Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by RMcD94, Mar 5, 2019.
What if Attila the Hun was never born?
Just some ideas I've been bouncing around...
So Louis become happily a monk and Eleanor has a decent husband?
Constance of Castile is a strange choice for Henry II. Marie of Boulogne (aka Stephen’s own daughter) would be a much better choice if Marie of France is too young for him (but ATL Marie can be born in 1138/39 if she is Philip II and Eleanor’s eldest child. Adele of Champagne can marry ATL Louis VII/Philip III (if as second child he is born in 1140/41)
The Young King who will marry there? Pretty unlikely Philip and Eleanor would have daughters young enough for him...
I retconned this to Adele of Champagne (Stephens nephew.) The Young King still marries Phillips daughter to solve the Vexin dispute.
Why marrying the niece when Stephen has a daughter (Marie of Boulogne, who OTL was destined to convent but still kidnapped and married by force) few years older than said niece?
I thought she'd taken vows by the time the war ended. Also Constance marries Raymond of Toulouse (I couldn't think of anyone else.)
OTL she had taken vows between 1148 and 1155 so...
Fair enough. If so, would Adele marry William of Bologne given he was her cousin?
She can still marry Louis VII of France (here the eldest son of Philip II and Eleanor who will be born between 1138 and 1141) and William will marry his OTL wif
EDIT: here Henry II’s son will be Henry, Stephen, Geoffrey right?
EDIT: I'm keeping the names as OTL.
Here's some more stuff...
What language did the Paleo-Eskimo (more specifically the Dorset) speak? Was it a Dene-Yeniseian language? Or something else?
This seems far too deterministic. The rise of the Constantinian family was heavily contingent on the rise of Diocletian, who facilitated the expansion of the imperial apparatus to include many prominent Illyrian noble families (into what we call the Tetrarchy). However, without this innovation, the Crisis of the Third century might continue unabated. The crisis ended due to a threefold reform measure facilitated first under Gallienus, then Aurelian, then Diocletian. First, Gallienus moved the capital away from Rome, thus ending the vicious cycle of "marching on Rome thus leaving the frontiers undefended" that defined the 230s-240s CE. Secondly, Aurelian calcified the defensive posture of the empire by establishing a semi-elastic border supported by defensive hard-points from which field armies could intercept any invaders. Thirdly, Diocletian removed the succession issue completely by formalizing the process of joint-emperorship (which had already begun as early as Decius and Hostilian) thus enabling the empire to maintain a multi-fronted defensive stance without encouraging excessive usurpers.
Whether or not this third measure (undertaken by Diocletian) would come about ITTL is probable, although it may formalize over a series of successive soldier-emperors, rather than a single visionary. This would likely mean a longer 3rd century crisis, and almost certainly no Constantine. While men like Constantius Chlorus were certainly already prominent within the army, and might even see the throne, the sustainability of a longer-term dynasty would be unlikely given the circumstances of the crisis. We might see emperors like Marcus Aurelius Julianus or Lucius Caesonius Bassus claim power before their eventual defeat by more forward-thinking military autocrats. The most substantial impact of this continuing disequilibrium would be the disruptive impact it would have on the Persian front. It is probable that the continuous usurpations might lead to a cycle of military failures, compounding further usurpations, until an eventual equilibrium can be found. This may endure as late as the early 4th century before the Sassanid war machine eventually runs out of steam.
Just something I realized no one, at least to my knowledge, is wondering about: given that, up to the Great Northern War, both Sweden and Poland-Lithuania had the access to the Baltic that Peter the Great desperately wanted for his own empire, what if Russia gobbled up Poland-Lithuania almost a century ahead of schedule instead of going after Sweden?
TBF it was just an idea and not something I was gonna expand on.
The Huns would maybe never have been a unified force expanding west.
Jamaican religious Rastafari monarchy inspired by Ethiopian Emperor ( Negus Negasti) would be interesting.
Claudius Drussus doesn't choke on a pear while horsing around preventing the rise of Nero.
Is this realistic?
It’s possible that, without dying early, this Drusus may have been caught up in the purges of Sejanus or Caligula
Separate names with a comma.