krieger

Banned
I don't think it's fair to only look at potential divergences that could have happened post 1384, considering that some of the ideas in the original post go as far back as the 10th century in PoD's. Thus we do have PoD's that could go as far back as the interactions of Baltic tribes with the Kievan Rus. Furthermore while I do agree that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania would most likely not be a naval or colonial power, it wouldn't be because of Muscovy being a threat, considering that for Grand Duchy of Lithuania to become, or depending on your perspective remain a regional or great power in Eastern Europe, they would have to break Muscovy before it grows too large to be contained.

I also have to disagree with the idea that Lithuanian identity and culture would disappear, considering how, as you yourself mentioned, ethnic Lithuanians lived for firstly Ruthenianized, then Polonized nobility for hundreds of years and finally one cannot forget even attempts at Russification in the 19th century. And yet the Lithuanian culture and identity, be it ethnic Lithuanian or historical Lithuanian still survived into the 20th and 21st centuries, though one cannot ignore the effect the policies of Russification had on the Lithuanian National Revival. Furthermore, one cannot forget that this Grand Duchy of Lithuania would be a completely different one from ours with a PoD that's 1384 at the latest or before in order to not be connected with Kingdom of Poland, meaning that it might not follow the same trends. Furthermore one cannot forget that already in 16th century you had people documenting and promoting the usage of the Lithuanian language among the nobility and the populace. And I am not even touching how much would having Livonia and Eastern Prussia, which has to be assumed if GDL is a naval power, would affect the culture and language in Lithuania Proper and even surrounding Slavic territories.

Also finally, even if in this case we are talking fully Ruthenian Grand Duchy of Lithuania, I don't see how this somehow adds on to the point that GDL should be replaced with Poland as a potential great power. Though I do agree that Poland should be added to the list.

OP stated clearly - "no Jagiellonian dynasty", so I assumed that he meant immediate pre-union period (times between Mindaugas and Jogaila). If we do Rus-screw in Xth century it's most likely beneficient would not be bunch of disunited Lithuanian tribes, incapable then of even succesfully raiding anyone. Bolesław the Brave IOTL managed to sack Kiev so if anyone would benefit from Rus-screw, most likely it'd be him - he had also another advantage over pagan Lithuanians, which was having positive opinion by upper parts of Russian Church. But still GDL would need to maintain a large land army and it'd not have control of Danish straits or of Black Sea straits (which was required to be a serious naval competitor in GDL's geographical position).

I didn't say, that it would disappear for sure, I just stated that it is likely. Russification started very lately (in comparison to Germanization for example) and it was done in shitty way by Tsars, who even didn't bother to alphabetize whole population of their empire. And arguably, even this ill-made russification attempts helped ethnic Lithuanian identity to survive, as it broke Polish cultural domination in the area (in 1863 even Samogitian peasantry was supportive of January Uprising, aimed to restore independent Poland and sang "Boże coś Polskę" in their native language). As far as polonization is concerned, it wasn't totally succesful, because Poland ceased to have regional power status and to even exist before XIXth century, which was crucial to mass assimilation. If it thrived, no one would bother to leave the union. Lithuanians might even still speak their ethnic language (but why even IOTL majority of peasantry around Vilnius or Kaunas were Polish speaking), but they would consider themselves Poles and show no separatist desire. In southern part of Ducal Prussia both nobility and peasantry used Polish and they still considered themselves mostly German in age of nationalism. Eastern Prussia was Baltic very little around time, when independent Lithuania had it's opportunity to take it. It has significant German and Polish speaking population, which together formed a majority. Shift from Slavic to Baltic is very unlikely and Livonia, if anything gives more German (not native Baltic) influence to nobility. And nobility (perhaps with townsmen) is a vessel for culture. Peasants are mostly looking up to nobles.

Maybe I expressed my thought wrong, I meant that Poland had equal (if not superior) potential to become great power as GDL.
 
OP stated clearly - "no Jagiellonian dynasty", so I assumed that he meant immediate pre-union period (times between Mindaugas and Jogaila). If we do Rus-screw in Xth century it's most likely beneficient would not be bunch of disunited Lithuanian tribes, incapable then of even succesfully raiding anyone. Bolesław the Brave IOTL managed to sack Kiev so if anyone would benefit from Rus-screw, most likely it'd be him - he had also another advantage over pagan Lithuanians, which was having positive opinion by upper parts of Russian Church. But still GDL would need to maintain a large land army and it'd not have control of Danish straits or of Black Sea straits (which was required to be a serious naval competitor in GDL's geographical position).
Admittedly looking at how big it was and how that land was the most important part of the Russian Empire post partition, I kinda assumed that a sovereign GDL would generally be in a good spot
 
This would put them in position to eventually acquire important Hanseatic cities like Bremen and Hamburg.
They also have the opportunity to seriously screw over Denmark given the overlap in their potential spheres of interest. We'd see an earlier Kiel Canal (or really expansion of medieval waterways to greater capacities far earlier) given their rule over Holstein. I'd imagine they'd be good friends with Sweden so you might see Denmark effectively neutered as a regional power as they're caught between Saxony on one side and Sweden on the other. Well, barring a Kalmar Union led by Sweden of course.

