Henry would still have full power in England (directly ruled by him) and would still be overlord on his sons demains but either he do not give any title to his sons or give them titles with powers on their lands... Why you can not understand who Henry was totally on the wrong side using his sons as puppets? Henry’s decision to give NOMINAL RULE of some lands WITHOUT ANY REAL POWER to his sons was suicidal... nobody would have remained loyal when Henry for first was underming them as they were reduced to be only figurehead in their own lands who were still ruled by London (so with them there but without any real power)... Henry, Richard and Geoffrey needed to learn to rule, but for doing that they needed expert councilors and the power and trust for actually ruling their lands but Henry gave them no trust and no power so they were unable to do anything and a rebellion was quite logical... Explain me for what reason they would have stayed loyal to Henry?
AHC: Save an incompetent or unlucky ruler
- Thread starter Deleted member 114175
- Start date
-
- Tags
- monarchs
Woodrow Wilson’s stroke in 1919 kills him
instead of just crippling him. I know this
sounds quite cruel but hear me out. If Wil-
son had died I’m cutting his life short not by
10 or 20 years, but only by 5, all of which he
had to live as an invalid who couldn’t walk.
Meanwhile, he would- like Lincoln- have been viewed as a martyr to a great cause(in
WW’s case the LON). He would have been
(like JFK for many years)lionized, his faults
forgotten, his Republican critics demonized
as small-minded, contemptible men who had
the nerve to oppose this great man, etc. etc.
Of course no Wilson means Thomas Marshall
is now POTUS. While he was certainly no
statesmen(he is best remembered today for
his assertion that a good five cents cigar is
what America needed)he did possess one
stalwart virtue that WW so sorely lacked: a
willingness to compromise. Thus a President
Marshall would have accepted @ least enough of the Senate’s reservations on the
Treaty to get it ratified & put the U.S. into
the LON. (Remember that in 1920, even with Wilson dead set against any reservations, the Treaty did garner approval of a majority in the Senate- it just wasn’t the required two-thirds).Now I’m NOT saying this would have then butterflied away WWII-but it would just about certainly would not have made, over the next, say, 25 years things any worse. At the very least I’ve long thought that US participation in the LON was an experiment worth making.
The upshot of all of this is that WW’s his-
torical teputation SOARS & he would have
then be regarded as one of our greatest
Presidents if not the greatest.
instead of just crippling him. I know this
sounds quite cruel but hear me out. If Wil-
son had died I’m cutting his life short not by
10 or 20 years, but only by 5, all of which he
had to live as an invalid who couldn’t walk.
Meanwhile, he would- like Lincoln- have been viewed as a martyr to a great cause(in
WW’s case the LON). He would have been
(like JFK for many years)lionized, his faults
forgotten, his Republican critics demonized
as small-minded, contemptible men who had
the nerve to oppose this great man, etc. etc.
Of course no Wilson means Thomas Marshall
is now POTUS. While he was certainly no
statesmen(he is best remembered today for
his assertion that a good five cents cigar is
what America needed)he did possess one
stalwart virtue that WW so sorely lacked: a
willingness to compromise. Thus a President
Marshall would have accepted @ least enough of the Senate’s reservations on the
Treaty to get it ratified & put the U.S. into
the LON. (Remember that in 1920, even with Wilson dead set against any reservations, the Treaty did garner approval of a majority in the Senate- it just wasn’t the required two-thirds).Now I’m NOT saying this would have then butterflied away WWII-but it would just about certainly would not have made, over the next, say, 25 years things any worse. At the very least I’ve long thought that US participation in the LON was an experiment worth making.
The upshot of all of this is that WW’s his-
torical teputation SOARS & he would have
then be regarded as one of our greatest
Presidents if not the greatest.
Last edited:
Not if, following your schema, he makes Henry Jr an effective King of England. The same goes for Richard after his brither's death.
He would not: overlord of Aquitaine was King of France (to whom Dick swore loyalty to have support in his rebellion). The same goes for each and every piece of land he owned in France.
Rather questionable logic. Following it, each and every Prince of Wales should immediately start rebellion against his father and the same goes for all "empty" titles of the later times.
Nice fantasy but, unfortunately, absolutely impractical. Let's assume your scenario. Henry's brats are getting the lands of their own to rule as they see fit independently of London. BTW, Henry Jr. was titular King of England, Duke of Normandy, Count of Anjou and Maine, which means that if father gave him "real power" while Richard has Aquitaine and Goffrey Brittany, he is left with nothing substantial as his own domain. However, let's assume that this master plan is accomplished.
The 1st obvious step is they are going to hang all "expert councilors" given by their father because, by definition, these councilors are coming from father's administration and (unless they promptly change sides) are pursuing London's interests. Well, of course Henry Jr is ruling in London so it is not even clear where his father is and why should anybody pay any attention to his wishes.
