Possible "Step-Conquerors"
- Thread starter Aluma
- Start date
Sounds quite reasonable. What his subjects were unhappy about? 😨Because conquering Denmark, Russia, Prussia, Austria and France are separate steps.
If the problem arises (GIVA manages to piss his subjects off with his project of conquering the world as per @Lord High Executioner ) then, after the death of his brother, FC does not have a serious competition. JBB in power (if “Peacemaker” scenario is working) is not involved in the Baltic affairs, which potentially leaves Alexander Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov and the Brits as those who may influence the final choice. Having Denmark-Norway-Sweden union probably would not be an attractive idea for either of them and the same considerations would apply to his heir, future Christian VIII of Denmark.
One thing to remember about Pompeius is a certain man named Lucius Licinius Lucullus. The man was a gifted general, and nearly finished the Mithradates wars, when pompey decided he needes some glory and stole the war right our from under him. Had lucullus auctually finished the war himself and then gone on to done the things in the east that pompey had done, Pompey likely wouldnt be nearly as remembered as he is.
Possibly that the resulting state was to be called something like the Swedo-Dano-Russo-Prusso-Austro-Franco Nation.
Should I mention again that this was a joke from a 1890s author? (If memory serves from something like a parody/satire
on history books.)
Although Swedish Wikipedia does describe his view of Sweden's military power as unrealistic, and, as I said, he does come
across as perfectly able to cause a coup/revolution without Napoleon.
The German Question as well, as without the Napoleonic War Swedish Pommerania may remain a thing.
Maybe we eventually end up with a situation in which Denmark controls one side of the strait while the Swedes control the other, with Norway (and Finland) Swedish, but Schleswig, Holstein, and Pomerania Danish?
Uhm... Sweden has controlled one side of the strait since 1658...
As Bernard Shaw remarked, the symptoms of a military genius and an idiot are exactly the same so his subjects could be easily confused (and the following generations can easily suck up to the bad PR). 😂😂😂
ATL Prince Rupert in a greater protestant 30YW victory inherits Bohemia and goes to town on Poland, Prussia, and Hungary (Austria/Ottoman).
Yeah, Pompey lost to Caesar at Dyrrachium despite possessing a larger, better supplied army. That doesn't speak well of his generalship.
That's a slight generalization. Caesar's soldiers were sooo much more better trained than Pompey's army.
Yes, the plan is not too different from one of King Pikrohol from “Gargantua and Pantagruel” but even with the fewer resources. 😂
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
I disagree with the implications you make from the bolded parts that a major victory at Antietam means no Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862.
Lincoln already had the Emancipation Proclamation "spring-loaded". The concept was there and developed, he probably had a draft, he had already decided on it's value and necessity. He was just waiting for victory so that it did not look like a desperate expedient, a deathbed conversion for a losing Union cause. In OTL, the defense victory of Antietam was a credible enough victory that Lincoln released the EP. If McLellan delivers a much more striking and decisive victory, Lincoln reacts by....going soft on his own idea? No, he has all the more political strength and reason to issue the EP. With the victory, Lincoln has more wiggle room to do what he wants, and he can argue it's time to put more pressure on the south. It was worded as a "surrender by the end of the year....or else" kind of thing, to sell it to the just-save-the Union and just-end-the-war, forget-the-slaves crowd. That justifies putting it out as a war-measure.
After being shellacked hard at Antietam, will the Confederates surrender lose most of their ground, surrender and end their rebellion before January 1 1863, thus avoiding the application of the Emancipation Proclamation to unreconstructed Confederate territory and saving slavery in 11 freshly surrendered Confederate states?
Not likely. The defeat at Antietam and the EP will divide southerners and CSA leaders. Sure there will be some pragmatist advocates despairing of defeat who advocate for prompt negotiated surrender to preserve 'property', but others, and I think we could count Davis among them, would be outraged at the temerity of Lincoln's ultimatum and insist on fighting, and the Union forces won't have the time or logistics to march through most of the Deep South before 1863 starts. So, I think the EP will still gut slavery though the heart of the south, even if some states, ironically ones with lower slave populations, hold onto it for awhile longer.