While I'm not too familiar on the subject, it would be interesting to see what happens with the Low Countries here. Is there any potential for an "alt-Switzerland" to emerge there assuming the extinction of local dynasties (like OTL) and conflicts between the cities and Saxon Imperial authority plus French/Burgundian interest in their lands? Or would it be more likely the Saxons end up grabbing most of the Netherlands via inheritance and exerting Imperial authority?
 
With the mentions of Poland and Lithuania, how about the Teutonic Order? They were a major regional power, even if they lacked the sheer population of Poland and Lithuania. They did however have a well-trained and supplied military, had major merchant connections with the Hanseatic Cities that allowed numerous financial benefits alongside their major network of financial institutes throughout Europe, and were obviously in a position where they could gather major influence over the Baltic.

If Poland and Lithuania struggled more and no union developed there, they could have easily remained a major power. If given enough breathing space, I could easily see Sweden having called for TO support during the Kalmar Union. The TO then blocks any expansion of independent Sweden, while controlling the Baltic trade for Poland and Lithuania.
 
The Magyars go somewhere else, massive south slavic state from the Carpathians to the Aegean.

An Occitano-Romance state.

Norman Sicily that keeps its North African and Albanian holdings.

England-Norway.
 
With the mentions of Poland and Lithuania, how about the Teutonic Order? They were a major regional power, even if they lacked the sheer population of Poland and Lithuania. They did however have a well-trained and supplied military, had major merchant connections with the Hanseatic Cities that allowed numerous financial benefits alongside their major network of financial institutes throughout Europe, and were obviously in a position where they could gather major influence over the Baltic.

If Poland and Lithuania struggled more and no union developed there, they could have easily remained a major power. If given enough breathing space, I could easily see Sweden having called for TO support during the Kalmar Union. The TO then blocks any expansion of independent Sweden, while controlling the Baltic trade for Poland and Lithuania.

The Order definitely has potential. Especially if the Empire and Papacy remain on good terms and continually support the Order. Even with a PLC, if the Empire and Papacy take a partisan approach at the Council of Constance and overtly support the Order and it’s vassale against the PLC, we can see great ramifications. Namely, a general TO hegemony over Europe between Novgorod and Bohemia.

Assuming the empire struggles from the reformation as otl (which is still plausible, I do not feel the TO affects this much), having a powerful arch-catholic German state outside of the empire should strengthen Catholicism and the papacy in the north. Perhaps Sweden and some of the Hanseatic realms remain under the Papacy or take more thorough compromises to not jeopardize their TO neighbor.
 
The Order definitely has potential. Especially if the Empire and Papacy remain on good terms and continually support the Order. Even with a PLC, if the Empire and Papacy take a partisan approach at the Council of Constance and overtly support the Order and it’s vassale against the PLC, we can see great ramifications. Namely, a general TO hegemony over Europe between Novgorod and Bohemia.

Assuming the empire struggles from the reformation as otl (which is still plausible, I do not feel the TO affects this much), having a powerful arch-catholic German state outside of the empire should strengthen Catholicism and the papacy in the north. Perhaps Sweden and some of the Hanseatic realms remain under the Papacy or take more thorough compromises to not jeopardize their TO neighbor.
Council of Constance is too late POD to keep Teutonic Order as local hegemon. It is after Grunwald Battle, which was really hard blow for TO, although not all effects of that defeat were visible yet. Stream of volunteers willing to help TO in crusading was never again as big as before Grunwald, TO needed to relly more and more on mercenaries than volunteers, thus TO needed to extract more resources from Prussian population, making TO rule increasingly unpopular, which lead to massive rebellion of 1454.
Also Teutonic Order's state never was super-Catholic. In fact, Catholicism was quite unpopular there even among knights of the Order, while rural Prussian population was still pagan to the very end of TO rule in Prussia-even during 1520s Prussians performed their pagan rituals in Sambia Peninsula with permission of Grand Master of Teutonic Order.
 
