AHC: Alternate Cold War: Democracy VS Monarchy

Let's go for an arbitrary POD of 1836. Could we see a gradual showing of a cold war between Democratic and Absolute Monarchism powers?

They have to be relatively balanced in power scale to create a cold war, possibly make it so that a Atomic bomb development earlier makes it far more like a cold war

Oh, and as an additional challenge, try and put a revived Byzantium in there. Annnnnddddd go!
 
Last edited:
LOL
If there´s a revived Byzantium in it, it´s certainly on the Monarchic side.

Why 1836? During the French Revolution and then under Napoleon, things were well on their way towards such blocs.
In Europe, you could have 1848 succeed more clearly and more radically in some countries and fail in others, for starters.

I don´t see how it could turn Cold, though. Mutually Assured Destruction is still so far away, and there`s absolutely no need and neither any plausible option for their earlier development in the 19th century.
 
I am not sure how this could work. Monarchy and democracy aren't opposing things. Many current European monarchies are democracies.
 
What about this:
Republics VS Monarchies (No implications to being democratic or not)
or
Democracies VS Monarchist Parental Democracies/Dictatorships?​

For the latter, I could see nations rife with Revanchism or nationalism (eg: Japan, Qing China, Germany, Hypothetical Restored Byzantium) being pit against an established old order (eg: Republican France, the US etc.)
That or a mildly brighter twist on the Kaiserreich scenario.
 
No October Revolution/Whites win the Russian Civil War.

A Mladorossi-esque organization takes over during the TTL equivalent of the Great Depression, turns Russia into a fascist-esque totalitarian state (with some OTL Soviet qualities as well) with the Tsar in charge.

Russia participates on the Allied side in WW2, annexes the territory of the former Russian Empire and establishes Romanov-led puppets and protectorates in other parts of Eastern Europe (Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, maybe a part of Germany). The Cold War starts between the Russian-led Romanov alliance and the Western allies.

Something like that.
 
No October Revolution/Whites win the Russian Civil War.

A Mladorossi-esque organization takes over during the TTL equivalent of the Great Depression, turns Russia into a fascist-esque totalitarian state (with some OTL Soviet qualities as well) with the Tsar in charge.

Russia participates on the Allied side in WW2, annexes the territory of the former Russian Empire and establishes Romanov-led puppets and protectorates in other parts of Eastern Europe (Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, maybe a part of Germany). The Cold War starts between the Russian-led Romanov alliance and the Western allies.

Something like that.
So basically a prolonged Revolution, in which it becomes a essentially fascist monarchy. Nice!
 
I am not sure how this could work. Monarchy and democracy aren't opposing things. Many current European monarchies are democracies.
That's only because in modern day the two government styles have reconciled to the point in which they're no longer mutually exclusive; however, there was a period post-1815 (mainly in France, Spain, Portugal, etc.) in which upper-class intellectuals, along with the elite, very much believed that you couldn't have democracy without a monarchy, and vice versa. A government, to them, derived its authority from a monarch that represented the state as whole, and if you were to democratise (to the level of say, America), the state would lose all sense of authority and legitimacy. So for this AHC to work, you'd need a POD in which this line of thinking (that monarchy and democracy are incompatible) becomes the mainstream to the point in which monarchies and democracies are considered ideological foes; something I believe could be achieve with a POD during the late-18th century and the French Revolution.
 
That's only because in modern day the two government styles have reconciled to the point in which they're no longer mutually exclusive; however, there was a period post-1815 (mainly in France, Spain, Portugal, etc.) in which upper-class intellectuals, along with the elite, very much believed that you couldn't have democracy without a monarchy, and vice versa. A government, to them, derived its authority from a monarch that represented the state as whole, and if you were to democratise (to the level of say, America), the state would lose all sense of authority and legitimacy. So for this AHC to work, you'd need a POD in which this line of thinking (that monarchy and democracy are incompatible) becomes the mainstream to the point in which monarchies and democracies are considered ideological foes; something I believe could be achieve with a POD during the late-18th century and the French Revolution.

That is an interesting idea. Which exact POD would be be best? (a popular thinker during the Enlightment Period takes a more radical stand towards the incompability of monarchy and Democracy or a thinker who took this Position in OTL becomming more popular in TTL than he was in OTL.) That are two ideas I came up with.
 
Last edited:
This is actually the basis of a TL I really want yo write but have resigned myself to not having the time.

Edward Sexby successfully assassinates Oliver Cromwell.

Cromwell's early death Martyrs him to the republican cause whilst preventing some of the damage of his later leadership. Sexby meanwhile becomes something of a darling amongst the government in exile, introducing some leveller ideas into the monarchist circles.

