Carlos III was also considered for her for a time, until he basically told MT to "drop the matter". Shortly thereafter, Elisabeth caught smallpox and MT blamed her own vanity for it. A slightly "sadder" option that I've never seen done is that the dauphine (Maria Josepha of Saxony) dies in childbed with the duc de Bourgogne (Louis XVI's older brother). They'll delay the dauphin's remarriage, due to him having a son, but ultimately he will remarry (although having lost his first and second wives to childbed, I doubt he's in great mind about consummation). And Maria Elisabeth would be ideal for him to set the seal on the Bourbon-Habsburg alliance. No need for Antoinette to go to France in such a scenario - not sure where she would wind up then, but doubtlessly it'll be "happier" (as in she'll die in her bed of natural causes)I like Maria Elisabeth to Chablais, even if it's not a great dynastic matchI like her to Louis XV for other reasons lol
Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
Oooh this is a very interesting idea. Plus, should Burgundy still die young, it's a Habsburg heir to replace him and maybe keep the alliance going another generation. Or one of Maria Elisabeth's daughters could marry Karl Josef's heir.
I love this idea - thank you!
So that's Maria Elisabeth sorted, with Maria Antonia possibly headed to Sardinia, Parma, or Spain.
VVD0D95
Banned
Think there was talk of leipold marrying into Modena as well at this pointMaria Luisa was an excellent Grand Duchess and Empress OTL, so I'm sure she'd be one here. Little sad to see her and Leo split up - they're some of my favorites. Maybe with Maria Luisa married to Karl Josef, Leopold could marry Benedita of Portugal (I truly believe she can do better than marrying her fifteen years younger nephew and I will not be convinced otherwise).
I like Maria Elisabeth to Chablais, even if it's not a great dynastic match
Scuppered when he became heir to Tuscany. So we have:
Josef+Isabella of Parma
Karl+Maria Luisa of Spain
Leopold+Maria Beatrice
Ferdinand (duke of Teschen, governor of either Hungary or Bohemia)
Max (clergy, Grand Master of the Teutonic Order)
What if Secretary William Crawford had withdrawn from the 1824 election when he had his stroke?
Which candidate would benefit from the exit and which ones would suffer?
Which candidate would benefit from the exit and which ones would suffer?
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Posting here, so the thread in question doesn't get derailed -- but you're talking about how the Megali Idea failed to take advantage of the downfall and collapse of the Ottoman Empire in OTL, in a thread where we're discussing an alternate history decades before said collapse even began OTL. And more to the point, you're pointing this out in response to being reminded that the TTL in question is more likely than not going to see the Ottomans fare better than OTL.
I mean... I kind of don't know what else to say here.
It's also very possible for the Greeks to have better luck here since things would be different. Also that the European bits of the empire should industrialise first so the problems of it not really in Turk majority areas stays espicially when you're in the era of nationalism.
Worst leaders pre-1900 (In terms of incompetence)?
I'm thinking people who weren't just dictatorial or didn't know how to run a country. I'm talking about people who ruined their countries for centuries or into nonexistence.
Muhammad II (Khwazam) was one of the worst of all time? He was so incompetent that he led to a war between his country and the Mongol Empire though a pointless killing of the Mongol envoys (a common mistake) and it completely destroyed his country when it was thriving only a few years before.
Are there any worse leaders pre-1900 than him, who led a thriving country to its own destruction in a few years?
I'm thinking people who weren't just dictatorial or didn't know how to run a country. I'm talking about people who ruined their countries for centuries or into nonexistence.
Muhammad II (Khwazam) was one of the worst of all time? He was so incompetent that he led to a war between his country and the Mongol Empire though a pointless killing of the Mongol envoys (a common mistake) and it completely destroyed his country when it was thriving only a few years before.
Are there any worse leaders pre-1900 than him, who led a thriving country to its own destruction in a few years?
what will happen if african pagans discovering and colonizing on america continent before Columbus/europeans came in?
Multiple questions, but all related: How hard the Elbe, Oder, Vistula and Dniester rivers are to cross and defend?
Are there any TLs that have the native americans instead of going to the Americas, they go west or rather they remain in Eurasia?
There's various What-If threads about the Bering Strait migrations (plural) not happening - for example, this one: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-crossed-over-from-asia.364211/#post-11189051 - try searching 'Bering Strait' in this (pre-1900) forum to find more.
There's also one finished TL called 'Empty America' by Doug Hoff, reposted here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/empty-america.321638/.
(Note, these are just from some quick searches - I haven't read through the threads myself.)
They're all major rivers in (apart from their headwaters and part of the Elbe) flat terrain. So getting an army across requires a bridge (preexisting or constructed), lots of boats, or a lucky winter freeze. They are assets in defense because a well-organized state can build fortifications commanding existing crossings and have the expectation that any traversal anywhere else will be time-consuming and disorienting enough to arrange an efficient response.