  • France was the most populous nation on the continent, and life was often too good or too awful for their populous to leave,
I think this is a misconception. Life in early modern France was not too different from in other countries. But people couldn't just sail across the ocean on their own, they needed the government or a big chartered company to do it. In the case of New France, it had few settlers because the government saw it primarily as a place for trade (similar to the Dutch perspective) and did not prioritize settlement like the English did. Settler colonies were not money makers.
 
Council of Constance is too late POD to keep Teutonic Order as local hegemon. It is after Grunwald Battle, which was really hard blow for TO, although not all effects of that defeat were visible yet. Stream of volunteers willing to help TO in crusading was never again as big as before Grunwald, TO needed to relly more and more on mercenaries than volunteers, thus TO needed to extract more resources from Prussian population, making TO rule increasingly unpopular, which lead to massive rebellion of 1454.
Also Teutonic Order's state never was super-Catholic. In fact, Catholicism was quite unpopular there even among knights of the Order, while rural Prussian population was still pagan to the very end of TO rule in Prussia-even during 1520s Prussians performed their pagan rituals in Sambia Peninsula with permission of Grand Master of Teutonic Order.

If the TO was frustrated with the Papacy, they would not have permitted the Papacy to rule on their geopolitical situation, no? Was there not significant members at the council who were essentially TO partisans and advocated clearly a mode of gathering Papal and Imperial patronage to save them from future defeats in warfare. If the Papacy or empire so chose, they could have nullified the TO completely and totally just by placing their order under interdiction and gifting Poland permission to wage crusade upon them, as the Papacy did to other recalcitrant states.

Likewise, a means to save the TO and permit their rebuilding phase, is by having the Papacy and the Empire actively sanction Poland in its activities and promote the TO. Had this occurred, we could imagine a scenario wherein the TO recuperates under several skilled rulers and a nuanced policy. Would you doubt that if the Papacy placed Poland under interdiction and supported the TO, that this would not at least give the Order a possible route for recovery and likewise rejuvenate its authority?
 
If the TO was frustrated with the Papacy, they would not have permitted the Papacy to rule on their geopolitical situation, no? Was there not significant members at the council who were essentially TO partisans and advocated clearly a mode of gathering Papal and Imperial patronage to save them from future defeats in warfare. If the Papacy or empire so chose, they could have nullified the TO completely and totally just by placing their order under interdiction and gifting Poland permission to wage crusade upon them, as the Papacy did to other recalcitrant states.

Likewise, a means to save the TO and permit their rebuilding phase, is by having the Papacy and the Empire actively sanction Poland in its activities and promote the TO. Had this occurred, we could imagine a scenario wherein the TO recuperates under several skilled rulers and a nuanced policy. Would you doubt that if the Papacy placed Poland under interdiction and supported the TO, that this would not at least give the Order a possible route for recovery and likewise rejuvenate its authority?
Pope already treatened to excommunicate Casimir IV during his war against TO. Even that have not stopped him. Casimir was more willing to break with Pope than to leave TO in peace (he was in fact closest from any Polish monarchs to break with Rome).
TO may survive by avoiding conflicts with both Poland and its own subjects (not threatening locals as second class citizens as opposed to sons of aristocrats from HRE, who dominated administration of TO, would surely help) but could not be dominant power anymore.
 
Pope already treatened to excommunicate Casimir IV during his war against TO. Even that have not stopped him. Casimir was more willing to break with Pope than to leave TO in peace (he was in fact closest from any Polish monarchs to break with Rome).
TO may survive by avoiding conflicts with both Poland and its own subjects (not threatening locals as second class citizens as opposed to sons of aristocrats from HRE, who dominated administration of TO, would surely help) but could not be dominant power anymore.

Excommunication is minor compared to the powers that the Papacy could bring to bear. If the Papacy was more serious in the Renaissance with its powers, it could have moved mountains, surely. If matters were formulated correctly, the Papacy could place Poland under Interdiction and call a crusade upon them, this is entirely plausible, if they so chose to and we see the amount of stress such policies placed upon those who were countered with these acts, even in this late of an era.

A breach with Rome could lead to Poland losing any legitimacy she held, and surely open her flanks to enemies, not to mention, inspire the nobility to gather and resent said king. Peasant rebellions, noble uprisings and so forth followed when the Papacy utilized its legal powers, even in the later eras and this is attested. This can bring some danger to Poland, enough to give some plausibility of recovery for the Order and with skill, to turn the situation around.

There are many cases in otl where states were in far worse situation than the Order after 1410 and they managed to recover and extend themselves above their prior. Assyria is such an example, in the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III.
 
