Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
In no way you will see a civil war between Agrippa and Marcellus as whatever contrast they had the speculations about it and Agrippa being exiled as consequence of such disagreements are exaggerations... sure Agrippa was outside Rome but was sent as governor in the eastern provinces and while he remained in Lesbos, sending only his legates in Syria is more likely who Agrippa was either a) put in charge of the greatest army of Rome as backup in case Augustus had trouble with the second settlement and needed military backup or b) was secretly negotiating with Parthians for the restitution of the Eagles of Crassus or both things at the same time. About the succession the only things of which I am sure are who Marcellus will be the personal heir of Augustus inheriting most of the wealth of his uncle and father-in-law (a part of it will go to Livia, another to Julia and likely something to Octavia and Agrippa plus we can be sure Augustus will left a lot of bequests) and Agrippa will stay in a position of power, maybe becoming Augustus’ main political heir and successor if Marcellus was judged too young and inexperienced for taking such big role, something pretty likely to happen. Remember who Agrippa at that time was already a member of the family of Augustus (he became part of the family in 28 aC with his second wedding to Marcella Major (Octavia’s eldest daughter so Augustus’ niece and Marcellus’ full sister) not with the third to Julia Major in 21) and Marcellus’ brother-in-law. If Marcellus still died few months after his uncle then Agrippa’s position of power would be established and uncontested without any need to divorce from his wife for marrying Julia. Likely the inheritance of the childless Marcellus will be divided between his mother, widow and sisters with the biggest part going to eldest sister Marcella Major (aka Agrippa’s wife), that if Augustus had not already named Agrippa as heir after Marcellus in his own will. With Marcellus death Agrippa would have little to fear as both Octavia (his mother-in-law) and Livia (whose sons would be strictly tied to Agrippa as Tiberius is engaged/married to Agrippa’s eldest daughter and Drusus to his younger (half-)sister-in-law) will be on his side. Not being anymore the symbol of the transfer of power Julia Augusti will have more freedom in remarrying (and likely will marry Octavia’s stepson Iullus Antonius, after the appropriate time of mourning).
Iullus as Julia’s ATL second husband is in no way ASB as: a) Julia now is quite away from the power so Agrippa has no reason for divorcing Marcella and marrying her b) Livia has no interest in Julia as daughter-in-law as the actual weddings/engagements of her sons keep them much closer to the power than a wedding to Julia c) in OTL Iullus married Marcella Maior exactly in this period after her divorce from Agrippa
When I said civil war, I did not mean between Marcellus and Agrippa. Marcellus did not have a political constituency of his own that could have posed any tangible threat to Agrippa. I more meant that it might be possible for a senatorial faction to emerge backing Tiberius and Drusus against Agrippa, as Agrippa himself was never accepted by the nobility. The traditional patricians by this point had been heavily depleted in number by the civil wars and proscriptions, but a sizable faction of senators and equites still remembered their loyalties to Antony, and with Drusus married to Antony's daughter, he and Iulus would be natural figureheads for any new senatorial opposition to Agrippa. There were still powerful men among the senate like Domitius Ahenobarbus, Crassus Dives, and Sentius Saturninus whom would be liable to take sides in the ensuing struggle, since it is doubtful that any of the remaining imperial men (Agrippa, Tiberius, Drusus, Marcellus, and Iulus) would have been able to secure the unwavering political domination that Augustus was able to master. It's also worth noting that Lepidus was still alive at this point as well, and his children and nephews were heavily intermarried with the extended imperial family through Augustus' first wife Scribonia, and thus had considerable leverage on the imperial family in his own right.
What If ...
Ernest, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and his wife managed to produce children - let's say two sons (Eduard, and Johann) - how might history alter?
The first thought that I had was that Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh might have been permitted by his mother to accept the Greek crown in the absence of him being the designated heir to Ernest. With Alfred as King Alvertos of the Hellenes (using the Hellenic version of one of his middle names), how does Greece fare in Europe with much closer British ties?
Might the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha brothers find themselves married to their British cousins (say Eduard born 1842, Johann born 1844) such as Princess Alice, who married the Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine IOTL, or Princess Helena.
