Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

Unlikely. England became Republican in 1650 and the Polish decline started in 1704
The Deluge, which thoroughly wrecked Poland, already occurred in 1655 IOTL during the Commonwealth of England era, so a different Republican England is unlikely to change that. Once the Deluge occurred, and combined with the inherent flaws in its governance system and geopolitical position, Poland is doomed (surrounded by Prussia, Russia, and Sweden, while Habsburg is not exactly reliable).

Furthermore, the Riksdagian model & the Ottoman Council of Viziers Model had a more direct, historians would argue, larger impact on the development of the constitutional monarchy than Britain, considering Britain's own model was borrowed from the two
I could not find any accounts that state that the Bill of Rights in 1689 was influenced by Ottoman model or Riksdag Sweden. Parliament plus Magna Carta already existed long before either of those above.

But, anyway, Republican England as a premier Great Power would certainly have much greater influences over European politics, especially Western Europe, in the long run than either Sweden (which would be heavily limited by its small size) or the Ottoman Empire, and such influences would include the popularization of republicanism, especially when another prosperous republic (the Dutch Republic) was already around right there.
 
The Deluge, which thoroughly wrecked Poland, already occurred in 1655 IOTL during the Commonwealth of England era, so a different Republican England is unlikely to change that. Once the Deluge occurred, and combined with the inherent flaws in its governance system and geopolitical position, Poland is doomed (surrounded by Prussia, Russia, and Sweden, while Habsburg is not exactly reliable).
After said Deluge, Poland rebounded as a Great Power 1661 - 1721. Nothing is set in stone.
I could not find any accounts that state that the Bill of Rights in 1689 was influenced by Ottoman model or Riksdag Sweden. Parliament plus Magna Carta already existed long before either of those above.
The English Constitution by Bagehot is a great book on this particular tidbit. The English Parliament to Cabinet from Sovereign directly impacted from the Concil of Viziers of the ottomans whilst the legislature to monarch tallies were taken from Sweden directly.
But, anyway, Republican England as a premier Great Power would certainly have much greater influences over European politics, especially Western Europe, in the long run than either Sweden (which would be heavily limited by its small size) or the Ottoman Empire, and such influences would include the popularization of republicanism, especially when another prosperous republic (the Dutch Republic) was already around right there.
The Dutch Republic was already called a Monarchy called Republic in 1670. Said Dutch model is not going to be taken seriously by Republicans or Monarchists
 
Question: If Richard, 3rd Duke of York survived the Battle of Wakefield and evaded captivity afterwards, followed by him becoming King, what would his foreign policy be? Would it be Pro or Anti French? What marriages would he make for his unmarried children?
 
Question: If Richard, 3rd Duke of York survived the Battle of Wakefield and evaded captivity afterwards, followed by him becoming King, what would his foreign policy be? Would it be Pro or Anti French? What marriages would he make for his unmarried children?
How exactly is he going to be king? It will clearly be pro-French as England can't really afford to fight against France. They had negotiated peace anyway.
 
Question: If Richard, 3rd Duke of York survived the Battle of Wakefield and evaded captivity afterwards, followed by him becoming King, what would his foreign policy be? Would it be Pro or Anti French? What marriages would he make for his unmarried children?
Talk tough ala Henry IV and Edward IV but keep the peace till England is in order. Promote trade and good relations with Burgundy to keep the London traders happy. Would probably lend support to the public weal. May or may not invade at the same time depending on if the Lancastrian resistance in Northumberland is defeated by then. Policy thereafter will probably depend on how successful his expedition is.

Probably a marriage into Burgundy for Edward (not sure who, but he was negotiating it as early as 1456), potentially a Scottish match for Edmund and OTL for the rest would be reasonable I think.
 
How would one counter Mongol tactics back during their rise? Surely there must have been the tools back then to deal with them.
The Mongols really were OP, but the countries that survived had reasons behind it
Vietnam: Mongol tactics didn't work well in the forests and rainforests
Japan: Mongols had trouble crossing the ocean due to storms. (Divine wind)
Indonesia: Mongol Naval combat wasn't as good as its land combat--also unreliable support that betrayed them (?)
India: Mongols had trouble getting through the mountain passes protected by the Dehli Sultanate (?) (It wouldn't be until Babur's time that a Mongol-descended dynasty ruled India).
Mamluks IIRC formed their own cavalry force and did decently well?
A lot of these survivals/Mongol fails were due to terrain issues--a primarily horse archer force fighting in terrain that didn't suit horse archers.
A big reason why the Mongols were OP wasn't just because of their tactics but because of their strategy and logistics. The Mongol Army was one of the most well-trained in its time, with the best generals of its time, and one of the best logistical systems of its time.
(Also this was a time period where foot archers didn't shoot that much farther than horse archers, so foot archers aren't a good check to horse archers like in later periods.)
Walled cities aren't that great since the Mongols can build catapults on-site (and/or transport the pieces of them in baggage trains to be re-assembled).
If the Mongols look like they're retreating, do NOT chase them. It's a trap. (False retreats were very common in Mongol attacks. They usually worked).
While Ogedei's death prevented the Mongols from conquering Western Europe, this would have been a hard slog anyway due to castles everywhere and the decentralized nature of Western Europe (meaning you had to go fiefdom by fiefdom).
 
Is it possible to get a Christian majority (if not, at least a sizable Christian minority) in Persia before the Islamic Conquest? It’s an extremely unlikely scenario, that I must admit, but I’m curious to see what others think about it. I had the idea recently, so I haven’t really developed it too much. Armenia would likely be involved somehow as it was a significant Christian power even then, and Persia consistently attempted to subjugate the land.
 
Top