Last edited:
Great Powers in 1900

1. Polish-Lithuanian-Hungarian Commonwealth - The Russia of this universe. Absolutely massive, poorer infrastructure the further from Buda you get and a steamroller once it gets going. However, it is difficult to get going due to the squabbling nobles of different ethnicities which leads to the occasional civil war. In theory an electoral monarchy, but it's like the HRE with the Jagiellonians guaranteed to win. It holds a hegemony over the Russian statelets and is archrivals with Bohemia. Again, to emphasise how massive it is, it stretches from Dalmatia to Belarus.

2. Burgundy
Based around Belgium, and parts of France and Germany, Burgundy has been the centre of innovation for centuries. It is where the system of capitalism first emerged, eventually leading to the Industrial Revolution. The Agricultural Revolution also took place there. They were the main rival of Portugal and the Berbers during the Age of Disovery, holding OTL Newfoundland down to Virginia, (before losing it to a rare Portuguese-Berber coalition) Quebec, Alaska down to Mexico, most of the Pacific, Indonesia, half of Australia, parts of India and portions of the West African coast. This TL's equivalent of the Protestant Reformation happened here too. They are heavily industrialised but don't have a large population compared to France, the HRE and the Commonwealth, meaning they have to be allied to either France or the HRE.

3. Bohemia-led Holy Roman Empire
The Imperial Crown alternates between the Luxembourgs and Wittelsbachs, dependant on the ever changing allegiance of the Habsburgs. The Wittelsbachs ittl converted to Protestantism and have close relations to their fellow Protestants in France and Burgundy. Their power base is in Bavaria and the Protestant Rhineland. The Luxembourgs went through an inter-family civil war during tfl's equivalent to the Thirty Years' War but the Catholic faction came on top. Their power base is in the east, where their realms of Bohemia (including Moravia and Silesia) and Brandenburg (including Pomerania) are. Both major families are enemies of the Commonwealth, but especially the Luxembourgs. The Habsburgs, who are Arch-Catholics as OTL, sometimes gain the Emperorship. They rule Austria and a scattering of Italian territories, so their power base is in the South-West of the Empire and in Italy.

4. Portugal
During the Medieval Period, they ended up controlling Galicia, Extremadura and the far eastern parts of Leon. This greater population base, as well as the fact that Spain is divided between Aragon, Navarre, Castille, Leon and the Berbers, means they are more successful than OTL. They are the premier naval power of the world and controlled the territory between the Mississippi and the sea (besides Quebec) down to Tennessee and South Carolina), vast swathes of Africa, including all of Southern Africa, Ceylon, parts of India, Indochina, Taiwan, the Philippines, the other half of Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand, the western coast of South America and Patagonia. They have since lost their American territories, which became independent. They have declined since the Industrial Revolution, but are still a force to be reckoned with, especially on the water. Their fierce rivalry with the Berbers is still going strong.

5. France (my reuse)
With no Norman Conquest due to English history taking a different turn, they centralise earlier and forge an alliance with the Commonwealth, once it emerges, against the HRE. Most of French history from the 1300s-1800s is spent at war with all or part of the HRE. They convert to Protestantism here, and nonconformists movements similar to the Baptists, Methodists and Puritans emerge. They get heavily involved in the Thirty Years' War and eventually go bankrupt, leading to a revolution where the army and the Estates General overthrow the King. The Capetians end up as Kings of Sicily (including Sardinia and Corsica). A military-dominated Parliamentarian regime then takes over, and spends a lot of time at war with the Habsburgs, and occasionally the Luxembourgs and the Pope, in Italy. After a Napoleon equivalent rises to power in Italy, they agree to establish spheres of influence in Italy with Austria. There is also a liberal revolution and democracy is established. Despite that, there are often coups and periods of military rule. They control Algeria, Tunisia and parts of Central Africa. On land, they are one of the strongest powers and alternate alliances with the Commonwealth and the HRE.

6. Berber Sultanate
Controlling Mauretania, Andalusia and the Balearics, they are the second strongest nation on the water. Operating in both the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, their naval battles with Portugal, Venice, Genoa, Sicily, Byzantium and the Commonwealth have been the stuff of legends. They control the Deep South, Newfoundland, the Caribbean, everything from Alaska to Panama, Colombia/Venezuela/Guyana, Brazil and Rio de la Plata. The Andes swap hands between the former Portuguese colonies and the Berber colonies (which are more like Dominions now). They don't control much of Africa outside their home turf, but they do have parts of India and Malaya. They are much more invested in the American colonial game. They have also struggled since the Industrial Revolution and don't have a sizable population but are very much still a great power.
 