If the Seljuks hadn't managed, for whatever reason, to take over Anatolia proper ( the formerly Greek-speaking part ), how likely would it have been for the Kurds of this timeline to end up turkified to the same extent as OTL Azeris, since the Oghuz migration would've been stopped from reaching further west?
Last edited:
How plausible was it for a Scottish colony in the New World in the late 1500s/early 1600s? I ask because there’s apparently a Scottish ship that sailed to Newfoundland in 1596 and didn’t return until 1600.
If they don't come up with something as silly as the Darien Scheme, then very.
I was thinking what alternative name could I use for the army of an alternative German Empire, as well as an alternative Austrian Empire, which I am developing. And I'm considering ideas.
For now I've considered putting it "Kaiserwehr" but I'm not sure if this would fit, or with which country (it would still suit Austria more). Another option would be to go with the traditional "Reichswehr" or "Reichsheer". hmmm...
For now I've considered putting it "Kaiserwehr" but I'm not sure if this would fit, or with which country (it would still suit Austria more
). Another option would be to go with the traditional "Reichswehr" or "Reichsheer". hmmm...General question that I put here because I'm not sure if it deserves its own thread or not. I'll clarify that most of what I know about US history in the 1860s is basically the kind of generalities you find in places like Wikipedia and something I've read in threads on this site. If this belongs to PolChat, please move it there.
Was James Buchanan really that hated before 1900? If so, when and why did this hate start?
To give a summary of how this question started: Throughout my experience on AH.com, I have read all kinds of threads where the American Civil War is discussed. Some threads are realistic and some include ASB elements, but most I've seen include a common element.
Namely, the idea that James Buchanan, the President of the United States before Lincoln, was, is, and will be HUGELY HATED by the entire country as "the President who cowardly single-handedly caused the Civil War with his cowardly inaction regarding to the problem of slavery.
Hell, it seems he's even more hated than the rogues who rebelled to maintain the slavery and sparked the conflict in the first place!
Although this is a personal impression, and I do not know if it is correct, the way this opinion was formulated makes me think that the main complaint of the critics could be summed up as
"I think Buchanan should have issued a general mobilization AND proclaimed the immediate abolition of slavery by Executive Order AND deployed the United States Army to force emancipation at gunpoint. hanging from a rope as a "traitor and rogue enemy of the United States. Even if we didn't even give them time to try to break up. And since Buchanan didn't do that, everything that came after is his fault."
Which seems to me a rather strange point of view, especially if we consider that all the threads on the Civil War are dedicated to describing in great detail how the problem was entrenched between 1820-1830 and lasting over time as successive Presidents they were trying to force ever tighter compromises in a desperate attempt to avoid a constitutional crisis or civil war...
Or, as they say around here, they were kicking the can down the road, trusting some future President to clean up the mess for them.
In any case, a problem involving too many people for too long to be said to be all one man's fault. But somehow I'm supposed to believe that all the blame lies solely with Buchanan.
I don't know much about the man, but I find the idea very strange that a conflict that had been entrenched in the country for at least 40 years, involved at least 200,000 various political actors, almost 1 million soldiers, and close to 5 million enslaved African Americans, and whose aftermath has practically dragged itself into the 21st century... it's just one man's fault.
Was James Buchanan really that hated before 1900? If so, when and why did this hate start?
To give a summary of how this question started: Throughout my experience on AH.com, I have read all kinds of threads where the American Civil War is discussed. Some threads are realistic and some include ASB elements, but most I've seen include a common element.
Namely, the idea that James Buchanan, the President of the United States before Lincoln, was, is, and will be HUGELY HATED by the entire country as "the President who cowardly single-handedly caused the Civil War with his cowardly inaction regarding to the problem of slavery.
Hell, it seems he's even more hated than the rogues who rebelled to maintain the slavery and sparked the conflict in the first place!
Although this is a personal impression, and I do not know if it is correct, the way this opinion was formulated makes me think that the main complaint of the critics could be summed up as
"I think Buchanan should have issued a general mobilization AND proclaimed the immediate abolition of slavery by Executive Order AND deployed the United States Army to force emancipation at gunpoint. hanging from a rope as a "traitor and rogue enemy of the United States. Even if we didn't even give them time to try to break up. And since Buchanan didn't do that, everything that came after is his fault."
Which seems to me a rather strange point of view, especially if we consider that all the threads on the Civil War are dedicated to describing in great detail how the problem was entrenched between 1820-1830 and lasting over time as successive Presidents they were trying to force ever tighter compromises in a desperate attempt to avoid a constitutional crisis or civil war...
Or, as they say around here, they were kicking the can down the road, trusting some future President to clean up the mess for them.
In any case, a problem involving too many people for too long to be said to be all one man's fault. But somehow I'm supposed to believe that all the blame lies solely with Buchanan.
I don't know much about the man, but I find the idea very strange that a conflict that had been entrenched in the country for at least 40 years, involved at least 200,000 various political actors, almost 1 million soldiers, and close to 5 million enslaved African Americans, and whose aftermath has practically dragged itself into the 21st century... it's just one man's fault.
Last edited: