Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

Quoting my previous posts, the unity of Europe could've been guaranteed sooner.

IOTL, it was offered to marry Henry II of Navarre (ITTL also of France due to France using male-preference primogeniture rather than Salic inheritance) to Isabella of Austria (the oldest of Charles V's younger sisters). Doing this in 1509, as well as having Charles V marry Isabella of Portugal as early as possible (they searched for a wife soon after reaching the Spanish throne in 1516, though he officially dismissed the offer in 1518, he then married her in 1526). In this case, Jeanne II/III of France/Navarre would be born about 11 years earlier than IOTL, while Philip II would be born about 9 years earlier than IOTL (1518 marriage), meaning that their son (Philip's son Carlos IOTL) would be born by 1535 (though it could be as early as 1530 if Charles V gets married as soon as he becomes king of Spain, so Philip II is born at the very beginning of 1517 (maybe December 1516), then he consummates his marriage at 13 (as was desired for John, Prince of Asturias), and by late 1530/early 1531, Carlos is born, heir to HRE/France/Spain/Navarre. (This makes the union between Philip II and Jeanne II/III of France/Navarre incestous since they're cousins.)

That's not all... Louis VIII was offered the crown of France during the First Baron's War against John Lackland. Keeping the throne in Louis' hands, and following previously established inheritance, it means that this version of Jeanne is Jeanne II/II/III of England/France/Navarre, and when she marries Philip II, they reign over both nations due to jure uxoris, and their son will be inheriting a staggering five crowns (counting Spain as one, rather than Castile and Aragon separately) HRE/France/England/Spain/Navarre, though it would most likely become four crowns as Navarre would most likely be split between France and Spain as IOTL, though bumped back up to five again thanks to Portugal.

Of course, IOTL, Isabella of Austria was married to Christian II of Denmark (last King of the Kalmar Union). He preferred the eldest sister, Eleanor of Austria, and it's only fair he gets her ITTL, especially since there's no French Kings to marry her off to, nor does it make sense to marry her off to the Scots. So the Habsburgs now have direct control over the HRE/France/England/Spain by the mid 1500's, as well as having strong marriage ties to the Kalmar Union.

Of course, Christian II was deposed IOTL, but if he wasn't, then his oldest daughter Dorothea would succeed. Rather than than setting her up with Frederick II, Elector Palatine, John of Denmark (second of four sons of Frederick I of Denmark IOTL) seems like a good match. Even though they're not super relevant due to the rebellion having failed, it would still serve as a good fig leaf to smooth over relations with the nobles who tried to depose her father. (Neither had children IOTL, so it makes sense to keep it this way. Plus, this way she doesn't have to be a widow ITTL, since John outlived her by a few months IOTL, while Frederick II died 24 years before her.)

Seeing as how there's nothing to butterfly the Time of Troubles, and assuming the Kalmar Union gets involved as Sweden did (and that Ivan the Terrible was elected King of the PLC and turned it into the hereditary PL(Muscovite)C, then the Kalmar Union, when it takes the throne, will suddenly control a huge expanse of land. Succession is the interesting part, since Dorothea died childless, the Kalmar Union would pass to her sister, Christina (whos second marriage to Francis I, Duke of Lorraine produced heirs). In this case, Henry II, Duke of Lorraine would be alive to be elected by the Boyars as Tsar in 1610 (Christina's grandson). His first wife? Catherine of Bourbon... Henry IV's sister! Meaning, that, casting the widest butterfly nets of all time, the King of the Kalmar Union and Tsar of the PLMC would be married to the sister (and only sibling) of the HRE and King of France/England/Spain/(most likely Portugal) (as well as having the eldest sibling of a previous HRE and King of Spain as his great-grandmother, as well as having his grandaunt Jeanne III be his mother-in-law, which by Hapsburg' standards might be too little consanguinity). Of course, Catherine was 39 by the time the marriage was officiated, so it remained childless, but if it had heirs, what would a Europe divided between Habspurbgs and Lorraine-Hapsburgs look like?

What would Europe look like with his absolute mess of cobwebs of relations between powers? (Especially since there'd be be two Cold War-esque region spanning superpowers in Europe both controlled by intermarried families.)
 
Last edited:
Quoting my previous posts, the unity of Europe could've been guaranteed sooner.