The 2nd obvious step is, after getting rid of all these councilors, the brats are trying to make themselves completely independent from London by swearing loyalty to their formal overlord, King of France, in exchange for a military backup (as Henry Jr and Dick did in OTL). When Henry is trying to exert some power, there is a war in which he is defeated just because he does not have any serious power/taxation base of his own.
The 3rd step is, after achieving the independence the boys are getting envious of each other and start fighting wars to rearrange their possessions. Of course, Phillip is always glad to help and by the time when the only one of them is left, the "Angevian Empire" is gone well ahead of the schedule. Or, if we assume a scenario in which Henry Jr outlives his father, there is a war between Richard who holds an Aquitaine (and formally is a vassal of the French crown) and Henry III of England who is trying to re-join it to the "Angevian Empire" ruled from London with their loving mother supporting her favorite Richard.
At the time the English (they will not be British until 1707) and the Dutch are embroiled in the War of Spanish succession. Besides, George I will not become King of Britain until 1714 - Queen Anne did not have his ambitions on Swedish Bremen that her successor had. She did not have the associated hostility against Sweden and did not send the Royal Navy into the Baltic to try to provoke an incident that could cause Britain to enter the war as Hannover had.
I will admit that my knowledge of internal Russian politics at the time is lacking, but I understood that some of the conservative opposition, however neutered, gathered around Peter's son Alexej, but since he was lazy (or at least not energetic enough for the tastes of his father) and rather initiativeless, nothing came of it.
You are right that Sweden lacks the power to take and force Russia to yield, but if things become bad enough for Peter, he might seek peace to return later.
By 1704 the Baltic provinces had not been as ravaged by repeated Russian raids as they had been 1708, which was why Karl XII elected to invade Russia rather than go north - he considered Estonia and Livonia unable to sustain his army. In 1704, the situation was not that bad yet, and moving north to retake Nöteborg and Nyen and destroy the embryo of Saint Petersburg was a viable option, especially if Czar Peter could be compelled to fight for his new capital and be soundly defeated there. The Russian army was still developing in 1704 (it was steadily getting better, but was not the force it would be 1710 onwards in 1704).
If Peter is captured or killed, a lot of his accomplishments could be lost in the ensuing chaos - if he survives, he is shrewd enough to restore his power, even against the heaviest opposition, but might consider Sweden too tough an opponent for Russia to take on alone, at least before more of his reforms have borne fruit. The Crimeans or Ottomans might be his next target instead.
Yes, Karl XII wanted the return of all territory. He was stubborn as a mule. But as I said, stubborn people that win in the end are heralded as visionary heros, while stubborn people who lose in the end are viewed as fools.
Karl XII would probably be content with Courland, Polish Livonia and holding Archangelsk and perhaps Pskov as guarantees of a Russian war indemnity, or for a number of years to extract their income and tolls in lieu of a war indemnity, like Sweden did with the East Prussian ports 1629-1635.
First I've ever heard that Leopoldina committed suicide. Reference?
I specifically excluded England by the lands who will go under the rule of young Henry (something who you are unable to understand evidently), they are still Henry’s sons and princes of England so Henry II will always be their overlord.
Then why you are so sure they will search full indipendence from a father who is not a tyrant? And for what reason they would make war against each other there? Henry jr has his father’s hereditary lands as the eldest son, Richard is the heir of their mother’s land and Geoffrey held his lands jure-uxoris
Peter II of Russia. Died at the age of 15, had been Emperor of Russia for 3 years. During this reign did not demonstrate any interest to anything but hunting and drinking. Had been heavily influenced by his drinking buddy Ivan Dolgorukov. To be fair, his grandfather, Peter I, did not show any serious interest to governing until he was 22 years old (most of the governing had been done by the clique of his mother, while she was alive) so nothing is unusual there and it can be expected that his attitude eventually would change.
On a positive side, the government was in the hands of the Supreme Privy Council which at that time consisted of quite competent people. Statement in Wiki "Thereupon, the Council expanded to eight members, of which six represented old boyar families opposing the Westernization reforms of Peter the Great—the Dolgorukovs and the Golitsyns" is a nonsense based upon the idiotic stereotype that an old aristocracy was opposing "Westernization":
Dmitry Golitsin - one of the closest associates of Peter I (served him since 1686), a Senator.
Vasily Lukich Dolgorukov - educated in France, during the reign of Peter I ambassador in Denmark and then France and the PLC, a Senator
Michael Golitsin - fieldmarshal, one of the most prominent commanders of the GNW and probably the best Russian general of that time, president of the Military Gollegium (military minister)
Vasily Vladimirovich Dolgorukov - started career in Preobrazensky Regiment at the age of 15, fieldmarshal, was in Peter's favor but got implicated in the Affair of Tsarevich Alexei (borrowed him money, not knowing that they were for his escape) and sent into exile out of which returned by Catherine I.
