Best Monarch/Head of State to keep alive for a more prosperous future

RedKing

RedKing

Arthur Tudor, saved England from the whole Henry VIII and King’s Great Matter Debacle.

Henry, Duke of Cornwall, also saves England from the King’s Great Matter Debacle.

Juan, Prince of Asturias, can govern Iberia better and not run across Europe like Charles V in otl. Also gives Juana of Castile a happier ending.

Henry V of England. He can either finish the Hundred Years War or consolidate English lands in France and return to governing England. He can also father more sons who can govern England in place of otl Henry VI.
 

Tupolev0247

Juan of Asturias, son of the Catholic kings, with him alive, the Habsburgs will not inherit Spain, causing enormous problems for the Iberians and giving the different Hispanic kingdoms the possibility of really uniting in a single state early enough to focus on the the new World.

Alfonso of Castile, brother of Enrique IV of Castile, is not poisoned and lives to become Alfonso XII.
 

ByzantineLover

Margaret, Maid of Norway, survives to become Queen of Scotland proper and marry Edward II of England, uniting the two kingdoms with less bloodshed than IOTL.
 
Neal Caffrey

Neal Caffrey

Antonio Jose de Sucre living would mean that potentially there could be a way for the Gran Colombia to continue or at least a union between Ecuador and New Granada with Venezuela having the possibility of joining later on.

Francisco de Paula Santander, if he lived and he was healthy New Granada/Colombia would be in a far better place, with a heavy push for a native industry and a possible early emancipation of slaves (which would also mean a civil war, but taking into account he was the best strategist in the country I doubt he would lose) new Granada would be far better prepared for the future and would avoid many of it's issues.
 

Darth_Kiryan

PGSBHurricane said:
Would Alexander II of Russia be a possibility? Considering that his successor, Alexander III was highly reactionary on domestic issues and reversed quite a few of the more liberal-minded reforms from his predecessor, I think avoiding the assassination of Alexander II might at least somewhat improve things in Russia.
Click to expand...
Well, Alexander ii had a son, Nicholas that died in 1865, I think. He was older brother to Alexander iii, and thus uncle to old Nicholas ii...
 

FouDuRoy

Baldwin IV of Jerusalem. Definitely.

I am also very tempted to answer Alexander the Great but I am not sure.
I suspect this may simply lead to a partition of his empire between his children instead of his generals.
 
Aluma

Aluma

FouDuRoy said:
he Great but I am not sure.
I suspect this may simply lead to a partition of his empire between his children instead of his generals
Click to expand...
Or his empire falling apart even more epically as he tried to fulfill his fantasies of conquering his way to the pillars of Heracles
 

Mikestone8

Aluma said:
Or his empire falling apart even more epically as he tried to fulfill his fantasies of conquering his way to the pillars of Heracles
Click to expand...

How was that a fantasy??

Carthage would be the only major obstacle, and a few years after AtG's death it had a struggle to survive just against a pipsqueak tyrant of Syracuse. It might stand a siege for a couple of years but it would fall in the end, after which there's nothing to stop him pressing on to Spain. In Italy, Rome at this date was just one local power among several, so no problem there.
 
Concerned Brazilian

Concerned Brazilian

Gone Fishin'
unprincipled peter said:
There's another thread pondering which Monarch/Head of State to kill to achieve a more prosperous future.

Here, let's ponder a leader to keep alive. I impose a guideline that the character of your chosen leader must be somewhat known. It's an obvious cheat to keep one of the older brothers of Carlos II (Spain) alive. Maybe the one who died at 16 (Balthasar?) is borderline acceptable. Infants/Toddlers are off limits unless they're already on the throne. If you want to keep an heir alive, he/she must be an adult, preferably with a character known to have qualities for leadership (as opposed to simply keeping him/her alive to prevent X from gaining the throne, but nothing is known of the heir).

So, I'll go with Luis I of Spain. Died a few months into his reign in 1724. His father, Philip V, returned and promptly kept Spain in a state of war for the next couple of decades. Luis, after a rocky start of being a childish king, was settling down and was listening to ministers who wanted to return the emphasis of strengthening Spain and the colonies. Edit: an issue here is that Louis' bride was bonkers. May have just been childish personality disorder which she'd grow out of, or maybe a life long crazy.

Yours?
Click to expand...
Radama the Great. His death from alcoholism caused Ranavalona I to ascend to the throne and turn Madagascar into the 19th century version of North Korea (militarized and isolationist)
 
Valin Arcadius

Valin Arcadius

Aurelian, the guy is the freaking "Restitutor Orbis" and without the idiocy of Eros getting him killed, Aurelian is well positioned to end the crises of the 3rd century nearly a decade early and found a strong new dynasty.
 
Max Andersson

Max Andersson

Karl XI of Sweden does not die of cancer in 1697, and remains on the throne until 1725 when he dies at the age of 70. He keeps centralizing power, breaking the power of the high nobility, and strengthening the military while mostly managing to evade wars.

The great advantage is that the enemies of Sweden does not decide to pile on against the unproven 18-year Karl XII in the Great Northern War. Maybe Peter the Great decides to go south?

When Karl XII takes over he will be a lot more experienced at ruling the Swedish state, and possibly already a proven commander. The long-term strategic situation for the Swedish empire is not good, but avoiding the Great Northern War is probably a good idea.
 
Last edited:
Mildtryth

Mildtryth

Valin Arcadius said:
Aurelian, the guy is the freaking "Restitutor Orbis" and without the idiocy of Eros getting him killed, Aurelian is well positioned to end the crises of the 3rd century nearly a decade early and found a strong new dynasty.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the dynasty - he was already 61 when he died and he only had one daughter (which we know absolutely nothing about, not even her name). I don't think he'd live too long after that, at least not enough to have a adult son when he died. the only way to even found a dynasty would be to marry his daughter off to someone of his choice and have this someone succeed him. whether that guy would last on the throne or not is another question.
 
King of Danes

King of Danes

A niche person to keep alive longer could also be King Abel of Denmark. The man likely killed his brother but keeping him alive longer might butterfly a lot of Denmark’s instability issues in the 13th and 14th century. He certainly seemed more capable at keeping the church on his side than his brothers and without him dying while his oldest son was imprisoned, we likely don’t see the succession squabbles between his descendants and his brother, Christopher’s, descendants either, which brought in a lot of church drama as well. He also seemed to want to make Denmark start participating in European trade and affairs before he was killed by the Frisians
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top