Possible "Step-Conquerors"
- Thread starter Aluma
- Start date
I mean they do have money!
But more seriously I am referring to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_Paula_Santander who was a far better administrator and politician than Bolivar and has a very interesting life.
As we all know, Anwar Sadat succeeded Jamal Abdel-Nasser as President of Egypt. During Nasser's time, Egypt was a one-party state under the Arab Socialist Union; and when the Union appointed Sadat to be Nasser's successor, it was expected he'd continue Nasser's policies. Instead, Sadat's presidency was famous for his reconciliation with the US and NATO, the recognition of the State of Israel, the expulsion of Soviet military advisors, the liberalisation of the economy and privatisation of public industries, and the end of one-party rule in Egypt.
But the Arab Socialist Union was a broad coalition, and there were other candidates. For example Hussein el-Shafei. El-Shafei was a military man; like Nasser and Sadat, he was of the nine original Free Officers, and was important in coordinating Egypt's military ties to other Arab states like Syria and Iraq. If el-Shafei was President, I can imagine Egypt staying on its pro-Soviet, anti-monarchist, anti-Islamist route, maintaining or possibly escalating the Arab Cold War with Saudi Arabia. I imagine that the Arab Socialist Union of Egypt might grow closer to the Baath Party of Iraq and Syria, too.
Another candidate might be Abdel Latif Boghdadi. Boghdadi was also one of the Free Officers, and had been Nasser's vice president, minister of defense, and had also been the Speaker of the National Assembly. He is often thought of as the guy behind the scenes -- Nasser was the politician, but Boghdadi was the civil servant. Nasser and Boghdadi did have a falling out over Nasser's increasing reliance on Soviet influence, but they did reconcile shortly before Nasser's death. If Boghdadi was called back into public service, I can see Egypt pursuing a greater commitment to the Non-Aligned Movement.
Also, even though Egypt was a "one party" state, there was a partisan opposition. Many anti-Nasserists -- even the officially-illegal Muslim Brotherhood -- were represented in Parliament as independent candidates. While I doubt anyone could become president without the support of the Arab Socialist Union, there were factions within the ASU which favoured reconciliation with the Muslim Brotherhood and would be willing to make concessions to Islamists in exchange for political support. It'd be interesting to see how a soft-Islamist Egyptian government would respond to, say, the Iran-Iraq War or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; and how Egypt's response might affect Saudi Arabia's.
In any case -- Sadat and his policies (reconciliation with the West, recognition of Israel, liberalisation, etc) were far from inevitable. Egypt could have gone down some very different paths.
But the Arab Socialist Union was a broad coalition, and there were other candidates. For example Hussein el-Shafei. El-Shafei was a military man; like Nasser and Sadat, he was of the nine original Free Officers, and was important in coordinating Egypt's military ties to other Arab states like Syria and Iraq. If el-Shafei was President, I can imagine Egypt staying on its pro-Soviet, anti-monarchist, anti-Islamist route, maintaining or possibly escalating the Arab Cold War with Saudi Arabia. I imagine that the Arab Socialist Union of Egypt might grow closer to the Baath Party of Iraq and Syria, too.
Another candidate might be Abdel Latif Boghdadi. Boghdadi was also one of the Free Officers, and had been Nasser's vice president, minister of defense, and had also been the Speaker of the National Assembly. He is often thought of as the guy behind the scenes -- Nasser was the politician, but Boghdadi was the civil servant. Nasser and Boghdadi did have a falling out over Nasser's increasing reliance on Soviet influence, but they did reconcile shortly before Nasser's death. If Boghdadi was called back into public service, I can see Egypt pursuing a greater commitment to the Non-Aligned Movement.
Also, even though Egypt was a "one party" state, there was a partisan opposition. Many anti-Nasserists -- even the officially-illegal Muslim Brotherhood -- were represented in Parliament as independent candidates. While I doubt anyone could become president without the support of the Arab Socialist Union, there were factions within the ASU which favoured reconciliation with the Muslim Brotherhood and would be willing to make concessions to Islamists in exchange for political support. It'd be interesting to see how a soft-Islamist Egyptian government would respond to, say, the Iran-Iraq War or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; and how Egypt's response might affect Saudi Arabia's.
