There are parallels between the rivalry between the Italics and the Etruscans/Rhaetians with the Chinese States and the Chu Kingdom.
Possible "Step-Conquerors"
- Thread starter Aluma
- Start date
There are parallels between the rivalry between the Italics and the Etruscans/Rhaetians with the Chinese States and the Chu Kingdom.
Another parallelism, would be how the mos maiorum was all about preserving harmony and order in society, too - Roman religion was very practical, up to and including its relationship with the divine; had the Roman Republic been able to turn into an actual republic, rather than a city-state with a network of clients spanning three continents, or had imperial succession been formalized, you'd probably see a China-like bureaucracy emerge, Rome had all the right ingredients for that, but no recipe.
Hell, you could even recreate Buddhism through nothing but bits and pieces of Greek philosophy, even though that's probably also due to the Hellenistic ties between the Mediterranean and the Indian subcontinent, going both ways.
Originally, Rome was uniting the Italic Tribes but ended up conquering the Celt Tribes between them, the same thing happened to China.
"Moderately" I'd say
I dont think he would go for the whole thing but if Alexander is alive he might be pushed into annexing Persia after, you know, his son pretty much got the throne
Highly doubt he'd allow any more conquests though
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
So, France under Bernadotte, saving 15 years of war:
These borders:
Is Britain going to tolerate that realistically?
And could this realistically, as in OTL's 1815, lead to a future, where there are no later Franco-British wars?
Last edited:
If Germany is still unified I wonder if a Kaiserreich scenario could take place where Britain takes a bit of the french revolutionary ideals as they try to hold back the Reich together
That'd feel like a more organic developement than the clusterfuck that was OTL funnily enough
At that time this was considered an acceptable option by the Brits. What’s more, it would be acceptable for the main players of the Continental Europe (Prussia may have some issues but probably not all the way to be ready to go to war alone). Austria is getting back most of its losses, in Russia Paul most probably survives (for a while) and after him Alexander is not suffering of the OTL inferiority complex: none of the triumvirate members is a “great man” and there no urge to prove himself. So Britain would find itself out of the useful idiots. The fact that the coalitions’ members usually had interests of their own and not just executed orders from London is often forgotten. 😉
With France being out of Germany and Italy, what would be a fundamental reason for Britain not to “tolerate” the situation?
The 1812 Overture could easily be restyled Minin and Pozharsky or something. Alexander I actually commissioned an opera on the very subject (Minin and Pozharsky's defense of Moscow) at the time, IIRC, to celebrate the 200th anniversary. After all, Tchaikovsky only wrote the overture well after the date in the name. And since he wrote it for a sort of "all purpose piece" of the dedication of the Church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow, the anniversary of Alexander II's coronation and the Russian Arts and Industry Exhibition, it could end up based on Minin and Pozharsky, with the Marsellaise being replaced (not unlike how in the Communist era, the quoting of God Save The Czar was replaced with quoting "Glory to Thee, Holy Rus" from Glinka's opera, A Life for the Czar) by whichever melody suits the occasion. The thing about the overture is that - besides the quoting of the Marsellaise - it quotes almost as many Russian folk-tunes (At the Door, At My Door, is one of them) as your average Ralph Vaughan Williams piece of chamber music.
But I agree, the Americans playing the 1812 at their independence day celebrations is more than a little ironic.
TBH an Antony as princeps scenario would probably end with a knife in Antony's back. He just doesn't seem to have had the political savvy of Augustus.
That doesn't seem to have been all that unique to Rome, IIRC: archaic Italy saw a lot of elite mobility, and lots of city-states probably had leading citizens from other communities.
TBH an Etruscan Empire scenario would probably need a POD so far back that you could give the empire virtually any character you wanted.
Yes, but how would it be “linked” to the US war of 1812? 😉
He could but Tchaikovsky was not around.
Him being born in 1840, this is kind of obvious. The point which you, perhaps, missing is that quite a few people here in the US seriously believe that it has something to do with the War of 1812. (*)
_____
(*) If you do the google search on “war of 1812” the top (and perhaps the only) results would be this epic event which involved a whooping 90,000 combatants on both sides and unprecedented (by that time) total loss of 25,000 dead. For the obscure and totally historically insignificant minor event which happened at the same time on the other side of the Atlantic you have to look for The French invasion of Russia, or Russian Campaign, or the Second Polish War, or the Second Polish Campaign or the Patriotic War of 1812. 😂😂😂
Last edited:
Şehzade Mustafa of the Ottoman Empire.
Mustafa was the eldest son of Sultan Süleyman the Magnificent, and was known to be his favourite. He was the most popular of Süleyman's sons, and was known to be a capable military commander and civil administrator, having served as a commander in his father's wars with Persia and a governor in the provinces of Manisa and Amasya. He was especially popular among the Janissaries. It seemed that Süleyman was grooming Mustafa to be his successor. However, Süleyman eventually ordered Mustafa to be executed. The reasons behind this are complex and obscure, from a suspected conspiracy among the Janissaries which involved Mustafa, to internal politics within the Harem between Mustafa's mother and Hürrem, the Sultan's favourite wife and the mother of his other sons.