If Alice married Eduard (the more attractive marriage for the purpose of butterflys), that means the Grand Duke and Tsar Nicholas II both end up with different wives, and the situation developing in Russia might have a slightly different outcome - TTL Alexei might not have haemophilia, and Rasputin may not get his claws into the Tsarina.
Ernest, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and his wife managed to produce children - let's say two sons (Eduard, and Johann) - how might history alter?
The first thought that I had was that Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh might have been permitted by his mother to accept the Greek crown in the absence of him being the designated heir to Ernest. With Alfred as King Alvertos of the Hellenes (using the Hellenic version of one of his middle names), how does Greece fare in Europe with much closer British ties?
Might the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha brothers find themselves married to their British cousins (say Eduard born 1842, Johann born 1844) such as Princess Alice, who married the Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine IOTL, or Princess Helena.
If Alice married Eduard (the more attractive marriage for the purpose of butterflys), that means the Grand Duke and Tsar Nicholas II both end up with different wives, and the situation developing in Russia might have a slightly different outcome - TTL Alexei might not have haemophilia, and Rasputin may not get his claws into the Tsarina.
Tiberius is Agrippa son-in-law, Drusus (and Ahenobarbus) his brother-in-law and Livia most likely support Agrippa, so a civil war is pretty unlikely. Mark Antony’s inheritance at this point is still poisoned and Drusus and Iullus know better than get involved against Agrippa (plus neither is power hungry). A more likely scenario see Agrippa dying around his OTL death date (or maybe earlier), possibly poisoned and the remaining men of the family of Augustus (stepsons Tiberius and Drusus and son-in-law Iullus) restoring the Republic.
So I just started a thread on this question, but figured I'd ask the people here as well, if you don't mind. I've recently become interested in colonial history and was wondering if anyone knows of any interesting PODs where we could have seen a very different colonization of the New World. I recently read Witch0Winter's "Where Hearts Were Entertaining June" and in that TL you end up with a British Brazil. I was wondering if anyone has any other interesting ideas where we could end up with Spanish Canada or something like that. Thanks.
I wonder if it's possible for there to be a world where the monarchies follow socialist economics and the revolutionary nations follow capitalist economics.
Maybe the POD is in the creation and spread of guild and Christian socialism instead of feudalism while supporting the divine right of kings. It would evolve into a sort of 'enlighten monarchist protector of the common people' ideal. Then alt!American and French revolutions develop a successful social and market libertarian like nation and one that collapse into a dictatorship that was vanquished by a coalition of socialist monarchies.
I think alt!socialism would be called communalism instead.
Maybe the POD is in the creation and spread of guild and Christian socialism instead of feudalism while supporting the divine right of kings. It would evolve into a sort of 'enlighten monarchist protector of the common people' ideal. Then alt!American and French revolutions develop a successful social and market libertarian like nation and one that collapse into a dictatorship that was vanquished by a coalition of socialist monarchies.
I think alt!socialism would be called communalism instead.
What if the Nullification Crisis turns really ugly? What would the effects of this earlier, not about slavery Civil War be afterwards(I'm pretty sure Jackson would make true on his promise to behead Calhoun). On the subject of the Civil War, I want to know what the impact of a Pyrhhic Confederacy Victory, where the country wins but falls apart as a third world country and has to reintegrate itself in about 20 years. Besides the obvious of a much worse dynamic between North and South than IOTL post-Civil War
Regarding the American Civil war, which battle or campaign would be the most likely to result in an independent Confederacy. Gettysburg is often touted as the battle that lost the war for the CSA, but to me it seems like if Lee had won that battle it would have resulted in little as the Army of Virginia was already operating on essentially a scouting mission not a proper invasion of Union territory. I wonder if the Wilderness could have been the battle? Lee very nearly pulled a Cannae and encircled the Union army and destroyed it. If this had happened would it have given the CSA the room it needed to breath? Or paved the way for recognition from one or more foreign states? I know there may be other battles, but these are just the ones I know of off the top of my head.
