OTL Cities in Europe much less important in ATL?

Could the rise of Warsaw in Poland have been easily stopped? The kings lived in Krakow at the time the capital was changed after all.

Lodz was chosen for a centre of textile industry by Congree Poland's authorities in 1820, apparently quite arbitrarily. Had Poland's history been different it might remain a small town, instead of becoming second largest polish city (until surpassed by Krakow recently).
 
I would bring up Bonn, the former capital city of West Germany. This was essentially an accident if you will, because Konrad Adenauer, the first chancellor of West Germany, personally was in favour of it, instead of Frankfurt. :eek:

In OTL, even after the capital was moved back to Berlin in the mid-1990s, a lot of ministries remained in Bonn, and the city also remains important due to hosting many institutions of the UN.

So, Frankfurt might have ended up as capital city of West Germany in 1949 as well, which means that Bonn would been rather insignificant except maybe for being remembered that Ludwig von Beethoven was born there. The same would apply for about any TL in which WWII is averted, or with an earlier POD. :p
 

Thande

Donor
I would bring up Bonn, the former capital city of West Germany. This was essentially an accident if you will, because Konrad Adenauer, the first chancellor of West Germany, personally was in favour of it, instead of Frankfurt. :eek:

Didn't Adenauer pick it precisely because it was small and unimportant and he thought it could never grow to be a big city? IIRC, he wanted to make a statement that Berlin was and would remain the true capital of Germany, and that West Germany was the true German successor state, emphasising that this was just a temporary capital.
 
Didn't Adenauer pick it precisely because it was small and unimportant and he thought it could never grow to be a big city? IIRC, he wanted to make a statement that Berlin was and would remain the true capital of Germany, and that West Germany was the true German successor state, emphasising that this was just a temporary capital.

Well, I think it was twofold: for one, as you said, he made a very strong case that Bonn would be only a temporary capital city (unlike Frankfurt, which I think would have without a doubt remained capital city after 1990), and the other (very egostic reason) is he didn't have to move and could drive to his job from home every morning... :p
 
1) London. In the 5th century Londinium, the Roman city, declined in population and importance. By the end of the century it seems to have been completely abandoned. In the 6th century, the new city of Lundenwic was established in the vicinity of old Londinium. It turned into a major trading center for the Anglo-Saxons and grew to have a population of up to 12,000 people. Unusually high for the Early Middle Ages. Despite the settlement passing from one state to another (the Middle Saxons/Middlesex, East Saxons/Essex, Mercia, the Great Heathen Army, Wessex), the city was never abandoned.

But happens is the 6th century Saxons are unable to build any city there? A combination of the extreme weather events of 535–536 (which caused famines) and the Plague of Justinian seems to have ravaged Great Britain for a while. In an alternate timeline, the Saxon population is further wiped out. The poor harvests do not help with supporting their large populations and the farmers are ready to defend their crops with their lives.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535-536 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Justinian

While the Saxons drop like flies, the Dumnonians have better chances. Their farms (spread throughout Devon, Somerset, and Devon) are able to support their small rural settlements and their decentralized way of living for once acts in their favor. Once the ear of disasters ends, the Dumnonians start expanding in the wastelands to the East of their borders. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumnonia

An old Roman settlement does eventually rise to prominence in this new era. But its not Londinium. It is Isca Dumnoniorum (Exeter). With a navigable river, a large supply of fish, fertile land and a tradition as a trading center, it is ideal. Political unification will be a dream pursued by many Brythonic rulers over the following centuries. But the ones who hold Exeter are always seen as the most prestigious among them. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exeter#Prehistoric_and_Roman_times
 
Nah that's dumb, no matter what contingent factors delay things the Thames Valley and East Anglia are dozens of times more fertile than the West Country. Exeter is out of the way for both centralised control of the British Isles and trade with the Low Countries and Germany. Not to mention the harbourage is sooooo much smaller (and the Exe is navigable for river craft not ocean shipping).
 
As far as Russia goes, you could have a field day modifying the relative importance of its cities (for that matter the Ukraine and Belarus)

St. Petersburg is an artificial city built by decree. Moscow, became predominent through quirks of fate, inhertance, and geography. For that matter, so was Novgorod's decline (although it needed better access to grain in order to thrive)

Were it not for the mongols, one might have seen the Ukraine become the population and economic center of "Russian" civilization. Were it not for the Lithuanian's and the Teutonic Order, Belarus might have had more prominence.
 