Hardly a bunch of the long-bearded caricatures hiding in the dark corners and waiting for their time to abolish smoking and Western clothes.
If anything, in OTL they came (after the death of Peter II) with an idea of a constitutional monarchy which, unfortunately, was too aristocratic to be supported by the rest of nobility. However, these people (plus Golovkin and Osterman) were as competent as it had been possible so it is reasonable to assume that Russia would stick to some reasonable course of actions in a near future. It should be remembered that by his never-ending adventures and reforms Peter I left Russia in absolutely terrible economic condition. Military budget amounted to 80 - 90% of the revenues and still army was in a terrible shape due to the endemic mismanagement. The taxation system was excessively burdensome while not quite practical and the revenues had been lagging behind the projections, etc. So, if government of Peter II pursues a reasonably moderate course of actions, he has a chance to end up as a good monarch.
Your exclusion goes against your own schema and, besides, Henry Jr surely would feel himself unsatisfied if he left as a titular puppet in the affairs of England while Dick and Goffrey are effective rulers of their domains. You have to be consistent (something that you are unable to understand evidently). As the princes of England Henry's sons are his vassals only as far as their possessions in England are involved. As soon as any of them becomes a duke in France, his overlord (as far as that dukedom is involved) is a King of France and not a King of England.
Their father was a "tyrant" just because he did not want to let these idiots to destroy what he was trying to create. Look, it was quite normal that the royal sons are getting some dukedoms or earldoms in which they have power as the "normal" feudals, not as the independent kinglets. As for why they'd go against each other, it is obvious: any of them would try to re-create their father's "empire" by subduing his brothers' domains. For example, why would Henry Jr (alt-Henry III) agree with a notion that his junior brother inherits Aquitaine? He is Eleanor's elder son and as such a legitimate heir. She may be OK with Richard ruling the territory in her name while she is alive but there are succession rules and Aquitaine is not a trinket she can leave to whoever she wants.
My bad, I mean that she went into a severe depression that contributed to her death.
Stefan Uroš V of Serbia, or Uroš the weak, could just learn more from his dad.
He was an incompetent indecisive figurehead who couldn't keep the nobles in check and basically caused the empire to disintegrate, but he had good ideas and good intentions. His father, Stefan Dušan, was the founder of the short-lived Serbian empire, and the most beloved leader in Serbian history. He had all of the qualities his son lacked, being a decisive and skilled military leader. It is quite plausible to learn to be more assertive, and Dušan the mighty us a great person to learn this from. It is possible that he did not develop the ability to assert himself because his father did it for him, so maybe have Dušan be a little tougher on him in that sense.
Indecisiveness can be cured by good and loyal advisors. Perhaps having his more capable uncle Simeon remain loyal rather than trying to make himself emperor would help in this regard, and create greater stability. Simeon was made co-ruler, so just have him be satisfied with that, and with his help, Uroš is able to rule better and maybe even expand a bit, drastically improving his image.
He was an incompetent indecisive figurehead who couldn't keep the nobles in check and basically caused the empire to disintegrate, but he had good ideas and good intentions. His father, Stefan Dušan, was the founder of the short-lived Serbian empire, and the most beloved leader in Serbian history. He had all of the qualities his son lacked, being a decisive and skilled military leader. It is quite plausible to learn to be more assertive, and Dušan the mighty us a great person to learn this from. It is possible that he did not develop the ability to assert himself because his father did it for him, so maybe have Dušan be a little tougher on him in that sense.
Indecisiveness can be cured by good and loyal advisors. Perhaps having his more capable uncle Simeon remain loyal rather than trying to make himself emperor would help in this regard, and create greater stability. Simeon was made co-ruler, so just have him be satisfied with that, and with his help, Uroš is able to rule better and maybe even expand a bit, drastically improving his image.
Henry jr will rule Normandy and Anjou while their father is still alive, so he will be the ruler there waiting for the English crown. You can not be sure of what Henry jr, Richard and Geoffrey will do if they had a chance. Plus Eleanor and the nobles of Aquitaine do not wanted a permanent union with England and Henry jr is unlikely to find support anywhere in trying to take away Aquitaine from his brother...
The Plantagenet position was not entirely secure, but how quickly John bungled it up is truly epic. I don't get why some people try to downplay it. According to Cracked, he was an above average tactician and just a really unlucky general. Actual history doesn't support this claim at all.
Archangelsk is not on the Baltic Sea so this is irrelevant. OTOH, Archangelsk was the only Russian port and all foreign trade (English & Dutch) was going through it. Swedish possession of that port would cause noticeable problems to the traders.
