POD's that wank each country

[GregTheWolf144]

For an Italy-wank, would a Rome which developed into a China-esque "eternal empire" count for such a challenge?

Absolutely

 

[Lothal]

Greece:
Win the Greco-Turkish War/stop the government infighting over central power alignment and allied alignment.
Serbia:
A: Keep the Serbian Empire alive after Stefan Dušan’s death. conquer Constantinople and send the Ottomans back to Anatolia
B: Make Yugoslavia much more explicitly Greater Serbia right out of the gate?
Hungary:
A: prevent the 4th Crusade and weather the Mongol Invasions, then you will have an Arpadid Hungary that rules Pannonia, Croatia, all of OTL Romania, Galicia, Austria proper and Bosnia. Instead of being Catholicism’s bastion of the east it could be its own Orthodox patriarchate.
B: Angevin Hungary lasts, leading to a Hungary-Poland-Naples-Albania-Provence union in the 1400s
Romania:
Michael the Brave’s union lasts
Really like 90% of the possible wanks in the Balkans involves the Ottoman empire not existing lol

 

[Elfwine]

Hungary:
A: prevent the 4th Crusade and weather the Mongol Invasions, then you will have an Arpadid Hungary that rules Pannonia, Croatia, all of OTL Romania, Galicia, Austria proper and Bosnia. Instead of being Catholicism’s bastion of the east it could be its own Orthodox patriarchate.

Why would it be Orthodox?

Here's another country for the list: Iran.

Nader Shah (and his successors) transform Iran into a more modern, more organized state which wields significant power in the Middle East, and is not a plaything of Russia and Britain.

 

[GregTheWolf144]

Any England wank needs to be after the 1680s. The Glorious Revolution was a master stroke that gave them the best of Dutch capitalist innovations and a constitutional monarchy in one stroke. Without both of those, there would be no industrial revolution and no Britannia Rules the Waves.

The Colonies were mostly founded before then though

 

[ramones1986]

For the Philippines, a wank that involves speakers of a direct descendant(s) of proto-Philippine language.

For Southeast Asia in general, a slight wank involving both Austroasiatic and Austronesian speakers in relation to a couple of southern Chinese regions (Yunnan-Guizhou and Jiangnan-Fujian respectively).

 

[GoukaRyuu]

Any England wank needs to be after the 1680s. The Glorious Revolution was a master stroke that gave them the best of Dutch capitalist innovations and a constitutional monarchy in one stroke. Without both of those, there would be no industrial revolution and no Britannia Rules the Waves.

Couldn't it be argued that we lived in a world that was at one time pretty damn close to an England-wank?

 

[Old1812]

Rather have an empire and one ally than a principality and many.
That being said, I reckon that's true. I've thought about some kind of swedo-spanish wittelsbach family compact before, but it doesn't seem particularly likely..
PS: Maybe england? Feels like a natural ally, in all honesty. Everyone else wants something (European) from them.

Would France be an ally of a Wittelsbach Spain, or am I projecting too much of Max Emanuel's OTL behavior in the War of the Spanish Succession onto TTL Spain?

 

[Superninja76]

Would France be an ally of a Wittelsbach Spain, or am I projecting too much of Max Emanuel's OTL behavior in the War of the Spanish Succession onto TTL Spain?

They'd be more likely to be an enemy, in all honesty. France has it's claim which it likely will want to effect; Charles II (at the will of the cortes) had willed the undivided Spanish empire to Joseph Ferdinand. Of course, the great powers (sans austria) had already agreed to a partition treaty, so that'd cause serious issues.. I would fully anticipate that le Roi Soleil, as was his character, would abrogate the treaty and, if you'll forgive a Godfather reference, go to the mattresses.

