Highly underused PODs with great potential
- Thread starter vultan
- Start date
What if El Cid manages to start a dynasty in Valencia?
What if the Normans hadn't gone to Italy?
What if the California and/or Colorado gold rushes happened a century or so earlier during Spanish control of the region?
What if the Normans hadn't gone to Italy?
What if the California and/or Colorado gold rushes happened a century or so earlier during Spanish control of the region?
I'm actually thinking of something like that. In history, Stalin didn't attack Warsaw (which would have taken it and led to a Soiviet victory) but instead attacked Lvov. Marshal Tuschevensky (sorry if I spelled his name wrong) couldn't do much because he was forced to stay in Moscow by Lenin. What if he was at the front and instead of appealing ot Lenin, went to Trotsky, who hated Stalin. My idea is that he court martials Stalin and executes him for treason.
Then we have no Stalin and a much stronger Soviet military presense in politics. Any thoughts?
Wolfpaw
Banned
Yes. Simply put, this would never happen, mostly due to personal reasons.
Firstly, Trotsky and Stalin didn't yet hate each other during the Civil War. Sure, they were catty towards each other (Both were arrogant pricks, only Trotsky had a superiority complex whereas Stalin had an inferiority complex), but it was really only after the Polish-Soviet War that their relationship started seriously going down hill, and it was magnified a thousandfold after Lenin's death and their competition (if you can even call it that) over the mantle of succession.
Which leads to my second point. Both before and after the debacle at Warsaw, there were only two people allowed into Lenin's presence without appointment and at any time; Trotsky and Stalin. He valued them both immensely, Trotsky for his military genius and intelligence, Stalin for his brutal pragmatism, equally brutal competence, and out-and-out brutality i.e. willingness to do dirty work.
The idea that Tukhachevsky could just court martial Stalin for his poor performance is ridiculous; Stalin was far too influential, not yet hated, and if that isn't enough, Tukhachevsky can count on swiftly getting a bullet in the back of his own head for killing off one of Lenin's favorites.
With regards to the theory about a stronger military presence in Soviet politics, well that's also a bit dubious in my opinion. The Party was always aware of the threat the military posed to its complete control of the State, which is why it was never shy about shooting officers and one of the primary reasons for the introduction of political commissars into the armed forces. The military could never be allowed to be in a position to threaten the absolute dominance of the Party. Ever. So, the first whiff of that they get and you'll suddenly see a whole lot of officers making sure they've never got their backs turned to their political commissars.
Concerning Tukhachevsky, he's pretty much doomed any way you look at it. While average soldiers liked him, he was greatly disliked by both the Party and military hierarchy. Both constantly undermined or outright ignored him and his orders during the wars. Tukhachevsky, being brilliant and knowing that he was brilliant, responded by being just as nasty and dismissive towards them; the only people who really liked the guy were commoners and his own troops. That, added to his own dubious ideological purity, made him dangerous to the Party, and no matter who came to power they would have to deal with him. Stalin, being Stalin, had him shot. Kirov probably would have done the same. Trotsky or Rykov or somebody else probably would have just "transferred" him to some position roughly equivalent to overseeing the maritime border between the USSR and Mongolia.
Last edited:
I know, that POD of no Haitian Revolution is the main POD of my TL in my sig.
Alex Richards
Donor
Well, I'm working on an option of a semi-violent collapse of A-H, leading to the Kingdoms of Serbia, Croatia-Slavonia and Bosnia (the latter two without Kings), the Principality of Montegro, Austrian Slovenia and a larger Hungary. Add a brutal war, hungary going fascist then communist and the collapse of the governments of Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia and it becomes the 1990s in the 1930s.
Richard Wagner moving to New York in the late 1840s (I believe he seriously thought about this)
The Beatles not existing/having a different lineup/Brian Epstein living longer
The Dave Clark 5 keeping their creativity into the periods of Dylan and psychedelia
Tupac Shakur not getting shot in 96.
The Beatles not existing/having a different lineup/Brian Epstein living longer
The Dave Clark 5 keeping their creativity into the periods of Dylan and psychedelia
Tupac Shakur not getting shot in 96.
I've always be interested in the Austrian/Russo Turkish wars.
In the war 1735–1739, Austria lost Northern Serbia and smaller Walachia. If they had won in a similar scale the won the previous war, we had likely seen the whole of Serbia and Bosnia becoming Austrian. If, then, the Russo-Austrian alliance had held for longer, these two power might have destroyed the Ottoman Empire. Which leads to the question: would France and Britain accept Russian Konstantinopel, if the Dardanelles are Austrian?
In the war 1735–1739, Austria lost Northern Serbia and smaller Walachia. If they had won in a similar scale the won the previous war, we had likely seen the whole of Serbia and Bosnia becoming Austrian. If, then, the Russo-Austrian alliance had held for longer, these two power might have destroyed the Ottoman Empire. Which leads to the question: would France and Britain accept Russian Konstantinopel, if the Dardanelles are Austrian?
Susano
Banned
I've always be interested in the Austrian/Russo Turkish wars.
In the war 1735–1739, Austria lost Northern Serbia and smaller Walachia. If they had won in a similar scale the won the previous war, we had likely seen the whole of Serbia and Bosnia becoming Austrian. If, then, the Russo-Austrian alliance had held for longer, these two power might have destroyed the Ottoman Empire. Which leads to the question: would France and Britain accept Russian Konstantinopel, if the Dardanelles are Austrian?
