Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

You are right that a World War One general (most likely Hindenburg or Ludendorff) would make more sense historically, but I was giving the list of classic American enemies generally known to the public. Many more people know about Hussein than Hindenburg, even if the latter was probably more deadly to American soldiers.
Also here's another big enemy that I forgot. Robert Ross (War of 1812). He is infamous for burning Washington D.C. Again, he is not that well-known, but he was also a formidable opponent with one of the highest chances of crippling the American experiment (due to how early it was).
 
You are right that a World War One general (most likely Hindenburg or Ludendorff) would make more sense historically, but I was giving the list of classic American enemies generally known to the public. Many more people know about Hussein than Hindenburg, even if the latter was probably more deadly to American soldiers.
Eh, not really. No German general or leader has ever been a real threat to the US itself. Germany in both wars was akin to the Seleucid Empire in Egypt and the Greek leagues and cities. Roflstomped by Rome in short order. The US hasn't had a Hannibal-level threat since the end of the War of 1812.
 
Eh, not really. No German general or leader has ever been a real threat to the US itself. Germany in both wars was akin to the Seleucid Empire in Egypt and the Greek leagues and cities. Roflstomped by Rome in short order. The US hasn't had a Hannibal-level threat since the end of the War of 1812.
Again, this list is meant to be a list of people who could take down the United States. It was meant to be a list of "classic" American enemies. Obviously there is essentially no chance of Germany destroying the United States during World War One. I was only agreeing that a complete list of American enemies should include Hindenburg, not that Hindenburg posed an existential threat to America.
 
Again, this list is meant to be a list of people who could take down the United States. It was meant to be a list of "classic" American enemies. Obviously there is essentially no chance of Germany destroying the United States during World War One. I was only agreeing that a complete list of American enemies should include Hindenburg, not that Hindenburg posed an existential threat to America.
Hindenburg wasn't even America's enemy though. America was totally second fiddle in WWI.
 
He led armies against the soldiers of the United States, and led those armies in killing soldiers of the United States. I fail to see how he isn't an enemy of the United States, even if there was a delayed entry.
I guess just a difference of definitions. An enemy to me is someone who WANTS to fight and destroy you. As Hannibal wanted to destroy Rome, so he's an enemy of Rome. I wouldn't say the same for Himdenburg and the US. But if your definition is different then alright, no issue.
 
Moselle was insignificant to the industrial potential of Germany
Was it? I was under the impression that it was a notable industrial region, although nowhere near as important as the Ruhr-Region.
while Silesia was merely just rich in coal and other raw metals.
Wasn't Upper Silesia Germany's no.2 industrial region? It's "loss" should be fairly notable, imo.
however these can both be compensated by the inclusion of Austria.
So Austria has as much or more coal and iron ore as Moselle+Silesia?
Also, what the about the German "losses" of Schleswig, Lausitz, Posen, West Prussia and East Prussia? Can Austria make up for those too?
France would be slightly worse off I assume? The lost of all of these territories for Moselle is not worth it. How big of a loss I can't say since I didn't do as much research.
French Flanders-Hainaut and Moselle appear to me being similar in value (as industrial bases), while Savoy, Nice and Corsica overall don't seem to be that important, but they are still losses nonetheless. So I tend to agree with France being slightly worse off compared to its OTL counterpart.
Britain would still be aligned with France as it is clearly the weaker one. However, if Germany decides to focus eastward and not westward (as Germany would want to control Bohemia and Poland instead of France) Britain might not align with either.
So you think Germany would be more of a threat to Britain.
The Kiel Canal could be built maybe? It has to be built by Denmark tho. The elder canal was the precursor to the Kiel and it was built by Denmark. How Germany could gain Holstein but not Schleswig will confuse me but if we go by the map. Denmark would create the Kiel Canal/Elder Canal 2.0. The main reason why the canal was built was to cope with increasing maritime trade and it was a side bonus for the German navy. I highly doubt Germany would built an alternative as it seems way too expensive for them instead of just negotiating with the Danes. :D
I see. This scenario's Germany is a result of reform and centralisation of the German part of the Holy Roman Empire. Schleswig was outside the bounds of the Kingdom of Germany and the HRE as a whole, so it didn't get included. This doesn't mean the Germans didn't want to incorporate the area, however such action would have antagonised both Poland and Bohemia and also would have risked the intervention of the Great Powers.

Thanks for your answers, I really appreciate it! Hopefully others will share their thoughts as well.
 
Was it? I was under the impression that it was a notable industrial region, although nowhere near as important as the Ruhr-Region.

Wasn't Upper Silesia Germany's no.2 industrial region? It's "loss" should be fairly notable, imo.