Artifical cities built by decree? There are so many of them. And many would be considered more ASB by ATLers than even St. Petersberg. Of course, there are cases like Washington DC and Canberra that came due to political compromise.

But actually, I thought of cities like Brasilia. It was supposed to be built to improve the distribution of Brazil's population. On the other hand, while Brasilia is definitely off the coast, they could easily have built it in Mato Grosso to make a point, but no, they wanted Brasilia somehow in the east of the country.
 
But actually, I thought of cities like Brasilia. It was supposed to be built to improve the distribution of Brazil's population. On the other hand, while Brasilia is definitely off the coast, they could easily have built it in Mato Grosso to make a point, but no, they wanted Brasilia somehow in the east of the country.

Brasilia lies on the geographical center of Brazil, that's why it was built there. The place where the Federal District is located was already planned in the Constitution of 1824, and all the Republican Constitutions kept that clause.
 
I have to disagree.

The shift of the political center of Rus culture from Kiev into the North-West began decades before the Mongol invaders trashed the Rus.

But would the reorientation have become a permanent shift without the Mongols? I'm well aware of both the rise of the principalities of Vladimir and Novgorod and the decline of Kievan Rus. North-West russia has plenty of geographic advantages, not the least being security.

However the Ukraine is far better than the northern principalities in terms of farmland. In theory its also better for trade, although much of that is dependent upon the status of Constantinople. Without the devastation wrought by the mongols, the Ukrainian steppe will likely continue to be a major grain producer and consequently the predominate producer of "Russians". If Poltosk, or Vladimir, or Novgorod conquered the non-decimated Ukraine, its likely that their power center would shift southward (not the least due to the symbolic importance of Kiev)
 
I would bring up Bonn, the former capital city of West Germany. This was essentially an accident if you will, because Konrad Adenauer, the first chancellor of West Germany, personally was in favour of it, instead of Frankfurt. :eek:

In OTL, even after the capital was moved back to Berlin in the mid-1990s, a lot of ministries remained in Bonn, and the city also remains important due to hosting many institutions of the UN.

So, Frankfurt might have ended up as capital city of West Germany in 1949 as well, which means that Bonn would been rather insignificant except maybe for being remembered that Ludwig von Beethoven was born there. The same would apply for about any TL in which WWII is averted, or with an earlier POD. :p

Additional reasons, Adenauer lived in the vicinity; and Bonn was situated on the left bank of the Rhine, thus one bridge further away from the Red Army (note that these decisions were taken in 1948/49 before MAD) - Frankfurt is just behind the Fulda gap and Kassel, the less prominent third contender had little chance because it was ridiculously close to what Adenauer called "de Soffjetzone".

However, without becoming capital of the FRG, Bonn would very probably still grow. It constitutes the Southernmost tip of the Rhein-Ruhr-metropolis and would still be an economical and suburban extension of Cologne. I estimate it would be at least at 200,000 in 2011 (325,000 in OTL). Its population reached 100,000 in 1934 already, and most comparable West German cities managed to double their size since then, last but not least by the annexation of neighbouring communities.

Note that Bonn's population keeps rising despite the loss of the government. Few German cities do so nowadays.

Well, while nobody outside of Europe would know Bonn, it would not be insignificant. However, it would lack the obscene amount of Autobahnen on its territory.

---

Frankfurt as a FRG capital would be an interesting thing. I assume it might manage to break the million-inhabitant-mark, and be it by managing to incorporate more of its vicinity. E.g. everything up to the Taunus range would ideally have become part of it. A political - financial powerhouse of that size would stand a far better chance post-1989 to retain the position of capital in a united Germany. Bonn had ridiculously good chances to do so because it was the status quo and a general scepticism towards the "Reichshauptstadt" Berlin. Frankfurt would have the additional advantage of being rather central. While in the FRG, Thurinigia is not far from there. And also, the river Main is proverbially called the "Weisswurst-Äquator", meaning it is the line which separates North and South in Germany.

---

A word on Berlin. As soon as Berlin becomes a larger centre than Potsdam, which it has always been, it is hard to replace it as the centre for this part of Germany. As poor as Brandenburg is concerning its natural ressources, it will probably have a central city of at least 300,000. That is still just 10% of OTL Berlin. Other places would benefit from such a shift: Magdeburg, Frankfurt/Oder, Stettin - but most of all Leipzig. Leipzig should under such circumstances become Germany's #3, #4 or #5 city with a population of at least close to a million, similar to OTL's Cologne.