IOTL, it was offered to marry Henry II of Navarre (ITTL also of France due to France using male-preference primogeniture rather than Salic inheritance) to Isabella of Austria (the oldest of Charles V's younger sisters). Doing this in 1509, as well as having Charles V marry Isabella of Portugal as early as possible (they searched for a wife soon after reaching the Spanish throne in 1516, though he officially dismissed the offer in 1518, he then married her in 1526). In this case, Joanne II/III of France/Navarre would be born about 11 years earlier than IOTL, while Philip II would be born about 9 years earlier than IOTL (1518 marriage), meaning that their son (Philip's son Carlos IOTL) would be born by 1535 (though it could be as early as 1530 if Charles V gets married as soon as he becomes king of Spain, so Philip II is born at the very beginning of 1517 (maybe December 1516), then he consummates his marriage at 13 (as was desired for John, Prince of Asturias), and by late 1530/early 1531, Carlos is born, heir to HRE/France/Spain/Navarre. (This makes the union between Philip II and Joanna III/II of France/Navarre incestous since they're cousins.)

That's not all... Louis VIII was offered the crown of France during the FIrst Baron's War against John Lackland. Keeping the throne in Louis' hands, and following previously established inheritance, it means that this version of Joanne is Joanne I/II/III of England/France/Navarre, and when she marries Philip II, they reign over both nations due to jure rexoris, and their son will be inheriting a staggering five crowns (counting Spain as one, rather than Castile and Aragon separately) HRE/France/England/Spain/Navarre, though it would most likely become four crowns as Navarre would most likely be split between France and Spain as IOTL.

Of course, IOTL, Isabella of Austria was married to Christian II of Denmark (last King of the Kalmar Union). He preferred the eldest sister, Eleanor of Austria, and it's only fair he gets her ITTL, especially since there's no French Kings to marry her off to, nor does it make sense to marry her off to the Scots. So the Habsburgs now have direct control over the HRE/France/England/Spain by the mid 1500's, as well as having strong marriage ties to the Kalmar Union.

Of course, Christian II was deposed IOTL, but if he wasn't, then his oldest daughter Dorothea would succeed. Rather than than setting her up with Frederick II, Elector Palatine, John of Denmark (second of four sons of Frederick I of Denmark IOTL) seems like a good match. Even though they're not super relevant due to the rebellion having failed, it would still serve as a good fig leaf to smooth over relations with the nobles who tried to depose her father. (Neither had children IOTL, so it makes sense to keep it this way. Plus, this way she doesn't have to be a widow ITTL, since John outlived her by a few months IOTL, while Frederick II died 24 years before her.)

Seeing as how there's nothing to butterfly the Time of Troubles, and assuming the Kalmar Union gets involved as Sweden did (and that Ivan the Terrible was elected King of the PLC and turned it into the hereditary PL(Muscovite)C, then the Kalmar Union, when it takes the throne, will suddenly control a huge expanse of land. Succession is the interesting part, since Dorothea died childless, the Kalmar Union would pass to her sister, Christina (whos second marriage to Francis I, Duke of Lorraine produced heirs). In this case, Henry II, Duke of Lorraine would be alive to be elected by the Boyars as Tsar in 1610 (Christina's grandson). His first wife? Catherine of Bourbon... Henry IV's sister! Meaning, that, casting the widest butterfly nets of all time, the King of the Kalmar Union and Tsar of the PLMC would be married to the sister (and only sibling) of the HRE and King of France/England/Spain (as well as having the eldest sibling of a previous HRE and King of Spain as his great-grandmother, which by Hapsburg' standards it might as well be a different continent of consanguinity) Of course, Catherine was 39 by the time the marriage was officiated, so it remained childless, but if it had heirs, what would a Europe divided between Habspurbgs and Lorraine-Hapsburgs look like?

What would Europe look like with his absolute mess of cobwebs of relations between powers? (Especially since there'd be be two Cold War-esque region spanning superpowers in Europe both controlled by intermarried families.)
The nobles of those realms wouldn't allow this.
 
What would Europe look like with his absolute mess of cobwebs of relations between powers? (Especially since there'd be be two Cold War-esque region spanning superpowers in Europe both controlled by intermarried families.)
Is it safe to assume that Margaret, Maid of Norway, had descendants ITTL who delivered Scotland as well as Norway into union with Sweden and Denmark?
 