In any case -- Sadat and his policies (reconciliation with the West, recognition of Israel, liberalisation, etc) were far from inevitable. Egypt could have gone down some very different paths.
Last edited:
That is interesting:
could we have a great middle eastern power had the Arab socialist union survived?
Would it be enough to divert the middle east from the path of Islamic fundamentalism?
Dagoth Ur
Banned
That all depends more on foreign manipulation of politics for resource extraction than anything else. Of course a proper socialist union that supports worker's rights, education, industrial development, and infrastructure, that owns its own resources, will be crushed into the dust if there is any world power analogue of our own from the 1950's to today.
Norway may beg to differ as much as it likes, but the strait that matters - the one that gave Denmark the sound dues - is
Öresund, not Skagerak (of which Sweden has also controlled one side since 1658 and would control two if, as you
suggested, it controlled Norway).
Not to mention that Öresund lies between Skagerak and Pommerania.
So we're arguing over the semantics of where a strait ends. Splendid.
That's just regular history and politics ; In fact a lot of weirder things have happened than a perfectly ordinary territorial dispute!
I think we're at the far more basic point of arguing over what a strait is.
Although we could also argue over the semantics of what"one side of the strait"
means, as Norway lies west of Skagerak, while Sweden lies east and Denmark south.
Another way of rephrasing the argument, using different places, would be talking
about the Netherlands holding one side of the channel. (With the sidetrack of whether
Frisia lies at the channel.)
Furthermore, I indeed would argue that while Kattegat can be considered a continuation of Skagerak
from a geographic point of view, that geographic entity ends at and with Zealand (and Funen).
Which is where the Danish Straits, Öresund being one of them, begins.
BUUT...
Going back to the original question, which, phrasing aside, was about a territory switch Norway for
Pomerania, I find upon googling around that that apparently and technically Swedish Pomerania
was exchanged for Norway in the Treaty of Kiel (1814).
In practise, Norway declared independence and Sweden went "No, not handing over Pomerania".
Then again, I'm not sure if Denmark would have kept [Danish] Pomerania at the Congress of Vienna,
where Swedish Pomerania went to Prussia.
And there's the matter of non-Swedish Pomerania, the bit between Holstein and Swedish Pomerania
(and whether all of that is, strictly speaking, Pomerania).
No. Geography.
@BrSonic. With most of the best-known conquerors and failures already being discussed, how about a less-known but definitely not ordinary figure, fieldmarshal Munnich? Unfortunately, there is no OTL “replacement” figure but if this is OK with you to make him “his own step conqueror”, things can be quite interesting.
The most interesting thing about the prototype was that he was a remarkable example of a talented figure who was consistently managing to shoot himself on a foot with the rather serious consequences for the Russian Empire. If this is OK by you, I can proceed
Last edited:
Thanks.
So we have Burkhard Christoph von Munnich. A talented military and civic engineer. Entered Russian service during the reign of Peter I and greatly impressed Peter by completing the Ladoga canal allowing to bypass the dangerous waters of the Ladoga Lake. Continued career under CI and PII, became a count, governor-general of St-Petersburg. Upon the coronation of Anna of Russia (1730), he was instructed to prepare the city for the return of Imperial court. After successfully accomplishing that Münnich was promoted to a General-Fieldmarshal (*), was appointed to the position of president of Russian War Collegiate in 1732 as well as given an order to re-organize the Russian army, which he implemented with a great success, etc. Without any doubt he was a very good organizer.
He was also a very lucky general. With him in charge you could always count on a lucky shot hitting enemy’s gunpowder storage during seemingly failing assault of a fortress or something else of the kind.
He was a founder of what became the main Russian XVIII century (successful) tactics against the Ottomans: the attacking infantry squares.
He was the first commander who took fortifications of Perekop and successfully invaded the Crimea, defeated both the Tatars and Ottomans and never lost a battle.
With all things above being true, he also was a bad army commander. Rather ironically, because he was paying too much attention to the logistics.