Tragic-- but still, imagine being (country) Georgia...
Well, France would still control the entire near-Britain coast up to Friesland, and through the Netherlands it theoretically holds title to South Africa and the East Indies. It could be possible that this sensible (well, as sensible as the French Republic can be) France still gets into some form of naval conflict. And in the long term France will be far and away the most industrialized country in the world, it will even overtake Britain-- but its ethnic diversity will be its Achilles hell and Britain would be wise to take note.
Although another thing is that France wouldn't be able to use marriage diplomacy with Austria. You could argue it didn't do Napoleon a whole lot of good but it's yet another option taken off the table, and without a crowned head France's polity is still an offensive anomaly (this maybe doesn't apply as much to Britain as to the Continent). If they had a king, hell they could even be included into a German Confederation-- the British crowned head got to join on the basis of also being the crowned head of Hanover, but the French have cut theirs off. It doesn't necessitate war, but even peace becomes this sort of provisional/ill-defined thing that can't draw on the past language of interaction between states.
This actually would make for a very interesting timeline. The Prussian Reform was brought about by the circumstance of 80% of the country being under occupation. Without the Reform Prussia may continue its decline from Frederick the Great's time (that king's performance may be thought of as an atypical period rather than the norm for Prussia), and Prussia would not have to engage with its liberals like Fichte and mavericks like von Stein. Prussia may end up distinctly out of step not only with its own intellectuals (especially as we go into Hegel, who had no use for Prussia outside its Reform period) but also its own officials and commanders, with no refuge except royalist personalism and no Rhineland resources to make them relevant despite all that. Even if Prussia wanted to try and seek legitimacy through the German national idea despite having none of its OTL post-Napoleonic selling points, that idea would already be embodied in Austria and the HRE, and embodied in the sort of noncommittal way that, for example, sees no inherent contradiction between Prussian/Austrian happiness and continued French occupation or even creeping assimilation of the Rhineland. And oh yeah, Poland-- Prussia would have Warsaw, and if Austria would choose Budapest over Frankfurt...
A world without Germany or without romantic nationalism in general, or in which romantic nationalism only lives on in the hearts of political radicals... and if a social revolution were to erupt in France, the radicals in the Rhineland would have to choose between their radicalism and their separatism. Of course I'm not really talking about Britain anymore but as for them, in a world where the French Republic technically survives (even in some authoritarian form) might this serve as a flag for reformism and radicalism in Britain itself? Supporting the "French way of things" wouldn't necessarily have to be unpatriotic if Britain and France are not in a generational war...
--
Does anyone know if the sister republics have to use the Republican calendar as well?
Last edited:
In such a ATL scenario:
- The Hapsburgs have been effectively neutered and aren't a threat.
- Prussia has yet to be a real power
- Poland is at peak power and will soon be on the decline as well as the Ottomans.
- Saxony is a joke.
Combine this with Rupert being:
A) Young and vigorous
B) A decent commander
C) A decent administrator
Rupert very well could be to Bohemia what Fredrick the Great was to Prussia.
Dagoth Ur
Banned
Sure maybe, I never said it was impossible. It'll just need some POD's big and far back enough that Ventidius being the conqueror of the Parthians is the least of your deviations from OTL. Some differences at least between Ventidius and Marius: Marius was Latin, of an established country gentry family, wealthy even before entering politics, spent his youth soldiering under the unchallenged first man in Rome Scipio Aemilianus, even wealthier from his propraetorian governorship of Hispania Ulterior, his career really blossomed when he married the patrician Julia Caesaris, and Marius became consul all on his own skill and machinations; Ventidius was Picentine, of unknown origin as his home city was destroyed in the Social War, not all that wealthy, began as a muleteer then spent his career under the divisive Julius Caesar (not really a minus though), never held a governorship, didn't really spend long enough in Rome or with the upper classes to establish any kind of alliance with them, and only became suffect consul with the support and patronization of Antony. It's kind of like comparing apples to oranges. But if enough POD's can change enough of Ventidius's career, then I'm all for it.
I think a pretty obvious one is how Simon Bolivar could have been very easily replaced by like three people, Miranda, Sucre and Santander and they would have done an arguably better job.