Is it safe to assume that Margaret, Maid of Norway, had descendants ITTL who delivered Scotland as well as Norway into union with Sweden and Denmark?
Not familiar with her, and I wanna keep the UK to form, so most likely not. Scotland as part of the Kalmar Union doesn't make much sense unless you keep the Danish Kings on the throne, IMO.
 
Is it safe to assume that Margaret, Maid of Norway, had descendants ITTL who delivered Scotland as well as Norway into union with Sweden and Denmark?
Yeah, dude, I know. Thanks for the clarification, Captain Buzzkill.

This isn't "History that could've happened if a butterfly flapped its wings". This is alternate history, and it's nice being able to explore some of the more out there options. If people can write about Sealion and about the Confederates winning, why can't I ask about the Hapsburgs making a hyper dynasty? They wanted to make one IOTL, and would've most likely succeeded if they had a bit more luck with genetics (and Charles V had let Philip II inherit the HRE).

The idea is more about how small changes can snowball into these massive hydras. Plus, I'm sure nobles would've loved to be under rulers playing musical chairs. It would've made the PLC nobility seem positively Russian in terms of how much more freedom these nobles would've had. After all, if a HRE has to also manage England and the Americas, would he really have time if some noble or other accrued power and wealth under his nose?

P.S. I do take the effort to at the very least have a little plausibility. All the marriages I’ve mentioned come directly from their wikis as proposals, so it’s not wild conjecture.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Yeah, dude, I know. Thanks for the clarification, Captain Buzzkill.

This isn't "History that could've happened if a butterfly flapped its wings". This is alternate history, and it's nice being able to explore some of the more out there options. If people can write about Sealion and about the Confederates winning, why can't I ask about the Hapsburgs making a hyper dynasty? They wanted to make one IOTL, and would've most likely succeeded if they had a bit more luck with genetics (and Charles V had let Philip II inherit the HRE).

The idea is more about how small changes can snowball into these massive hydras. Plus, I'm sure nobles would've loved to be under rulers playing musical chairs. It would've made the PLC nobility seem positively Russian in terms of how much more freedom these nobles would've had. After all, if a HRE has to also manage England and the Americas, would he really have time if some noble or other accrued power and wealth under his nose?

P.S. I do take the effort to at the very least have a little plausibility. All the marriages I’ve mentioned come directly from their wikis as proposals, so it’s not wild conjecture.
Stand down.

P)lay the Ball.
 
Alright fellas I know how some feel about the Roman Empire, but was the collapse of the Western Roman Empire a good thing?
Well, the archaeological evidence is conclusive in that the fall of the Western Roman Empire coincided with a massive collapse in population, urbanization and literacy rates, and long-distance trade.
So, I am pretty sure that the Western Romans themselves saw it as a bad thing.
However, not that I am saying everything was bad; for example, there were less plagues thanks to the near complete disappearance of urbanization and long-distance trade.
 
That's actually much better than I thought.
I had expected that even that would be impossible...
Spain had very good doctrine and technology, while the late Ming did not. I'm going to guess the quality of individual Spanish officers and generals was on average higher, and the common soldiers were on average going to be better trained since the Ming lost a ton of resources after the Imjin War and the system was in decay until it was massively defeated by the Shun rebels and then the Qing. While there's plenty of hassles, grabbing a coastal province is probably doable even if it's going to be a long-term drain in resources policing it and extracting income.
So, I am pretty sure that the Western Romans themselves saw it as a bad thing.
I don't think a decrease in population, urbanisation, or literacy would necessarily be thought of that way, unless you're an urban planner or government official. If you're a peasant who never visits a city, it wouldn't really matter to you that your great-grandfather whom you never met could read and you can't. It doesn't really matter there's fewer people around, since you hope the local chieftain is really strong and will protect the farm you work on. Same thing if you're one of the elite. You probably can read (and don't care that others can't), you still have a lot of luxury goods (even if some things you've read about are nigh-impossible to come by now), you rarely visit the city since your villa has everything, and the lack of population doesn't concern you since your villa at least has plenty of workers and you're always on time with the protection money to the local barbarian chief.
 
So, I recently came across this:
L’1 novembre 1860 il bolognese Marco Minghetti fu nominato Ministro degli Interni dall’allora Primo Ministro dell’Italia unita, Camillo Benso Conte di Cavour. In questa veste, è un aspetto questo abbastanza ignoto, lo statista bolognese presentò a Cavour un progetto di regionalizzazione del nuovo Stato unitario.