As a result, hyper conservative Britain becomes the posterboy of republicanism (and democracy), causing much of the enlightenment philosophers to become advocates of enlightened absolutism over republican institutions (particularly I imagine Voltaire being more influential). Over time, republican countries seem to resemble more theocratic states with a large public sector whilst private enterprise is seen as the bedrock of liberty in monarchist states.

Going past the initial POD, I imagine France being one of the great powers of this TL with less chance of a revolution, the British Commonwealth being its rival and making the cold war all the more tense due to their proximity.
 
As a result, hyper conservative Britain becomes the posterboy of republicanism (and democracy), causing much of the enlightenment philosophers to become advocates of enlightened absolutism over republican institutions (particularly I imagine Voltaire being more influential). Over time, republican countries seem to resemble more theocratic states with a large public sector whilst private enterprise is seen as the bedrock of liberty in monarchist states.
The Challenge is to create a Cold War of Monarchy vs Democracy and I have the Impression you forgot this in your Suggestion.
 
The Challenge is to create a Cold War of Monarchy vs Democracy and I have the Impression you forgot this in your Suggestion.
Nope, albeit I left a lot to implication.

The monarchy side of it should be more obvious (enlightened absolutism being a dominant ideology), but with a Commonwealth as the model for republicanism, so alongside that is not only the reasonable presumption that the Commonwealth would be more democratic (as it might have been without the later works of Cromwell), but also that in Proxy wars countries are likely to support other countries for being vaguely similar to their interests (e.g. just as the US proped up various fascistic but still capitalist governments, the Commonwealth would reasonably prop up more democratic movements considering they have theological reasons to think Monarchy is evil, never mind the practical realpolitik of building up a bloc).
 

Deleted member 109224

The Germans are defeated in 1915/1916 and Tsarist Russia survives. Let's say Bulgaria joins the entente in exchange for a chunk of Serbian Macedonia and they end up contributing heavily to an early Ottoman knockout and there being more manpower to defeat Austria-Hungary.

-Tsarist Russia directly annexes Galicia-Lodomeria, Bukovina, and Zaolzie from Austria-Hungary. Russia annexes Posen and Upper Silesia as well. Wilsonian Armenia, Constantinople, and Gallipoli are Russian here as well.
-Czechoslovakia gets a Romanov King.
-Horthy makes a Romanov King of Hungary with the condition that said Romanov converts to Catholicism.
-Yugoslavia here is a strong Russian ally with marriage ties to the Romanovs.
-Bulgaria ends up aligning with Russia here, especially after Russia bullies Romania into handing over Southern Dobruja.
-Mussolini still takes power in Italy and aligns his country with Russia, and Russia TTL engages in a royal-fascist regime
-There's still a Spanish Civil War, with Russia and Italy backing Franco
-Austria, under heavy Italian and Russian influence, restores the Hapsburgs and Hapsburgs intermarry with the Savoys or Romanovs or both

France and Germany have a rapprochement with a rising Italo-Russian Monarcho-Fascist bloc to the east and south. The Briand-Stresseman plan for a European Union happens here.

Britain-France-Germany versus Russia-Italy in a globe-spanning geopolitical conflict.

If Russia takes the Polish corridor here as well, maybe a Republican Weimar and Hohenzollern rump in East Prussia could be something worth toying with.



------------------------

Alternatively, a Catho-Monarcho-Fascist bloc of an Action Francaise France and Italy could perhaps do the trick.
 
The Germans are defeated in 1915/1916 and Tsarist Russia survives. Let's say Bulgaria joins the entente in exchange for a chunk of Serbian Macedonia and they end up contributing heavily to an early Ottoman knockout and there being more manpower to defeat Austria-Hungary.

I doubt that the Russians would countenance parts of Serbia being given to Bulgaria, given that they joined the war to protect Serbian sovereignty in the first place. (At least, nothing more than border corrections, as long as Serbia is compensated handily with Bosnia and the Serbian Banat.)

More likely that Bulgaria is promised parts of eastern Thrace, with Russia getting control over the Sea of Marmara.
 
Nope, albeit I left a lot to implication.

The monarchy side of it should be more obvious (enlightened absolutism being a dominant ideology), but with a Commonwealth as the model for republicanism, so alongside that is not only the reasonable presumption that the Commonwealth would be more democratic (as it might have been without the later works of Cromwell), but also that in Proxy wars countries are likely to support other countries for being vaguely similar to their interests (e.g. just as the US proped up various fascistic but still capitalist governments, the Commonwealth would reasonably prop up more democratic movements considering they have theological reasons to think Monarchy is evil, never mind the practical realpolitik of building up a bloc).
Thanks for the clarification of your Ideas!
 
Top