denmark, before going on to expand accross much of western Europe (even Wessex joins it). It also receives the title of Western Roman Empire after giving aid to the Byzantines.

Something like this could become a China analogue (as it did in Thande's Viceroyalty of Anglistan ASB scenario), using the Catholic Church and elected Imperial Crown to keep it together.
 
I was thinking of a surviving Western Roman Empire, allowing for foreign Visigothic and Frankish dynasties to come to power, without any major consequences on the actual state (a bit like the Nubians/Kushites who came to power in Egypt but it was still Egypt).

That seems feasible with a few minor treaks. I mean, the Roman Empire underwent tons of civil wars and at the end of the day it ended up being reunited again.

In Scarecrow's The Song of Roland TL, it has a more successful Frankish Empire which conqueres much of eastern Spain, and Denmark, before going on to expand accross much of western Europe (even Wessex joins it). It also receives the title of Western Roman Empire after giving aid to the Byzantines.

Something like this could become a China analogue (as it did in Thande's Viceroyalty of Anglistan ASB scenario), using the Catholic Church and elected Imperial Crown to keep it together.

Then maybe a Western Roman Empire would be possible with an even later POD. I think Latin could be used as a universal language, or maybe still second, like Greek and Latin in the Eastern Roman Empire?

I don't think Alexander's empire could last. It was much too much reliant upon his own military talents and personality cult.

I don't think so. The Persian Empire, which was not much smaller lasted for hundreds of years and the Seleucid Empire came close to reuniting it again. So it could technically be possible that either Alexander or a diadochi managed to centralise the state. By the time the Parthians for a potential invader rise up they become like the tribes of the Steppes or Germanic tribes to China and Rome respectively, aiming to conquer the whole and replace that dynasty.

No. Because it really cannot work. The Umayyad Caliphate was such a superstate and it broke appart after the Abbasids had usurped the throne.

Maybe a slightly smaller Caliphate based around the modern Arab world including Syria, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa could have formed. I don't think assimulating Persia would be possible. What if the Ummayad dynasty was completely wiped out or just died out and was replaced peacefully, not leading to the split?
 
Top