 

[Maeglin]

I think the existence of a grand United States of America that covered from the North Pole to the Guatemalan border would change the politics of Europe more than the USA. The number of Roman Catholics added would roughly equal the number of Protestants. While the North East Protestant/Puritan stronghold was anti-Catholic, the South before the Civil war wasn't Roman Catholic phobic and had a very strong Roman Catholic presence. The USA was full of pockets of different languages and cultures. Consider the large number of German speaking areas. The USA already had a system for expansion in its government. What I would expect is that people would emigrate from troubled areas in Europe to Mexico so the Hispanic influence in Mexico would get diluted just as was happening until Juarez. If the common people living in Mexico were allowed to get the same land reform and rapid breakup of the Haciendas as the ones who lived in California, USA did, I would expect the common man would be very much in favor and would actively support the new government. I would also expect the Hispanic language and cultural influence to blur as people sought economic opportunities. For example, I would expect a large number to Mexicans to participate in the Oklahoma land rush. Their children would go to public schools in English, along side Crimean Mennonites, Germans, etc. English would remain the administrative language for all. In a couple of generations, the old languages would no longer be used in day to day life and fluency in them would drop off rapidly. Has French remained as the day to day majority language in the areas of the Illinois purchase? How much Spanish was heard in 1900 in Florida?

Check the industrial growth and improvement of the Russian Empire's economy up to the Russian Revolution. They were progressing very well. They had the population and the natural resources to be a great power and were building up both the industry and the knowledge base. People revolt when they have a reason to revolt. If Russia and Germany both had sensible leaders that worked in unity as members of a single family to build their part of the family business up rather than tear each other's countries down, there wouldn't have been a World War I. The economic boom in Russia would have continued and with it the Tsar and the Kaiser would still sit on their thrones, just like the kings and queens of Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Great Britain do today. Would there have been a War similar to our Second World War if Germany, Russia and Great Britain were all part of one sensible family business? I don't see how it would be possible. That would also leave the Balkans, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria with kings on a throne, and quite possibly Spain and Portugal as well. Having a constitutional monarchy with a fully representative parliament would be the normal way of government for Europe. The only major country outside of this system would be France, and I would see them far more likely to join into it than enter a war against it.

Mexico was rather more than a cultural pocket. We are talking a country with its own national identity. It is not going to gleefully accept American annexation (never heard of the famous line about "Poor Mexico. So far from God, and so near the United States"? The USA is not loved in Latin America) - which means the USA will need to keep its military there for decades. And that sort of expense proves unpopular even when there is a noble cause behind it (c.f. Reconstruction), whereas here we're talking generic imperial craziness.

(Meanwhile, support for keeping and occupying the whole of Mexico was a fringe nutter position in the USA at the time. There's a reason for that).

Imperial Russia's growth pre-WWI was bankrolled by the French, in pursuit of an ally against Berlin. The second that capital gets removed, the house of cards falls over. Quite apart from the fact that Russian peasant literacy in the era was appalling (getting Russians literate was something the Soviets got right), a product of the entire pseudo-medieval political and religious structure. Removing Nicky doesn't fix that. You're dealing with a broken, outdated, reactionary mess of a system that relied on autocracy to actually achieve anything, and which had to be dragged kicking and screaming into even enacting minor reforms. That is not a recipe for long-term prosperity.

(Hell, a less murderous and maniacal Stalin would probably be a better bet than any sort of surviving Tsarist regime).

 

[Old1812]

They'd be more likely to be an enemy, in all honesty. France has it's claim which it likely will want to effect; Charles II (at the will of the cortes) had willed the undivided Spanish empire to Joseph Ferdinand. Of course, the great powers (sans austria) had already agreed to a partition treaty, so that'd cause serious issues.. I would fully anticipate that le Roi Soleil, as was his character, would abrogate the treaty and, if you'll forgive a Godfather reference, go to the mattresses.

Interesting, the last time we had a discussion on Joseph Ferdinand, some of the posters were arguing Louis would know that the Habsburgs are his natural enemy, and thus it's better to have the Wittelsbachs in Madrid, even if he'd prefer it be his grandson.

 

[The Laughing Hyenas]

[...]

