Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

Wait, what? I thought the Gallic Empire had the border provinces? Are you asking if they could do what a united Roman Empire couldn’t under Augustus?
Well the reason why the Romans had such a difficult time conquering Germany was that it lacked states and infrastructure. The Frankish kings had a better time conquering Germany because the previous conditions were met.
Also IMO Germany in the 200s kinda reminds me of pre Caesar Gaul. It was brimming with energy and the formation of large tribal confederations was on its way. Thus for these reasons I thought that the Gallic emperors would have a pretty good shot at conquering certain parts of Germany
 
Timurtash was the son of the powerful Ilkhanate emir Choban who practically controlled the state in the early 14th century. Timurtash himself was a vigorous and powerful governor of Anatolia who fought several successful campaigns against the Anatolian beyliks in the 1320s. He even declared himself the Mahdi, which should be taken as a sign that he aspired to rulership of his own and set out to prove his legitimacy as the Mahdi (and thus a future ruler) by enforcing strict Sharia law, most notoriously persecuting Christians. Unfortunately for him, his family fell into increasing disfavour with the Ilkhan Abu Said and he was forced to end his campaign and from there fled to Egypt where he was executed. His chief lieutenant Eretna took over his powerbase in Anatolia and eventually did create his own sultanate.

So what if Timurtash actually managed to succeed and create the Sultanate of Rum 2.0? I'm certain the beyliks being crushed is very good for Byzantium, but given Timurtash was perhaps 30 years old when he was executed in 1328 and his father lived until he was 65, Timurtash in his later years (or his successor) might pose a far worse foe for the Byzantines than any other beylik in that era.
 
what would have happened if Henry VIII had found himself with imperial possessions, before the elections of 1519, it certainly would not change his chances of victory much against Francis and Charles, but at least it would make him an important player in the Reich, particularly as his kingdom and relationship with the Lutherans would develop compared to Otl, obviously he would be very distrustful of the Protestants, since I don't see the princes or Luther being happy that the so-called Difensor Fidei has possessions near them ( 1 ), but in the long run if his family affairs have a similar path to Otl, he can also become their possible ally against the imperial power ( as I see it as difficult, after all he would have more to gain from an alliance with Charles, given that he could annex the territories taken from the heretics with permission imperial, but I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that he might try to act precious to see who offers the most ) how can all this change the political situation in the empire ?

of the famous imperial election of 1519 we know that after the first vote, which ended with a stalemate and the consequent complaint of the by Brandenburg, we can also understand that in the following vote the Saxony reject your candidate for imperial crown ( which was the papal favourite ) the voters were they split into two fronts, with Trier and Bohemia which were solidly Habsburg, furthermore it is suspected that Cologne initially opted for France. Unfortunately, the other four votes are unknown ( we only know that one of these votes for Henry, but not exactly who )


all this is based on an idea that was very popular in the 1530s/40s, at the imperial court, to prevent London from becoming linked to France and the League of Schmalkand, it was thought to enfeoff Henry in the HRE, in particular Bremen and others places that unfortunately I have not found with certainty, in order to make the Tudor monarch's collaboration with Charles V necessary if he wanted to maintain his new dominions ( I just imagined that all this happens a few decades early )


1 ) certainly Rome would see this with a positive outlook, after all in this period Henry was the prodigal son of the church and the ability to influence in the empire, can be seen as something that can potentially balance the Emperor
 
Last edited:
Were the Napoleonic Wars a stimulus to England's industrialization?
I think it would be safe to say that the French Revolutionary wars, and subsequent Napoleonic period were one of the factors leading to Englands industrialization, but not a direct cause. It helped set up the circumstances by causing Britain to amass the wealth, resources, and empire which it did in the period, which in turn created the circumstances for the industrial revolution, but its not the key factor. In fact there are strong arguments to be made that the industrial revolution began in England long before the revolution in France, during the 1760s in fact. In which case you could argue the revolutionary/Napoleonic wars period helped accelerate the industrial revolution in the UK, but certainly did not stimulate it initially.

So depending on if you mean stimulate as in jumpstart it, or stimulate as in help what was already ongoing along then you could say yes or no.
 
I would have made this a thread of its own, but I don't know the Georgians well enough. So, inspired by @Kellan Sullivan and @Charles III Stuart and their conversation...

What if Frederick, Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer had eloped? There's only three years between them, so they could genuinely have fallen in love. It's before the Royal Marriages Act, and Diana is one of the highest-ranking/richest girls in England, so I'm not sure they could argue against her birth. What happens if the future King and Queen are {a] nowhere near as beholden to Parliament and related to/very fond of the Marlboroughs?
 