Well, it is not like, especially with all that program of yours, Swedes would be able to dedicate significant resources to capturing and holding Archangelsk. OTOH, if they are lucky, this makes peace with Russia close to impossible unless its return is a part of the peace conditions. So, basically, you are making situation worse, not better for Sweden.
Well, as you said, your "knowledge of internal Russian politics at the time is lacking".
This is a rather popular BS generated by Peter's propaganda (to justify Alexei's murder) and then repeated for the following couple centuries because it provides a clear cut black and white picture (Peter I - reforms, Alexei - growing beards; Peter III - drunkard, Catherine II - reforms). There was no "conservative opposition" worth mentioning and there is no real indication of Alexei's excessive attachment to the "old ways" (which he could not know). He traveled extensively, had a better education than his father, actively participated in his wars while still a teenager, chose himself a foreign bride, etc. He most probably did not approve everything his father was doing but his father was doing things in an extremely wasteful way and if someone is not very fond of an excessive drinking, this does not qualify a person as a reactionary. Alexei was simply set up by his step-mother and her supporters and this has very little to do with his views.
As for his alleged laziness, it is rather rather hard to say now if this was the case but comparing to his father who had a never-ending itch in his posteriors any person who was thinking before acting could pass for a lazy one.
Well, he did try more than once but Charles was not interested.
And yet, Levenhaupt was sent there to raise an army and supply train. Anyway, he was marching from Saxony and going to Latvia did not make too much sense if he was trying to advance deep into the Russian territory. Anyway, soon enough he encountered the same supply problems.
This would be quite possible with an adequate force but there was very little for Peter to fight for at St-Petersubrg site: city was on the initial stages of its development and it took decades for it to grow into a great city. Few wooden houses could be rebuilt at any time. So no, unless there is a close to 90% chance of success, Peter would not be compelled to fight a serious battle over its possession. Nyenskans (see below) was a small fort destroyed by 1704. Nien was a city it had been protecting so there was not too much to take there. Noteborg (taken in 1702) also was a small (even if important) old fortress (2nd picture). It was important because it had been controlling entry to Neva from Ladoga Lake. In other words, both places made sense only as a way of not letting Russians to get to the Baltic coast.
OTOH, fortifications of Pskov and especially Novgorod had been upgraded in 1701 and Charles XII is not known for his ability to take the fortified places.
Well, let's keep to a practical side of a history because conveniently killing that or this personage can change quite a few things.
As I said, Peter would not risk a major battle without an overwhelming chance for success and, if risk is too high, he would be probably absent from the theater because (even if I intensively dislike him), unlike Charles, he was not considering his main task riding at the head of his troops. Once, after getting the glory of Poltava, etc., he became dangerously adventurous and it ended up at Prout (where he panicked in a situation when any half-decent Russian general starting from 1740 would march ahead and defeat the Ottomans) so feel free to offer scenario under which he surrendered to the Ottomans.
So the chances of what you wrote are extremely low.
So the war would continue until both sides are too exhausted to continue. Taking into an account personalities of both leaders, this would be even longer affair than in OTL ending, in the best case scenario, with the minimal Russian possessions on the Baltic coast. I'd say, Ingria. But even for this you really need to kill Charles.
Mostly contrarianism, I guess -- it's often fun to try and come up with arguments against a commonly-held position, and John is widely considered a bad ruler.
Also, I sometimes sense that there's a bit of anti-Ricardianism going on. The things Richard was praised for by contemporaries -- mostly, going abroad and fighting lots of wars -- tend not to endear him to modern-day people. Since centuries of Robin Hood stories have cemented the good King Richard vs. bad Prince/King John motif in popular culture, bigging up the one can serve as a way of doing down the other, either directly ("John was a good monarch, his problems were caused by Richard's financial mismanagement, so the loss of France was really the fault of Richard and his expensive warmongering") or indirectly ("John was a good monarch, we should all pay more attention to him [and less attention to his elder brother]").
In which case, John was the best thing that could happen to England because, with all his problems, the kings of England managed to hold Aquitaine for extra couple centuries.
Well if Henry jr still due or was unable to free himself from the wedding to Marguerite of France (who was unable to have more children after the end of her first pregnancy) then Richard or his kids by Alais of France will still inhereit everything
Or rather trying to be objective: John was definitely a failure as a monarch (lost in pretty much all aspects of his activity) but part of the problems he encountered were a "heritage" of his popular (mostly among the Anglophones
) brother. Well, was Richard a "good ruler"?
Contemporaries all seem to have thought so, so by the standards of the time, I'd say yes.
Well I also was talking about OTL... At than point Marguerite and Henry, Richard and Alais and Geoffrey and Constance were all already engaged so they are Henry II’s matrimonial schemes not mine...