---

Cities which might not have been....most places in the Ruhr District have rather arbitrarily chosen names. Any other village next to Bochum, Gelsenkirchen, Marl, Oberhausen, Herne, Bottrop, maybe even Essen could have ended up with boundaries within this conurbation which makes it a rather large city. So instead of the aforementioned names, we would be familiar with Wattenscheid, Schalke, Hüls, Sterkrade, Wanne, Kirchhellen and Werden. I tend to take Duisburg, Recklinghausen and Dortmund for granted due to them having been cities of some importance for centuries. Actually, Essen and Bochum are rather on the safer side, too.
 
2) Berlin. The existence of Berlin derives largely from the highly successful career of Albert I the Bear, Margrave of Brandenburg (c. 1100-1170, reigned 1157-1170).

He emerges on the scene as a Graf (Count) of Ballenstedt in 1123. His early years in that position paint him as a loyal supporter of Lothair III, Holy Roman Emperor (1075-1137, reigned 1125/1133-1137). However, he claimed the throne of the Northern March (Nordmark) by coup in 1128. Resulting in Lothair turning against him and depriving him of all his titles and lands. He redeemed himself by offering his military services to Lothiair's Italian Campaign (1132-1133).

He was restored in control of Ballenstedt in 1133, and of Nordmark in 1134. Over the following years he expanded his new realm by wars against the Wends. He gained Brandenburg through inheritance in 1150. He merged the lands of the North Mark to those of Brandenburg to create a new state.

His lands were vast but scarcely populated, the population was a mix of Germans and West Slavs, Christians and Pagans. He "encouraged German migration, established bishoprics under his protection". Resulting in successful Germanization and expanding population. His descendants continued this policy and new cities appeared where only fishing villages existed. Among them Cölln (1237) and Berlin (1244). The cities had a combined population of 8,000 residents by the early 15th century.

----

In an alternate timeline, Albert could have met an early demise while campaigning in Italy during the 1130s. Perhaps killed in the failed siege of Milan. The throne of Ballenstedt passes to his nephew Werner (IV) von Veltheim (after 1128-1157) who is underage and requires a regency. Nordmark is still under the control of the unpopular Rudolf II von Stade (d. 1144) and the population is moving ever-closer to a revolt. (In the original timeline, Rudolf was killed while facing a peasant revolt on what was left of his areas). His most likely heir Hartwig von Stade (d. 1168) has aspirations of joining the priesthood and seems unlikely to ever provide military leadership. (In the original timeline, Hartwig inherited Stade. But quit his secular areas in exchange for the position of Archbishop of Bremen in 1148). Brandenburg seems destined to remain in West Slavic hands for decades and the German borders themselves seem unstable. Expansionistic efforts such as the Wendish Crusade (1147) might be averted as Lothair III's seeming lack of useful supporters encourages his arc-rivals, the Hohenstaufens, to revolt against him.

While the border areas of the Holy Roman Empire are in steady decline, the West Slavic populations get a breather. And an opportunity to reinforce their cities. Cities such as Brandenburg an der Havel, Bad Belzig, and Beelitz. The area of Berlin remains a mere swamp for the foreseeable future. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_an_der_Havel and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Belzig and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beelitz
 
Last edited:
i could see an ATL where the capital of the united kingdom is in, say, edinburgh or glasgow instead of london, depending on who the ruling family is or even if there was some borderline ASB event in teh past which allowed scotland to conquer england
 
i could see an ATL where the capital of the united kingdom is in, say, edinburgh or glasgow instead of london, depending on who the ruling family is or even if there was some borderline ASB event in teh past which allowed scotland to conquer england

It'll move south. Not only is London economically, physcially, politically and culturally a much bigger and more important city than any city in Scotland, but England as a whole has always had a much larger, much richer population than Scotland.
 
It'll move south. Not only is London economically, physcially, politically and culturally a much bigger and more important city than any city in Scotland, but England as a whole has always had a much larger, much richer population than Scotland.

The only way for any dynasty ruling England to retain their native culture is for England to be greatly weakened.
 
While revising An Alternate History of the Netherlands, it has been pointed out that I've been picking on Antwerp. That being said, it certainly is not the port in AHN as it is in our world.
 
Top