The Triumph of Barbarossa and the Victory of the Holy Roman Empire

[Elfwine]

Indeed, but no matter what the butterfly horde, we may still be fairly certain that India shall see earlier and greater European colonial contact, trade, and penetration, with the BE getting the lion's share, but with the HRE, Franglia (or Britance, as you wish ), and Iberia hot on their heels.

I'd go with Franglia just because it relates to Franks as the term for Western Europeans, but six of one, half a dozen of the other.

And agreed. Hard to tell how much more - this is getting into how the Indian states react, but it would be very hard for India to be meaningfully independent.

My basic idea was that the Shiite confession, with its more structured clergy, might become a more efficient rallying force to help Persia resist Byzantine expansion. Not a necessary development or even high-probability butterfly by any means, however.

Ah, understood. Could work, yes.

Hmm, I think you have a fairly accurate picture, here. The theological rift between the Coptic Church and the rest of Christendom was based on Christological issues that infuriatingly technical as they may be, were more than a bit more difficult to mend than the East-West split, that was essentially grounded on the Papacy's arsehole pretensions at supremacy. Having said, that, a wise Byzantine leadership can certainly achieve peaceful coexistence between Uniates and Copts and downplay the rift.

Yeah. So long as neither side has particularly obnoxious clergy to make it more than just a Christological debate - theology is one thing, but politics are another.

Yup. Even more so because even if some of those conversions aren't actually that sincere, they are not going to stay so generation after generation. If the *Moriscos are generally left alone, spontaneous social pressure shall make it so that in a few centuries, their "deviancy" is little more than a bunch of odd family traditions.

Yeah. Well below the level anyone should care about, and the buttheads are busy with the Copt-Uniate issue.

Indeed. No one of TTL empires has yet reached a size where sheer distance makes it unlikely that they shall reach the 21st century with the current borders. Their coesion is still quite manageable with Early Modern or better technology.

Getting to the point of it taking effort and energy to maintain though. There's a reason none of these hegemons (with the exception of the Ottomans being the Byzantines of this scenario) existed. But that's the nature of empires.

Well, as I was saying above, I think that at this point and broadly speaking, the European imperial states might have already achieved more or less the "final" sizes and shapes of their permanent mainland cores, and may become TTL equivalent of OTL European nation-states. Of course, going from the 16th to the 21st century, there are still plenty of bits that could be won or lost on the periphery in wars between them. And there are still some bits that need to be rounded up, such as the HRE and Iberia claiming Sahara and the Nordic Kingdom claiming Karelia. Plus the Eastern European buffer zone between the HRE and BE might evolve in various ways, and the BE might still manage to assimilate a bit more in Persia, Arabia, or northeastern Africa.

Yeah. I'm not altogether convinced the whole area is a core, but otherwise we agree on this.

The colonial expansion in the Americas, eastern Asia, and subsaharan Africa is another matter entirely, but then again, there is no high probability they would manage to keep those territories.

Canada OTL is probably as closely tied as any Western European state can expect from any American colonies.

When I spoke of these states transitioning to modern federal democracy, I was picturing something more like the German Bundesrepublik, Switzerland, the quasi-federal status of Spain, the devolution of Scotland, or the Russian Federation (if it actually were a democracy). The Commonwealth (in the 1914 sense) would be far too loose a model, and may actually be a good comparison if the European states manage to keep a confederal bond with their extra-European colonies.

Well, I'm more pessimistic than you, but I think its possible as the "successful" end of things (in quotes as having Egypt split off at all is hardly a success).

Yup, I know what are you referring to here, and I agree that this is a quite essential step. However, I'm also fairly confident that by this point, TTL European imperial states have more or less managed to achieve it, otherwise they would have never managed to grow and stabilize in their current shapes over three centuries. We would have seen rather more domestic instability.

Yeah. If it hasn't flared up to an empire breaking level so far, its probably not going to happen any time soon. And "disasters can happen" is really not relevant to whether or not these are basically workable or basically flawed.

At least for the HRE and BE (the states most in need of it), there has been some TL indication that their ruling classes are making an honest effort at tapping neo-Roman ideals and practices (as well as it could be done starting from a Middle Age mindset) as an all-encompassing basis to stabilize their empires.

That should count for a good deal, though I'm still iffy about Eastern Europe in this regard - though as stated, if it hasn't caused any problems by 1500, it won't suddenly do so.

Wonder how the neo-Roman ideals will come off when they start taking land in India, for instance. This is heading into entirely foreign territory.

Doesn't mean it will fail, but it will be interesting reading whether or not it is interesting times.

The Americas and the rest of Africa will be even more fascinating. Somehow I imagine this timeline's equivalent ideology to "the White man's Burden" is going to be rather different than ours if the states retain a sense that incorporating subject people as fellow citizens is the ultimate goal.

 

[Eurofed]

I'd go with Franglia just because it relates to Franks as the term for Western Europeans, but six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Yup, although I just made a re-read of the TL, and the proper TL term for it is Gallic Empire.