I would have made this a thread of its own, but I don't know the Georgians well enough. So, inspired by @Kellan Sullivan and @Charles III Stuart and their conversation...

What if Frederick, Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer had eloped? There's only three years between them, so they could genuinely have fallen in love. It's before the Royal Marriages Act, and Diana is one of the highest-ranking/richest girls in England, so I'm not sure they could argue against her birth. What happens if the future King and Queen are {a] nowhere near as beholden to Parliament and related to/very fond of the Marlboroughs?

two things happen, mainly Frederick obtains an immense dowry ( the one that came with Spencer ) which he can use to make political opposition to his father, who, reacting to this, will certainly disinherit his son from the succession to Hanover ( using the excuse of the morganatic marriage and seeking the support from Vienna to confirm this ) so that Britain and Hanover are separated well in advance of Otl, this can also lead to perhaps a possible and early British isolation from the continent, also because the future ruler is not married to anyone important or with connections on the continent ( which can be both good and bad, depending on what will do London in the future ) while Hanover will find itself freer in choosing its policies ( both HRE and matrimonial ) as well as finding itself with its sovereign present on site, and above all less at risk of invasion if London starts a colonial war
 
Last edited:
It helped set up the circumstances by causing Britain to amass the wealth, resources, and empire which it did in the period, which in turn created the circumstances for the industrial revolution, but its not the key factor.
?
I thought that in the Napoleonic Wars the British had spend enormous amounts of money on sponsering coalition after coalition against Napoleon.
In fact, I had once encounter the claim that the British debt had at the end of the Napoleonic Wars grown to twice their GDP; however, I do not know the quality of the research that was based on.
 
?
I thought that in the Napoleonic Wars the British had spend enormous amounts of money on sponsering coalition after coalition against Napoleon.
In fact, I had once encounter the claim that the British debt had at the end of the Napoleonic Wars grown to twice their GDP; however, I do not know the quality of the research that was based on.
The British economy exploded during the period, with most sectors seeing massive expansion. Britain was able to use this to leverage the massive loans necessary to prosecute the war against revolutionary and later Napoleonic France. Using the growth of the economy in the past as guarantee of their loans being repaid in future. France by contrast had to rely on more traditional means of revenue generation such as taxation, which placed them in a much worse position. British currency did suffer significant inflation during the period, but tax rates remained very near peacetime levels.

So yeah debt did grow enormously during the war, but this was not that huge a weight upon the shoulders of the government due to how rapidly the economy grew. Its basically an example of data being basically useless unless you have the context around it.
 
A very ironic idea I had stumbled upon: a Punic-speaking Carthage as the Byzantine Empire-analogue for the Roman Empire.

The PoD is that Cato 'Carthago delenda est' the Elder and other Roman Punophobes end up all dying of food poisoning when visiting each other. This stops the Thirds Punic War, instead Carthage somehow ends up part of the Imperium Roman long term, and fully intact at that.
Outside of that Rome continues its OTL trajectory of enormous expansion followed by overextension and political instability leading to a Principate.
Then a 'Crisis of the Third Century'-analogue hits the Roman Empire. Famine and plagues happen; this causes an umpteen-way civil war to break out; the border regions are stripped of garrisons and barbarians use it as an opportunity to invade; the Parthians reach the Mediterranean Sea; the Balts and Finns* are pushed into the Roman Empire by nomads; the Celts in Britain cross the channel; Nubia takes over Egypt; Greece and Anatolia rebel as a 'Palmyrene Empire'-analogue; Iberia ends up being taken over by barbarians who had been turned into foederati by the Romans, but later rebelled because of poor treatment.

Eventually an Emperor flees an usurper marching on Rome by setting up shop in Carthage and still claiming to be the legitimate government. Thanks to its naval superiority the Province of Africa remains safe from attack and Carthage ends up as the most important of the Roman successor states holding islands all over the Mediterranean, from Corsica to Kreta.

Over time Latin gets replaced by Punic as the language of administration and the military; even the Roman elites who fled to Carthage end up switching to using the Punic language. However, the court in Carthage never stops seeing themselves as Romans and this even flows down to the rest of the population of the Empire like the Berbers; and this despite that they, as a result of conflict with city-states in Italy, end up using the word 'Latin' as an insult.
Nationalist historians in Roman Carthage regard both Hannibal and Scipio Africanus as their forefather and national heroes.

*There have been TL's in which the Slavs have ended up with chunks of the Roman Empire; so why not also Balts and Finns?