Imperial Russia's growth pre-WWI was bankrolled by the French, in pursuit of an ally against Berlin. The second that capital gets removed, the house of cards falls over. Quite apart from the fact that Russian peasant literacy in the era was appalling (getting Russians literate was something the Soviets got right), a product of the entire pseudo-medieval political and religious structure. Removing Nicky doesn't fix that. You're dealing with a broken, outdated, reactionary mess of a system that relied on autocracy to actually achieve anything, and which had to be dragged kicking and screaming into even enacting minor reforms. That is not a recipe for long-term prosperity.

(Hell, a less murderous and maniacal Stalin would probably be a better bet than any sort of surviving Tsarist regime).

What would happen if Germany and Great Britain had bankrolled Russia, in exchange for Russian raw materials? That cold have been very good business for everyone but France.

 

[Taunay]

There are many for Brazil, I'll just select one from each period:

• Colonial era (1500s): No Iberian Union. Brazil/Portugal enter into a war with Spain over the control of the Platine region and Portugal wins.
• Colonial era (1600s): Bandeirantes win the Battle of Mbororé. Brazil expands more into the Argentinian Mesopotamia and Paraguay.
• Colonial era (1700s): No Alvará de 1785. Development of early manufacturing in Brazil (Earlier industrialization)
• UKPBA (1800s): Have the United Kingdom of Brazil, Portugal and Algarves survive. Either Napoleon wins the wars or the 1820 Porto revolution fails
• Pedro I: Win the Cisplatine War
• Regency Era: hmm... difficult one, too short and too unstable. Maybe you can prevent some rebellions?
• Pedro II: The 1889 Coup fails/ The Land Law of 1850 is more similar to the Homestead Acts, booming the population and increasing settlement
• First Republic: One of the Tenentist revolts succeed
• Vargas Era: Brazil joins WW2 later in order to extract more concessions from the Allies
• Populist Republic: The 1964 Coup fails. Land reform takes place, Brazil industrializes and due to that, a population boom takes place.
• Military dictatorship: It falls earlier (IDK how)
• New Republic: Just more stability in general

 

[Crazy Boris]

Ukraine: Khlmenytsky’s planned alliance with Russia and the Ottomans succeeds with neither overstepping the Hetmanate’s sovereignty and managing to hold the PLC at bay. The Hetmanate survives either as a satellite to Russia or an autonomy within it like Finland until the revolution, and is successfully able to fend off the Bolsheviks (maybe with Polish help) and internal tensions, and escape incorporation into the USSR.

Tonga: Ma’afu’s conquests are annexed directly into the Tongan state and includes all of Vanua Levu and the Lau Islands. Cakobau is unable to reclaim these areas for his Fijian kingdom, and Britain doesn’t interfere during their hegemony in the pacific

 

[Gabingston]

Mexico was rather more than a cultural pocket. We are talking a country with its own national identity. It is not going to gleefully accept American annexation (never heard of the famous line about "Poor Mexico. So far from God, and so near the United States"? The USA is not loved in Latin America) - which means the USA will need to keep its military there for decades. And that sort of expense proves unpopular even when there is a noble cause behind it (c.f. Reconstruction), whereas here we're talking generic imperial craziness.

(Meanwhile, support for keeping and occupying the whole of Mexico was a fringe nutter position in the USA at the time. There's a reason for that).

Agreed. At most the U.S. would annex OTL's post-war Mexican North and keep the Mexican Center and South around as a client state. Mexico had eight million or so people at the time, and most of them were Mestizo/Indigenous Hispanophone Catholics, and the U.S. of the Mid-19th Century wasn't in a mood to embrace miscegenation, multilingualism or Catholicism.

 

[material_boy]

If anything it makes a devastating civil war more likely

How ...?

 

[The Laughing Hyenas]

Mexico was rather more than a cultural pocket. We are talking a country with its own national identity. It is not going to gleefully accept American annexation (never heard of the famous line about "Poor Mexico. So far from God, and so near the United States"? The USA is not loved in Latin America) - which means the USA will need to keep its military there for decades. And that sort of expense proves unpopular even when there is a noble cause behind it (c.f. Reconstruction), whereas here we're talking generic imperial craziness.