So Austria has as much or more coal and iron ore as Moselle+Silesia?
Also, what the about the German "losses" of Schleswig, Lausitz, Posen, West Prussia and East Prussia? Can Austria make up for those too?

French Flanders-Hainaut and Moselle appear to me being similar in value (as industrial bases), while Savoy, Nice and Corsica overall don't seem to be that important, but they are still losses nonetheless. So I tend to agree with France being slightly worse off compared to its OTL counterpart.

So you think Germany would be more of a threat to Britain.

I see. This scenario's Germany is a result of reform and centralisation of the German part of the Holy Roman Empire. Schleswig was outside the bounds of the Kingdom of Germany and the HRE as a whole, so it didn't get included. This doesn't mean the Germans didn't want to incorporate the area, however such action would have antagonised both Poland and Bohemia and also would have risked the intervention of the Great Powers.

Thanks for your answers, I really appreciate it! Hopefully others will share their thoughts as well.
Moselle was just a notable coal region like Silesia but the industrial region was mostly in the Ruhr Region.
I would argue that Germany would be better compensated with the vast minerals of Austria and the fact Austria is very developed IOTL.
Germany if focused westward would be a threat to Britain but I do believe the conquest of Bohemia, Poland and Denmark are far more immediate goals.
Ur welcome btw :D
 
A simple question, why exactly was Mesopotamia such a difficult region for the Roman's to keep hold of that when it actually was annexed, control only lasted two years. The Romans would reastiblish the province again under Septimius Severus, but only to the Khabur river, and since then, not even Eastern Rome with a closer capital would move its Mesopotamian border any further east.

Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire would have a presence in Iraq that lasted well over three centuries, despite being in the same geographical situation as Eastern Rome.

So what exactly am I mising here? Why were the Ottoman's succesful where Rome/Constantinople wasn't?
Geography, and culture/politics.
Rome's center of manpower and wealth was in Italy (and kind of Egypt). Big decisions were made from there, and large campaigns were started there. Governors in those times would go to a province, try to get rich, do the emperor's bidding, and try to get home in one piece to live large the rest of their lives. Mesopotamia is quite far out of the way. First almost a month sailing/rowing to Syria, then an arduous trip over land through semi-arid and outright desert. Even once the Euphrates is reached, one must travel by land because the river isn't navigable until halfway down through Mesopotamia. Now imagine defense of and campaigns launched from Mesopotamia. Soldiers, slaves, camp followers, horses, food, repair and smithing materials, and all other matter of things need to be transported from Syria at the nearest. Soldiers especially won't be recruited from Mesopotamia, at least for a few decades. By the time Rome's center of manpower had shifted to Constantinople it was barely hanging on to the western empire and Armenia and sometimes Syria, so forget about Mesopotamia. The Persian horselords of the various empires, Parthian or Sassanian, could easily swoop down into Mesopotamia from their secure, almost impenetrable, plateau and raid open, flat Mesopotamia at will. It's no accident the Romans reached and pillages Ctesiphon several times (if I remember correctly) even though they are so far away: Mesopotamia is not very defensible. It will be even worse for Ctesiphon if it was Roman, as Persians could raid much more easily, being closer and not having to cross a desert to get there. Also Mesopotamian culture and religion were very different from Roman culture and religion.
The Ottomans have a completely different situation. Also based in Constantinople but not struggling to maintain the integrity of its borders. A common religion with its Sunni Mesopotamian subjects. A tradition in Mesopotamia of having been ruled by Turks, on and off, for a few hundred years. By the 1600s technologically much more advanced than the Persians that can't even hope to threaten them. Not as overextended as the Romans were, as Septimius Severus's Rome was extremely overextended and should have really stopped growing in Augustus's time. I even question the wisdom of Caesar's conquest of Rome (only strategically, as politically for him it was brilliant). At first glance Gallia Provincia doesn't look too defensible, but there is the Massif Central blocking easy access over a big front. A few forts and legions along the Garonne and Rhone would probably do, be closer than the far flung Rhine, and REALLY decrease the chance of a commander feeling independent enough to declare himself emperor. Thus avoiding bunches of civil wars.
 
What if the War of 1897 between Greece and the Ottoman Empire ends in a devastating defeat for Greece? The Ottoman Empire reannexes Thessaly and Greece is forced to aknowledge the nominal suzerainty of the Ottoman Sultan. What kind of effects could this have down the line?
 
What if the War of 1897 between Greece and the Ottoman Empire ends in a devastating defeat for Greece? The Ottoman Empire reannexes Thessaly and Greece is forced to aknowledge the nominal suzerainty of the Ottoman Sultan. What kind of effects could this have down the line?
You mean one even more devastating than OTL? Cause, IIRC, that's war ended with a Ottoman victory...
 
Top