Interesting. If I may, how did England develop? Most of your powers relate back to them at some point (or in the case of France, the lack of a relation is important) o they must have been in decent shape at one point

Sorry for the very late reply. The overall POD for this scenario would probably be Harold being luckier at Hastings and managing to defeat William. England would evolve into an electoral monarchy, similar to OTL Poland. They conquer Wales in the 12th Century, with the local princes maintaining some power. They would then become major rivals with Scotland, fighting them on the border, at sea and in Ireland with Norway, Denmark and France shifting allegiances between the two. After securing Ireland in the 14th Century, they manage to defeat Scotland badly many times, with the kingdom being greatly reduced in territory and becoming an English vassal around 1500.

By this point the Atlantic is dominated by Portugal, Andalusia and Burgundy, but the English still develop a decent navy. Their electoral system means they are still prone to civil wars until a King centralises the kingdom and turns the Witengamot into a formality around 1650. They then go to war with Norway quite a lot, eventually vassalising it. They also end up in the Burgundian sphere and go bankrupt during a war with France in the 18th Century.

This leads to a liberal revolution and the Witengamot regaining significant powers, and the King losing a lot of them. However, there are often power struggles and even civil wars between the King and the Witengamot, with occasional Irish, Welsh and Scottish insurrections. There is also a religious aspect here as the King, old nobility, Irish, Scottish and Welsh remain Catholic while the new nobility and merchant classes, heavily influenced by France and Burgundy, become Protestant.

TL;DR England has a lot of potential that is unrealised due to persistent stability problems.

I am definitely thinking about fleshing this TL out a bit more.
 
Would be really interesting to have the merchant republics stay relevant. Venice was the only which did it in OTL, but maybe Pisa and Genoa bind together (maybe along with Florence and Milan) to form strong city-state republics. Not sure how the Hansa would do it I'm sure there are ways.
 

Starforce

Banned
My personal alternate list is:

A Brandenburg united Germany, Brandenburg somehow manages to unite Germany in its image. Brandenburg becomes much like the Prussians in terms of military but of course with their own designs and such. They unite Germany through wars and sometimes diplomacy.

A non-neutral Switzerland who participates in various wars against France and Italy, and is able to carve out land to the Mediterranean. Able to take Corisca and Sardinia, and have a way to participate in colonisation.

An Irish-Scottish Union, imagine the UK but without England or wales.

An Anglo-Dutch Union or Dutch dominated England, sort of a dual monarchy between the 2.

A Byzantine / Greek style nation that manages to rebel from the Ottomans, supported by other powers and become extremely powerful in their own right and conquered parts of Italy.

Poland, or the commonwealth somehow manages to conquer Russia and include them in some sort of dual monarchy possibly.

oo1mu1uwcn541.png
 
What if there were NO great powers in Europe, just a collection of middle-tier powers? More specifically:
  • The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms such as Wessex and Mercia never unify into England
  • Scotland and Ireland remain independent from the English, and are perhaps fragmented as well
  • The HRE either never forms, gets abolished early, or is only nominally united, with all the real power being held by local nobles
  • The Italian peninsula remains divided between various republics, small monarchies, and a surviving Papal State
  • Kievan Rus, like the HRE, either does not exist as a kingdom, or is only nominally unified, with principalities like Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, and Novgorod being effectively independent
  • Iberia is divided into dozens of small kingdoms and Taifas, some Christian, some Muslim
  • Anatolia and the Balkans are home to many independent Turkish, Greek, and Slavic kingdoms, and maybe some small maritime republics as well
  • Aquitaine, Normandy, and other regions of OTL France are independent states
 
A few notes that come to mind

1) England ALWAYS had a navy - look at Ethelred building a huge navy for defence, and then at later campaigns with such as Sluys
2) Portugal's greatness relied on trade. At one point they had colonies all over the Middle East and India and were fighting the Ottomans out there on equal terms
3) Russia is by no means inevitable as you have a string of khanates to the East (including Kazan and Astrakhan)

Persia might be an alternative great power into the modern era - it depends what you count as Europe? For geography the Caucasus usually counts, for football Kazakhstan seems to. A stronger Persia could hold all of Azerbaijan, and up into Central Asia, areas it claimed but was unable to hold onto. Holding onto them then by the 20th century, Persia would be an equal to the Ottomans.

In a Napoleonic victory scenario, you could look at Bavaria, a close ally rewarded with territory and down the line it will cohere and places like the Tyrol will be considered essentially Bavarian
 
Top