What might happen if Aaron Burr actually managed to spark a real conflict in Louisiana in the early 1800s, either in a bid for secession from the United States or an invasion of Spanish Mexico, both of which were rumored? I'm not asking what would happen if he were successful--I highly doubt that he could be in regards to either event--but just what would be the outcome if shots were fired as opposed to him and his men getting picked up by American troops on their way South without doing anything but discussing the idea of secession?
Is US Naval strength a bit undersold around here or is it just me? Research by John Houghton indicates the following in 1836 compared to other secondary powers:
United States:
12 ships of the line (5 close to completion), 18 frigates (9 close to completion)
Netherlands:
9 ships of the line, 25 frigates; a few of these were acquired from France ca. 1815 and were in poor condition
Spain:
3 ships of the line, 5 frigates (one close to completion)
Sweden:
12 ships of the line, 7 frigates
Obviously the US isn’t going toe to toe with the UK or France at this point, but it seems as if it would have not too much of a problem dispatching Spain if they decided to go to war in that period. It’s worth noting that unlike most other navies - of which about half of these ships are ca. 1780s vintage - the US built a majority of its ships in the last fifteen years, not only giving them newer ships but a demonstrated ability to build.
The reason I post this is that I find there’s a general casual consensus that the US was barking up the wrong tree with its Cuba schemes during the period; to me it seems an even more imbalanced situation than the later 1898 war, and that the only thing that would save Spain is arbitration from the UK and France, which I admit may be likely but would still see territorial gains on behalf of the United States.
United States:
12 ships of the line (5 close to completion), 18 frigates (9 close to completion)
Netherlands:
9 ships of the line, 25 frigates; a few of these were acquired from France ca. 1815 and were in poor condition
Spain:
3 ships of the line, 5 frigates (one close to completion)
Sweden:
12 ships of the line, 7 frigates
Obviously the US isn’t going toe to toe with the UK or France at this point, but it seems as if it would have not too much of a problem dispatching Spain if they decided to go to war in that period. It’s worth noting that unlike most other navies - of which about half of these ships are ca. 1780s vintage - the US built a majority of its ships in the last fifteen years, not only giving them newer ships but a demonstrated ability to build.
The reason I post this is that I find there’s a general casual consensus that the US was barking up the wrong tree with its Cuba schemes during the period; to me it seems an even more imbalanced situation than the later 1898 war, and that the only thing that would save Spain is arbitration from the UK and France, which I admit may be likely but would still see territorial gains on behalf of the United States.
https://www.academia.edu/35251769/THE_NAVIES_OF_THE_WORLD_1835_1840
Source for the above.
I think a lot of the tendency to downplay the US naval capacity in the period probably has to do with the (fair) reaction to the “US Conquers Everything” trope that’s pretty prevalent in the 19th century alternate history scene. It’s true that the United States wasn’t the world power it would grow to be later - and it shouldn’t be represented as such - but it could basically go toe to toe with any other secondary power of the time. I would add the only time this isn’t really true is probably ca. 1870s as it didn’t modernize its navy, but that’s based on my reading of stuff around here and may require more research
Source for the above.
I think a lot of the tendency to downplay the US naval capacity in the period probably has to do with the (fair) reaction to the “US Conquers Everything” trope that’s pretty prevalent in the 19th century alternate history scene. It’s true that the United States wasn’t the world power it would grow to be later - and it shouldn’t be represented as such - but it could basically go toe to toe with any other secondary power of the time. I would add the only time this isn’t really true is probably ca. 1870s as it didn’t modernize its navy, but that’s based on my reading of stuff around here and may require more research
If I recall, no idea where it comes from, the USN had the ships yes. But few of them spent much time at sea. The navy also did not have the funding properly man them and also had few officers to command them. It also would likely be an issue that the US fleet rarely practiced the tactics that would be used in a fleet action, in a hypothetal war with Spain the US ships would likely make some hilarious blunders. Eventually they would learn, and sheer weight of numbers would likely still hand them a victory. But it would be interesting to see regardless.
Any idea what proportion of woodland was managed in the middle ages (circa 1300 to be specific) vs what was left unmanaged