Da liberale, Minghetti aveva idee chiarissime sulla separazione fra Stato e Chiesa, che tuttavia non gli impedivano di essere cattolico e quindi anche un convinto assertore di una sorta di “federalismo” (non a caso il suo progetto di regionalizzazione aveva l’appoggio di Giuseppe Montanelli, seguace di Carlo Cattaneo).


Sia chiaro, si trattava di decentramento amministrativo e non politico: le Regioni del Minghetti erano territorialmente abbastanza simili a quelle attuali ma a capo vi erano alti dirigenti dello stato, che tuttavia si rapportavano con le varie burocrazie territoriali. Secondo Minghetti questo avrebbe permesso un maggior rispetto delle peculiari realtà locali.

Long story short, one of the first interior ministers of the Kingdom of Italy wanted to subdivide the country into regions that, while less autonomous than actual federal states, would've had more autonomy than what they got IRL, that is, complete subordination to Turin. Cavour himself seemed interested, but he died not long afterwards, and this project was shouted down by the new, Ricasoli-led government.

What would've an earlier implementation of regions meant, for the newborn Italian state?

POD #2:

Palmerston, capo del governo inglese, che esaltava la liberazione d'Italia dagli stranieri, non solo quest'anno (come vedremo in fondo) suggeriva agli austriaci di ritirarsi dalla Lombardia e concedere l'indipendenza ai lombardi (quindi non a Carlo Alberto), ma suggeriva pure al governo napoletano di riconoscere l'indipendenza della Sicilia. Insomma l'Inghilterra voleva fuori lo straniero dall'Italia ma nello stesso tempo anche separare il Regno, per appropriarsi della Sicilia. L'isola, infatti, dopo l'occupazione francese dell'Algeria e la costituzione di una base navale ad Algeri, era diventata per gli Inglesi importante per controbilanciare l'accresciuta potenza navale francese nel Mediterraneo.

TL;DR, Palmerston, then London's PM, tried to sponsor the creation of independent Lombard and Sicilian states, not long after the Five Days of Milan; but the government didn't agree with his plan. What if it went through? Would this change the course of the war, or not? But even if Vienna were to restore order in the peninsula, Lombardy and Sicily could still remain independent, due to British pressure: Austria loses a cash cow, and the Bourbons lose a notoriously rebellious province.

What will happen in the following years?

@AndreaConti @MusuMankata @isabella
 
So, I recently came across this:


Long story short, one of the first interior ministers of the Kingdom of Italy wanted to subdivide the country into regions that, while less autonomous than actual federal states, would've had more autonomy than what they got IRL, that is, complete subordination to Turin. Cavour himself seemed interested, but he died not long afterwards, and this project was shouted down by the new, Ricasoli-led government.

What would've an earlier implementation of regions meant, for the newborn Italian state?
If the current narrative is that "Piedmont stole all of the Neapolitan gold", ITTL it's "Piedmontese collaborators stole all of the Neapolitan gold".

That is to say, the same mistakes that the Kingdom of Italy did in its infancy (not being protectionist enough in the beginning, letting land reforms slide, the two-speeds justice system) won't be softened by an earlier form of regional governance, simply because the ones that would get in power in such local administrations in the South would probably be the same people that clung to latifundiae like a cat to cloth, and in the North are more likely than not to be people who OTL held some position of influence. Of course, if somebody who was a nobody with the correct ideas OTL got in power and, say, implemented subsides and investments in Bari's nascent cloth industry; or tried to promote Reggio Calabria's port to the point of being an attractive stop (especially after the Suez Canal is completed), the tune would change... but I'm not sure they would have much more usccess than Jacini did.

TL;DR, Palmerston, then London's PM, tried to sponsor the creation of independent Lombard and Sicilian states, not long after the Five Days of Milan; but the government didn't agree with his plan. What if it went through? Would this change the course of the war, or not? But even if Vienna were to restore order in the peninsula, Lombardy and Sicily could still remain independent, due to British pressure: Austria loses a cash cow, and the Bourbons lose a notoriously rebellious province.

