AHC: Screw over a Leader typically regarded as the best.
- Thread starter Alexei
- Start date
Caesar loses the election for Pontifex Maximus. He goes into exile because of his campaign debts as a result.
His reputation in this is no better than Catiline.
Abraham Lincoln doesn't back down over the Trent affair, and subsequent British intervention causes enough damage that the Confederacy is able to win its independence. Instead of going down in history as the Great Emancipator and saviour of the nation, Lincoln goes down as the twit who started two wars and lost them both.
Mary Tudor lives longer/has a son/manages to convince Elizabeth to convert to Catholicism/marries off Elizabeth to a Catholic husband who can stop her from Protestantising the country. Either way, England remains Catholic after 1558, and Bluff King Hal gets remembered as the murderous tyrant who tried to detach England from the true Church.
Alexander the Great lives longer, and his paranoid/tyrannical tendencies get stronger until he's overthrown and murdered in a palace coup. He gets remembered as a classic case of excessive greatness leading to hubris and ultimate downfall.
Jefferson starts the Embargo earlier than OTL and refuses to back down, resulting in a crippling of the US economy, deep sectarian tensions between New England and the rest of the country, and an alt-War of 1812 which results in Britain carving off New England as a Protectorate and either annexing or setting up native buffer states sn large portions of the west.
An interesting one, IMHO, is King Richard of England. If he had not obtained any significant victories against Saladin in the Third Crusade, he would likely pass down to History as the inept ruler and poor administrator he apparently was , and likely one not too well regarded in English historiography, in starking contrast to the successes of his father, Henry II.
Another example is Saladin himself. He was somewhat very luck that Nur ad-Din died before he could reclaim Egypt after Saladin established himself as the vizier of the Fatimids. Given the circumstances, it might be that the Zengids could have retaken Egypt and thus Saladin would pass to History as another abortive usurper, instead of the founder of a formidable dynasty.
Another example is Saladin himself. He was somewhat very luck that Nur ad-Din died before he could reclaim Egypt after Saladin established himself as the vizier of the Fatimids. Given the circumstances, it might be that the Zengids could have retaken Egypt and thus Saladin would pass to History as another abortive usurper, instead of the founder of a formidable dynasty.
Charles Martel gets soundly defeated and dies at Poitiers.
The early death of many viking leaders wouldn't matter either.
The early death of many viking leaders wouldn't matter either.
Rome falls into thousands of separatists movements led by senators and other influential political actors during the fall of the republic and Julius Caesar is remembered as "The guy that ended Rome"
This doesn't fit the bill here. You may screw a person, but not the country (at least not too much).
Ioannes I Tzimiskes sires a son by Theodora Pophrygenita in 975 and executes Vasileios Nothos before he can poison him. Vasileios Bulgaronktos launches a failed coup 978, resulting in his tonsure and deposure. He goes down in history not as "Basil the Badass" but instead "Basil the Incompetent".
Queen Victoria learns nothing from the first Bedchamber Crisis in 1839, so when the General Election in 1841 rolls round, with Peel gaining a majority, she again refuses to exchange any of her Whig ladies with Conservatives. Peel then proceeds to make the Queen's life increasingly difficult as Prime Minister (he refused to become PM with a minority in the Bedchamber Crisis IOTL because he had a minority unless Victoria swapped some of her ladies) which make her increasingly unpopular as the world rolls towards the revolutions of 1848.
History remembers her as a monarch that tried to frustrate progress (she refused to endorse reform bills and railway acts on the basis that Peel proposed them) and not as IOTL.
History remembers her as a monarch that tried to frustrate progress (she refused to endorse reform bills and railway acts on the basis that Peel proposed them) and not as IOTL.
Okay does the reputation have to be present at the time of the event or not, I'm not sure if Daimyo count either. To play a twist on my TL POD, Oda Nobunaga does not get lucky at Okehazama but ends up having to swear fealty to Imagawa Yoshimoto, so instead of being the Three Unifiers, Nobunaga remains the Fool of Owari.
Gustavus Adolphus dies in battle in 1626, during the Polish war. He is mostly remembered as being reckless and leaving Sweden without an heir.
This is after 1900, but here you go: Churchill wins the General Electiion of 1945. None of the OTL reforms are carried out, but there's still an economic crisis, leading to much disgruntlement. Churchill sets his sights firmly against Indian Independance, which leads to a bloody and desperate colonial war, which gets worse after Gandhi's assassination (for which Churchill is blamed). Think 'Dutch in Indonesia', but much worse. Eventually the British, almost bankrupt, are forced to withdraw, but it takes the election of Mr Atlee's Labour government in 1950 to sort things out.
Churchill dies of a stroke in the mid 1950s, and is remembered as a good WW2 leader but in general an obstinate, short-sighted reactionary.
Churchill dies of a stroke in the mid 1950s, and is remembered as a good WW2 leader but in general an obstinate, short-sighted reactionary.
Last edited:
Godas does not revolt, therefore Belisarius is met by the entire army of the Vandal Kingdom. This decreases the odds of Belisarius triumphing in Africa. His renown would be greatly diminished, if he were to die and likely even if he survived but lost.
I don't think this would be sufficient, mainly because I suspect the main reason he's remembered so fondly is because he's inevitably compared to his brother, and therefore looks far better than he actually was. You can try and make him the greater evil, but I can't see anyone being worse than the man who nearly destroyed the Plantagenet dynasty without destroying England, which is banned by the terms of the OP.
I don't think you can screw over Churchill with such a late PoD. Regardless of any changes post-1940, he'd always be remembered as the man who inspired the nation to keep fighting. Kill him off in New York in the 20s and he'd be remembered as the man responsible for Gallipoli.
Last edited:
Would screwing up before person became a rule do? If yes, then upon return from Egypt general Bonaparte is court-martialed for desertion and shot/imprisoned.
Peter I dies in 1700 while fleeing to Novgorod from Narva. Remembered as not quite sane drunkard who put Russia on a verge of the second Time of Troubles.
Alexander I dies (or being assassinated) few months after signing Treaty of Tilsit: loser who got Russia involved into a series of the absolutely unnecessary and disastrous military adventures.
In 1700, while disembarking in Zealand, Charles XII drowns (death should not be heroic). Campaign is aborted and Charles is remembered as an inept adventurer.