No they wouldnt have, but it wouldnt have come to that. Its possible to revert the war youve mentioned to an Austrian victory, but that is something else entirely from conquering the entire Ottoman Empire! (and that is what taking Istanbul would be)
Still, a stronger Austrian presence on the Balkan would make for a very interesting scenario all by itself...
This is the POD for Jello Biafra's Reds: A Revolutionary Timeline which is one of the only Communist America TLs I've been able to find.
I Blame Communism
Banned
And to further add to the fun, it seems likely to me that if Austria had done well in that war, Russia would have made the Crimean Khanate a Russian protectorate 30 years early, which has a whole bag of butterflies.
Some literary/cultural ones:
1. William Langland either never writes "Piers Plowman," or no manuscripts containing it survive past the 15th century. It was a pretty influential text, and the Church attempted to suppress it during the crackdown on the Lollards in the 1400's.
2. Edmund Spenser survives to write 12 books of "The Faerie Queene" instead of the existing 6 plus a fragmentary 7th. This could be especially interesting once James VI becomes King of England, since Spenser had some rather derogatory things to say about the Scots in the prose "View of the Present State of Ireland." Plus, Spenser was close friends with Walter Raleigh, who James imprisoned and ultimately beheaded.
3. John Keats lives to a ripe old age; fourscore and seventy would get him to 1865, and assuming his talents stayed with him I don't doubt he would have been the preeminent poet of the Victorian period; he might even displace Shakespeare as the great figure in English literature.
1. William Langland either never writes "Piers Plowman," or no manuscripts containing it survive past the 15th century. It was a pretty influential text, and the Church attempted to suppress it during the crackdown on the Lollards in the 1400's.
2. Edmund Spenser survives to write 12 books of "The Faerie Queene" instead of the existing 6 plus a fragmentary 7th. This could be especially interesting once James VI becomes King of England, since Spenser had some rather derogatory things to say about the Scots in the prose "View of the Present State of Ireland." Plus, Spenser was close friends with Walter Raleigh, who James imprisoned and ultimately beheaded.
3. John Keats lives to a ripe old age; fourscore and seventy would get him to 1865, and assuming his talents stayed with him I don't doubt he would have been the preeminent poet of the Victorian period; he might even displace Shakespeare as the great figure in English literature.
True, all true. Maybe I should stick to the classical world. . .
Ok, Trajan manages to capture the entire Parthian Royal family in his Mesopotamian campaign, thereby robbing dissidents of a cassus beli and making the area easier to keep control of.
Or, if Hadrian loves slightly longer and adopts Marcus Aurelius instead of Antoninus Pious. I reckon that a younger Aurelius with more energy and Hadrian's legacy to build on would be able to accomplish far more than he did IOTL, although unfortunately I think that his being emperor for longer would severely affect his career as a philosopher. Now there's a dichotomy: one of the world's greatest stoics, or the greatest emperor ever seen by Rome? Decisions, decisions.
Last edited:
Selim I lives a bit longer and crushes (or hurts really badly) the fledgling Safavid state.
Casimir III of Poland has a male heir, and during the hussite wars in Bohemia a Piast is offered the crown.
Anything involving a surviving refuge of Zoroastrians. (Not a no Islam situation, only a surviving Zoroastrian state(let) somewhere)
Casimir III of Poland has a male heir, and during the hussite wars in Bohemia a Piast is offered the crown.
Anything involving a surviving refuge of Zoroastrians. (Not a no Islam situation, only a surviving Zoroastrian state(let) somewhere)
Roman Malinowski not being outed as conclusively as a Czarist spy and keeping the confidence of Lenin longer.
An independent British India From the early 1900s the British Raj acted increasingly autonomous from London. Assuming a German victory in WWI could a British India continued in existence separate or even in opposition to London? If a defeated Britain experiences early Weimar like conditions, the British in India might be far more reluctant to return home. After a period of chaos the Ray might try to establish hegemony over British East Africa and Burma. A 20th Century Peshawar Lancers w/out the asteroid.
An independent British India From the early 1900s the British Raj acted increasingly autonomous from London. Assuming a German victory in WWI could a British India continued in existence separate or even in opposition to London? If a defeated Britain experiences early Weimar like conditions, the British in India might be far more reluctant to return home. After a period of chaos the Ray might try to establish hegemony over British East Africa and Burma. A 20th Century Peshawar Lancers w/out the asteroid.
A few underused British PODs
The 1957 Defence Review altered.
A British space programme using Blue Streak, Black Arrow, etc. to scupper the French takeover of European space activity (and make the UK a penny or two).
Labour Party collapses after formation of Social Democrats.
Concorde retained and operated by Branson.
Thatcher stays in power (massive effects on Iraq, BTW).
A chain of fast reactors built in Britain to provide cheap industrial energy.
The 1957 Defence Review altered.
A British space programme using Blue Streak, Black Arrow, etc. to scupper the French takeover of European space activity (and make the UK a penny or two).
Labour Party collapses after formation of Social Democrats.
Concorde retained and operated by Branson.
Thatcher stays in power (massive effects on Iraq, BTW).
A chain of fast reactors built in Britain to provide cheap industrial energy.