That the USA is not loved in Latin America currently isn't relevant here. Things were very different in the first third of the 19th century, before even the Mexican-American war. If the USA had been the "great liberators of the common people," overturned the Hacienda system and distributed the land to the peasants that worked the land, those common people would have been far more supportive.

Agreed. At most the U.S. would annex OTL's post-war Mexican North and keep the Mexican Center and South around as a client state. Mexico had eight million or so people at the time, and most of them were Mestizo/Indigenous Hispanophone Catholics, and the U.S. of the Mid-19th Century wasn't in a mood to embrace miscegenation, multilingualism or Catholicism.

Just by mineral resources, all of Mexico is extremely valuable and exploitable. Exactly what the USA needed to build industrialization early and to feed it. Large amounts of money can increase even the Protestant elite's acceptance of miscegenation, multilingualism and Catholicism. The Monroe Doctrine from 1823 and the First Franco-Mexican War would be sufficient to invade Mexico. Polk's armies held Mexico City and the Mexican American War already annexed most of Mexico. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican–American_War for the quote below.

Before the secession of Texas, Mexico comprised almost 1,700,000 sq mi (4,400,000 km2), but by 1849 it was just under 800,000 square miles (2,100,000 km2). Another 30,000 square miles (78,000 km2) were sold to the U.S. in the Gadsden Purchase of 1853, so the total reduction of Mexican territory was more than 55%, or 900,000 square miles (2,300,000 km2).

Since they took most of Mexico, why stop with the arid parts and not literally go for the gold when there was enough gold to support any additional troops for "pacification of the Indians."

Gold mining in Mexico is very well distributed. Some is in the far South. https://www.mining-technology.com/marketdata/five-largest-gold-mines-mexico-2020/ S

Silver mining in Mexico is in Central to Southern Mexico. https://geo-mexico.com/?p=9664

Copper mines are in Sonora, under Arizona. https://www.mining-technology.com/marketdata/five-largest-copper-mines-mexico-2020/

Iron, however, is distributed well throughout Mexico. https://mexicobusiness.news/mining/news/mexicos-main-iron-ore-mines

Coal is in Coahuila, under Texas. https://www.mining-technology.com/marketdata/five-largest-coal-mines-mexico-2020/

 

[Whiteshore]

Ukraine: Khlmenytsky’s planned alliance with Russia and the Ottomans succeeds with neither overstepping the Hetmanate’s sovereignty and managing to hold the PLC at bay. The Hetmanate survives either as a satellite to Russia or an autonomy within it like Finland until the revolution, and is successfully able to fend off the Bolsheviks (maybe with Polish help) and internal tensions, and escape incorporation into the USSR.

Considering a China-esque Rome counts as an Italy-wank, on that note, a *Russia centered around Kyiv instead of the core of Vladimir-Suzdal could count as a Ukraine-wank as well.

 

[Cregan]

India: Aurangzeb comes to power under less turbulent circumstances, allowing him to pursue a more lenient policy towards Hindus and keeping revolts to a low simmer. The Mughal Empire remains in control of much of the subcontinent and avoids the chaos and fragmentation that led to it being directly colonized by Europeans.

This is a fantastic TL (Alamgirnama) by @Madhukar_Shah with a similar premise - https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/alamgirnama-a-mughal-timeline.450855/

 

[Socrates]

Not sure about that. An England wank could have beeen done with a Commonwealth of England route *with a twist* as well. Although the adaption of the Dutch financial innovations could/would be slower, the Navy would have been spared from during the Stuart Restoration years when it was neglected and North America would have been unified much sooner, plus better education.

A surviving commonwealth does not have constitutional rule. Absolutist rule + slow adoption of Dutch innovations = France's 18th Century. But with lower population.

 

[Socrates]

How much would an Armada victory in 1588 help Spain?

Not much. It would screw England but likely overextend Spain. Their social practices and economic flaws meant they are still going to fall a long way behind France.