Regardless, Süleyman had executed his most capable and deserving heir, and was instead succeeded by Selim II, called "the Drunk." Selim wasn't a terrible sultan, really (the Battle of Lepanto happened under his reign, but that's hardly his fault; and naturally, any good Muslim would object to the Caliph's love of wine), but he was far from worthy of Süleyman's legacy. He's remembered mostly as a self-indulgent ruler of middling talent, whose reign was less illustrious than his father's or his son's (Murad III). Had a more active sultan like Mustafa been in charge -- one more skilled at managing the various factions in the Sublime Porte; who commanded greater respect among the people, the army, and the religious authorities; who had more experience in prosecuting wars and in engaging in diplomacy -- maybe the Ottoman Empire could have achieved greater heights. Maybe the development of strong political factions (especially within the Janissaries) could have been delayed or prevented. Or maybe not -- if Mustafa's reign was marked by glorious conquest, and he had relied on Janissary factions for support, then maybe the Empire would become more factious even as it continued its expansion.
Mustafa was the eldest son of Sultan Süleyman the Magnificent, and was known to be his favourite. He was the most popular of Süleyman's sons, and was known to be a capable military commander and civil administrator, having served as a commander in his father's wars with Persia and a governor in the provinces of Manisa and Amasya. He was especially popular among the Janissaries. It seemed that Süleyman was grooming Mustafa to be his successor. However, Süleyman eventually ordered Mustafa to be executed. The reasons behind this are complex and obscure, from a suspected conspiracy among the Janissaries which involved Mustafa, to internal politics within the Harem between Mustafa's mother and Hürrem, the Sultan's favourite wife and the mother of his other sons.
Regardless, Süleyman had executed his most capable and deserving heir, and was instead succeeded by Selim II, called "the Drunk." Selim wasn't a terrible sultan, really (the Battle of Lepanto happened under his reign, but that's hardly his fault; and naturally, any good Muslim would object to the Caliph's love of wine), but he was far from worthy of Süleyman's legacy. He's remembered mostly as a self-indulgent ruler of middling talent, whose reign was less illustrious than his father's or his son's (Murad III). Had a more active sultan like Mustafa been in charge -- one more skilled at managing the various factions in the Sublime Porte; who commanded greater respect among the people, the army, and the religious authorities; who had more experience in prosecuting wars and in engaging in diplomacy -- maybe the Ottoman Empire could have achieved greater heights. Maybe the development of strong political factions (especially within the Janissaries) could have been delayed or prevented. Or maybe not -- if Mustafa's reign was marked by glorious conquest, and he had relied on Janissary factions for support, then maybe the Empire would become more factious even as it continued its expansion.
I'd also like to nominate George B. McClellan. If he'd made better tactical decisions, the American Civil War might have ended in September 1862. If McClellan had pursued and captured Lee after the Union victory at Antietam, the whole history of the US would be different.
While it'd be good that the war was shorter and less destructive, the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't signed until September 1862 -- after the Battle of Antietam, partially in response to Lee's escape. Lincoln needed to give his demoralised troops and war-weary nation a great cause to fight for, and make it impolitic for European powers to consider intervening. So Lincoln decided (on the advice of Frederick Douglass, William H. Seward, and others) to make the slavery issue central to the Union cause, just as it already was for the Confederate cause. And Lincoln also dismissed McClellan, both for his incompetence and for his pro-slavery views.
Had the slavery-sympathising McClellan guaranteed a quick Union victory, the slavery question might be pushed down the line even further. In the name of reconciliation and suchlike, Southern states might be allowed to keep slavery, since there was no legal ground or political incentive for total abolition. It'd be like Reconstruction OTL, only even worse for black folk.
While it'd be good that the war was shorter and less destructive, the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't signed until September 1862 -- after the Battle of Antietam, partially in response to Lee's escape. Lincoln needed to give his demoralised troops and war-weary nation a great cause to fight for, and make it impolitic for European powers to consider intervening. So Lincoln decided (on the advice of Frederick Douglass, William H. Seward, and others) to make the slavery issue central to the Union cause, just as it already was for the Confederate cause. And Lincoln also dismissed McClellan, both for his incompetence and for his pro-slavery views.
Had the slavery-sympathising McClellan guaranteed a quick Union victory, the slavery question might be pushed down the line even further. In the name of reconciliation and suchlike, Southern states might be allowed to keep slavery, since there was no legal ground or political incentive for total abolition. It'd be like Reconstruction OTL, only even worse for black folk.
Last edited:
Miguel Lanius
Banned
Or would it be? Slavery might end up being phased out anyway, and it might end up in less resentment towards black folks.
You right, possibly in the long term but not the short term. One thing the long civil war did was allowed people to resent, be emotionally attached to the cause that was lost, and blame those damn yankees and damn carpetbagger Yankees trying to fix them.
A McCellan victory makes a less resentful South, less attached to holding on to a lost, idealized past.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
An absolutely fabulous choice as a "step-conqueror" of the Confederacy, and someone who take on the political laurels of U.S. Grant after the war.
To be clear on this POD: McClellan destroys the Army of Northern Virginia - kill/capture/incapacitate somewhere around 40-50,000 men - and then Jefferson Davis and the rest surrender?
Because the ANV is not the one army of the Confederacy, or Virginia the only state it still holds in September 1862 - and "Jefferson Davis surrenders within weeks." is an interesting change from his RL behavior after the fall of Richmond. Probably going to impact the post-war developments for good or ill.
Because the ANV is not the one army of the Confederacy, or Virginia the only state it still holds in September 1862 - and "Jefferson Davis surrenders within weeks." is an interesting change from his RL behavior after the fall of Richmond. Probably going to impact the post-war developments for good or ill.