This idea was loosely based on something which I had once encountered on some ancient thread about a 'Southern Roman Empire' instead of an Eastern Roman Empire.
Somebody had suggested that the capital of this 'Southern Roman Empire' would be Carthage and wondered whether the Punic language could make comeback. However, the reply was that the Punic language was too diminished to become dominant again.

I was reminded of that when I was browsing one of @Aluma's threads about Carthage (she had apparently even once made a thread about a Latin Byzantine Empire analogue for Carthage) and wondered whether Carthage remaining a Punic speaking city would solve that problem.
 
two things happen, mainly Frederick obtains an immense dowry ( the one that came with Spencer ) which he can use to make political opposition to his father, who, reacting to this, will certainly disinherit his son from the succession to Hanover ( using the excuse of the morganatic marriage and seeking the support from Vienna to confirm this ) so that Britain and Hanover are separated well in advance of Otl, this can also lead to perhaps a possible and early British isolation from the continent, also because the future ruler is not married to anyone important or with connections on the continent ( which can be both good and bad, depending on what will do London in the future ) while Hanover will find itself freer in choosing its policies ( both HRE and matrimonial ) as well as finding itself with its sovereign present on site, and above all less at risk of invasion if London starts a colonial war
Disinheriting Frederick, makes William, who we know as Cumberland, crown prince of Hannover, which is going to change HIS life's trajectory considerably, though he is only 14 in 1735.
 
Dutch Canada/French Hudson?

How pre-determined were the initial areas of settlement in North America for these two powers?

ISTM there could be some very interesting consequences of this variance.

First: ISTM that the Dutch would have Canada pretty much to themselves; I don't see France or Britain ever making a major effort to take it away. France wouldn't go there, and Britain (and its American colonists) wouldn't see Dutch Canada as a threat like New France, and the Dutch would stay out of the Ohio valley rather than challenge Britain. Canada could become a relatively large Dutch settler colony.

Second: France could hold onto the Hudson Valley much longer than the Netherlands, though I think England/Britain would take it eventually. Even the relatively feeble Dutch settlement of the area left substantial traces: lots of toponyms and a non-trivial ethnic element. As late as the 1780s, there were Dutch-speaking households in rural areas - future President Martin Van Buren spoke Dutch rather than English as a boy. What would the larger French presence leave? Could alt-New York be as "French" as OTL Louisiana?
 
What if Marie Sklodowska Curie would have been elected to the French Academy of Sciences? IIRC, the election was a close thing with Marie Curie's rival winning by only two votes of margin...
So, would she have had any chances to get the votes necessaries? And, if so, how it would have impacted both her future career and her possibilities to fight back against the yellow press, (IMO), xenophobic campaigns against her?
 
Revisiting this post of mine from a long time ago:
If the Mayflower (hence the Pilgrims) landed in Manhattan and subsequently settled at least the Hudson Valley, what would happen to OTL New England states (Massachussetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire)?
 
Why is it that numerous European states were becoming more militant before ww1
The continent had been caught in a cycle of increasingly large alliances in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war. This web expanded roughly thusly.

France is defeated by Prussia and their allied German states, leading to the formation of the German empire.
France seeks allies against the newly expanded Germany, while simultaneously seeking to Challenge British supremacy over the rest of the world.
Germany allies with Austria Hungary as a counter to the Franco-Russian alliance.
Italy eventually joins the alliance with Austria and Germany.
Germany begins building a fleet to challenge British naval superiority as part of an ill conceived effort to expand Germany influence and power.
Britain takes this challenge personally and does what they always do when a single nation seems poised to dominate Europe, ally with their enemies. In this case France and Russia.
Britain allies with Japan as a means of securing their far eastern colonies and allowing them to concentrate forces elsewhere.
Belgium seeks to remain neutral, with multiple powers agreeing to respect their neutrality.
Tensions rise in the Balkans, with multiple rounds of wars between the minor powers there either seeking to take territory from the crumbling Ottoman empire, or take territory recently taken from the crumbling Ottoman empire by another power from them. The wars see A-H expand their influence, Russia make noises about being the defender of all Slavs, and Britain try to shore up the Turks with Greece seeking the nebulous goal of restoring traditional Greek lands.
The major alliance blocks begin seeking to expand their influence, sending military advisors, diplomatic missions, and economic/financial support to the various minor powers in the region to sway them to their side.

Now this is not in the exact order in which things happened, and also alot is missed out because I am hardly an expert on the topic. But it should give you an idea of how the alliances spread, with several localized conflicts eventually leading to intervention by the major powers and the expansion of the alliance blocks.
 
Top