What will happen in the following years?
Sicily might stay indipendent for real this time... or it might become a British possession, with Malta inglobated in the same administrative area, and become indipendent only when the British Empire feels like it. Which, given that they'd be fighting against a landowning class that really didn't want them to be there, and managed to impede the transformation of the Kingdom of Naples into an actual absolute monarchy by sheer stubborness, might very well be only a decade or so after it becomes part of the British Empire. Regardless, the island would be cutoff from the peninsula's history for pretty much good, as at that point Garibaldi-like actions would either happen in the Boot's heel, or focus moreso on the Balkan parts.

Lombardy becoming indipendent... well, the way I understand it, such a thing would be respected by precisely no-one: either Austria tries to conquer it, or there's a plebiscite for it to be annexed into Piedmont as soon as Carlo Alberto realizes he can skip the whole "declare war to Austria" thing. This, however, does mean that there's no First War of Italian Indipendence, and thus no abdication of Carlo Alberto... but it also means nobody will know Pius IX isn't onboard with Italian Unfication, either, meaning a lot of effort would be wasted on trying to convince a figurative stone wall to let the Papal State reshaped. Which does mean unification wouldn't be as quick as one would think, and the project to have a federal Italy with the Pope as head of state would be considered serious for way longer.
 
Well, the archaeological evidence is conclusive in that the fall of the Western Roman Empire coincided with a massive collapse in population, urbanization and literacy rates, and long-distance trade.
So, I am pretty sure that the Western Romans themselves saw it as a bad thing.
However, not that I am saying everything was bad; for example, there were less plagues thanks to the near complete disappearance of urbanization and long-distance trade.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I think it's no coincidence the collapse of the West coincides with the end of the Ancient Warm Period.
Lower crop yields>Famine and migration>Population decline and wars>Social change and deurbanization>Lower literacy and less long distance trade>Collapse of Central authority>Even less trade due to increased piracy
In this case I think natural climate cycles made a major shift or collapse of the Roman Empire inevitable.
 
Well, the archaeological evidence is conclusive in that the fall of the Western Roman Empire coincided with a massive collapse in population, urbanization and literacy rates, and long-distance trade.
So, I am pretty sure that the Western Romans themselves saw it as a bad thing.
However, not that I am saying everything was bad; for example, there were less plagues thanks to the near complete disappearance of urbanization and long-distance trade.
Oh so it was like a black-death incident whereby the status quo is terrible, then something comes in which destroys the population, then society grew back and the inhabitants of this post incident world were generally happier, healthier, etc.
Man I feel bad for the peasant's of the late empire. Not only were they forced to reside in cities like pigs in a pen in order for the Roman elite's to squeeze as much money as possible from them, they also suffered from natural disasters and invasions.
I love living in the 21st century.
 
How would Northern Persia under Russian rule from the mid-19th century (IOTL under sphere of influence) be administered? Also what would the effects of administration be?
 

Bytor

Monthly Donor
The vote counts between Henry Clay and James Polk in 1844 were very close. 1 or 2 percent in a handful of states would have given Clay the win.

So what if Clay had won? Would Polk have thrown his hat into the ring at the 1848 DNC? And if he did, would he have had much of a chance? Would delegates have given him a second chance or rejected him?
 
Last edited:
The vote counts between Henry Clay and James Polk in 1844 were very close. 1 or 2 percent in a handful of states would have given Clay the win.

So what if Clay had won? Would Polk have thrown his hat into the ring at the 1848 DNC? And if he did, would he have had much of a chance? Would delegates have given him a second chance or rejected him?
I don't think Polk would have gone for a second time, and even if he did he almost certainly would not have been nominated. His nomination in 1844 was only brought about in the first place by a dark horse movement in a hopelessly divided convention. If he was defeated in the 1844 general election, his support would have almost completely evaporated soon thereafter. By 1848, one of the bigger figures denied the 1844 nomination probably would have seized the 1848 nomination. Lewis Cass would be most likely in my opinion, but James Buchanan and Levi Woodbury would be distinct possibilities as well.
 
I think the Occitan language especially Northern Occitan and Gascon could have more vitality if Aquitaine had not been in personal union with England, perhaps if the plans of Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II splitting the inheritance happened or if Eleanor never married Henry II, the Albigensian Crusade ruined the chances of Occitan further, I think Saintonge remaining Occitan would help Northern Occitan's vitality as a language.
 
Top