POD #1:
OTL. War with the Ottomans (**) started and he was put in charge. While his battlefield tactics was innovative and victorious, his marching arrangements had been terrible. The main problem in the wars against Tatars was preserving the train and he found solution, which was guarantying implementation of this task (***). The infantry had been marching over the steppes in the same famous “Munnich squares” with the baggage train and the herd of oxen inside, in other words, extremely slowly (try to walk over a long distance in unnaturally slow pace) suffering losses by the thousands from heat and exhaustion (eventually, some of the column commanders had to abandon the system). Similar problems had been plaguing his army in the peninsula: to minimize the risk he was keeping his army in a single body running out of food and suffering huge losses from the diseases until he had been forced to leave the peninsula. He took Ochakov, advanced into Moldavia and decisively defeated the Ottomans. Seemingly good? Yeah, sure. His operations in the Crimea and Moldavia took so much time that the allied Austrians got an opportunity to do what they were really good at: got defeated by the Ottomans and stared separate peace talks. Head of the Russian foreign politics, Osterman, who was unwaveringly pro-Austrian, followed the suit and Russia made a “glorious” peace by which practically all conquests had been returned to the Ottomans.
“Step-conqueror #1”: Prince Dolgorukov-Crymsky. In 1771 was ordered to attack the Crimea. Started campaign in June, 1771. Without noticeable problems marched to the Perekop, took it, defeated the Crimean armies in two battles, occupied the peninsula, forced Khan to flee to Constantinople and picked a pro-Russian replacement. The fighting activities took 2-3 months. While receiving St. George 1st Class did not even make into the fieldmarshal (****).
In 1736 a fast and decisive victory followed by the successful occupation of the Crimea may leave it within Russian sphere of influence.
“Step-conqueror #2”. Rumyantsev - as far as operations in Moldavia are involved. Without the international support (as in 1768-74) the Ottomans probably could be forced to some territorial concessions. But the Austrians and Osterman are still around so….
POD #2:
In OTL when Empress Anna was dying, Munnich got along with her choice of a successor, Ivan VI. After Anne’s death he overthrew the regent, Biron, the Duke of Courland, but soon was outmaneuvered by Osterman and forced into a retirement. After the coup of Elizabeth he was accused in the numerous high crimes (the real reason was that he did not support her candidacy as a heir) and spent the next 20 years in Siberia (leading quite active life: growing vegetables, teaching the local children, writing military and engineering projects).
Let’s assume that he made the right choice. For example, arrested not just Biron but also the Brunswick family and offered crown to Elizabeth or, less spectacular, after forced into retirement visited her offering his services and assuring on his loyalty. After Elizabeth’s accession he is a figure #1 in the Russian military establishment even if just due to the fact that the competition is absent. He can continue with his military reforms and when the 7YW is coming the Russian army is not in such a lousy state as in OTL and he is uncontested candidate to the position of commander in chief. He was definitely head and shoulders above the OTL Apraxin and Fermor (who was his subordinate during the Ottoman War) and the same goes for much advised (Kunersdorf) Saltykov. Of course, he is not good enough to win a war against Old Fritz but greater success with the fewer losses is probably realistic and Fritz may not get the 1st Miracle which. allowed him to reorganize after defeat at Kunersdorf.
POD #3:
During Catherine’s coup he was staying with Peter III (who returned him from the exile) and presumably gave him some good advices which peter did not follow. CII did not held this against him, held him in a high regard and gave him important assignments. But what if Peter followed his advices and retained the throne?
______
(*) A successfully arranged public show surely was a reliable way to get a handsome reward: in 1815 Barclay was made a prince of the Russian Empire for arranging a massive military parade near Paris. 😂
(**) The best-known participant of this war was Hieronymus von Münchhausen. Flying on a cannonball took place (IIRC) during the siege of Ochakov. Pulling himself by the hair out of a swamp and riding half of a horse also happened during that war.
(***) Formulating a task correctly can be tricky and if you are missing something you may end up either with an answer to the question “how to camouflage a railroad?” (“plant the trees between the rails”) or with the “Munnich square”.
(****) Rule of the thumb: If you have some unflattering opinions regarding your empress, keep them to yourself.
Last edited: