No problem! Should've realised the wording of the op could lead to confusion and have been clearer. I can see the logic behind having Margaret stay in Spain, especially if Isabella passes away around otl and needs a regent for the young Queen.Oh, sorry!I think it would depend on whatever the political situation is at the time, but she’d probably stay in Spain.
Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
He would have been 12 in 1642, being born in 1630. That's going to make for a very chaotic regency...
Margaret would remain in Spain as Dowager Princess of Asturias, raising her daughter
In a scenario where ratification of the Constitution fails and eventually leads to the United States collapsing, is it possible for the Southern States (and their western territories) to go to war against each other in the 1780s or 1790s?
If Alexander Severus died of self-asphyxiation or something equally in character for him, would the severans have handled the Third Century Crisis better or even butterflied it away and would Rome have morphed even more into a stratocracy with the severan custom of putting a legion in the senate for shits & giggles to do the senating for them?
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Dude, if you're talking about the trend of assassinating emperors that dominated in the 3rd Century, it didn't even begin with Alexander -- since Marcus Aurelius passed on, the only emperor to enjoy a "natural death" between 180 and 305 was Septimus Severus; the regicide train had kind of already left the station by the time 235 rolled around.
Not talking about the trend, just the crisis itself(fragmentation of Rome and all the fun stuff)
If another severan takes Alexander's place and doesnt screw up as much its unlikely the dynasty would have died then and there with the following power struggle
There is no way that Rome doesn't have a 3rd century crisis. There are too many variables that lead to the crisis which a Roman emperor can't really solve like say for instance an abundance of elites.
So this is equal parts inspired by the Da Vinci Code and partly due to my own research into the non canon gospels. The Gospels of Mary and Phillip establish that Christ had a close companionship with Mary Magdalene - some have even gone as far as the Da Vinci Code and assumed that Mary was the wife of Jesus Christ.
Acts I establishes that the Apostles met to draw lots in order to replace Judas. This is where Matthias was elevated.
My scenario proposes three major things: The first is that Jesus and Mary were indeed husband and wife in secret (for the sake of everything, I’d have it ambiguous as to whether they had a child.) The second is that Mary Magdalene - not Matthias is elevated to replace Judas. Lastly the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Phillip are canonized at the Council of Nicaea.
The changes to me, are a snowball starting off slow at first and then progressing much more rapidly the further we get but how do the rest of you see Christianity developing and in turn influencing European society? Because of Mary would Constantine even seek to make Christianity (as we recognize it) into the state religion of the Roman Empire?
Acts I establishes that the Apostles met to draw lots in order to replace Judas. This is where Matthias was elevated.
My scenario proposes three major things: The first is that Jesus and Mary were indeed husband and wife in secret (for the sake of everything, I’d have it ambiguous as to whether they had a child.) The second is that Mary Magdalene - not Matthias is elevated to replace Judas. Lastly the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Phillip are canonized at the Council of Nicaea.
The changes to me, are a snowball starting off slow at first and then progressing much more rapidly the further we get but how do the rest of you see Christianity developing and in turn influencing European society? Because of Mary would Constantine even seek to make Christianity (as we recognize it) into the state religion of the Roman Empire?
Last edited:
I wish I knew enough about Roman history to shoot the shit with you but alas I mostly know about the Punic Wars, the fall of the Republic and ascension of Augustus and the Empire, a few choice bits after that and then the fall of the West and then the fall of Constantinople 0:
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
So the idea seems to have less potential the more I think of it, and I just had the thread deleted, but just for the hell of it, I suppose I may as well ask -- any thoughts on “What if Agrippina the Younger outlived her son?”
Nero? Have I got the right Agrippina? It depends on whether Britannicus was still alive at the time. If yes, then maybe he would've become Emperor for better or worse...
If not, I have no clue, except for a possible Year of Five Emperors a few years early...
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Yep.
Incidentally, the thread in question has asked for after Britainicus; sounds like I made the right call in getting rid of it.
Ah nothing like being introduced to Rome through Dovahhaty and Horrible Histories