And agreed. Hard to tell how much more - this is getting into how the Indian states react, but it would be very hard for India to be meaningfully independent.

Yup. TTL India is first in the way of eastward European colonial expansion, without the Ottoman buffer, and with even stronger colonial powers. A strong united Indian empire might keep its independence, but pre-colonial imperial unity of India had a definite and frustrating lack of staying power, and the Hindu-Muslim split only made things worse.

OTOH, earlier colonial expansion might better the chances of China and Japan, if they get the right kind of rulers.

Ah, understood. Could work, yes.

Well, judging from a spoiler bit about a 19th century Persian-Byzantine war, it seems that TTL Persia does survive BE expansion (even if it probably becomes the eternal underdog) or it is conquered for a while but eventually breaks free later.

Yeah. So long as neither side has particularly obnoxious clergy to make it more than just a Christological debate - theology is one thing, but politics are another.

Yeah. Well below the level anyone should care about, and the buttheads are busy with the Copt-Uniate issue.

Agreed on both.

Getting to the point of it taking effort and energy to maintain though. There's a reason none of these hegemons (with the exception of the Ottomans being the Byzantines of this scenario) existed. But that's the nature of empires.

Acknowledged. But technological progress is going to make things easier down the line. TTL main PoD has unleashed a competitive process of consolidation among European states, and more or less all of the empires that emerged make good geopolitical sense. There is a reason b/c all of them represent causes that "almost could" in history.

Yeah. I'm not altogether convinced the whole area is a core, but otherwise we agree on this.

Well, plenty of peripheral bits could still be gained or lost and the borders hence changed in the next six centuries, but barring unforeseen disasters, I'm fairly confident that the bulk of these empires (except maybe Prussia) may easily be as solid as OTL Western European nation-states.

Canada OTL is probably as closely tied as any Western European state can expect from any American colonies.

Well, I may or may not agree depending on which point of Canadian history we pick up. IMO, there was no pressing reason why Britain and the Dominions could not evolve into the Imperial Federation or stay tied into a confederal bond akin to the pre-1914 setup.

Well, I'm more pessimistic than you, but I think its possible as the "successful" end of things (in quotes as having Egypt split off at all is hardly a success).

Of course, there may be variations within the basic model. But I see no pressing reason why the modern versions of these European states should want or need anything more than your typical federal democracy.

Yeah. If it hasn't flared up to an empire breaking level so far, its probably not going to happen any time soon. And "disasters can happen" is really not relevant to whether or not these are basically workable or basically flawed.

That should count for a good deal, though I'm still iffy about Eastern Europe in this regard - though as stated, if it hasn't caused any problems by 1500, it won't suddenly do so.

My exact point. As it concerns Eastern Europe, it depends what we mean by that term: I do not see the parts of it posing any special difficulty that have been so far included in the HRE, BE, and Rossiya. OTOH, I'm not yet sure about the long-term outcome of Prussia (it shares OTL Poland's geopolitical curse), and Hungary and the fragmented buffer zone between HRE and BE could turn in a variety of ways.

Wonder how the neo-Roman ideals will come off when they start taking land in India, for instance. This is heading into entirely foreign territory.

Doesn't mean it will fail, but it will be interesting reading whether or not it is interesting times.

The Americas and the rest of Africa will be even more fascinating. Somehow I imagine this timeline's equivalent ideology to "the White man's Burden" is going to be rather different than ours if the states retain a sense that incorporating subject people as fellow citizens is the ultimate goal.

Very good point. Although the impact of neo-Roman ideals is always going to be maximum within western Eurasia-northern Africa for obvious reasons, if they drive TTL hegemons to give a fairer deal to colonized extra-European peoples, and do not cheat too much on the promise that "the White Man's Burden" implied, the consequences are going to be substantial. The natural outcome would seem to be a much more graceful, gradual, partial, efficient, and amicable decolonization.

 

[Elfwine]

Yup, although I just made a re-read of the TL, and the proper TL term for it is Gallic Empire.

Gallic Empire isn't as cool as Franglia though. Oh well.

Yup. TTL India is first in the way of Eastern European colonial expansion, without the Ottoman buffer, and with even stronger colonial powers. A strong united Indian empire might keep its independence, but pre-colonial imperial unity of India had a definite and frustrating lack of staying power, and the Hindu-Muslim split only made things worse.

OTOH, earlier colonial expansion might better the chances of China and Japan, if they get the right kind of rulers.

That "if" is quite a problem, though.

Well, judging from a spoiler bit about a 19th century Persian-Byzantine war, it seems that TTL Persia does survive BE expansion (even if it probably becomes the eternal underdog) or it is conquered for a while but eventually breaks free later.

Makes sense.

Acknowledged. But technological progress is going to make things easier down the line. TTL main PoD has unleashed a competitive process of consolidation among European states, and more or less all of the empires that emerged make good geopolitical sense. There is a reason b/c all of them represent causes that "almost could" in history.

Yep. I think the HRE is a mite oversized to be an "almost could", but a lot of that depends on how well they handled the eastern part (Poland and is that also Hungary?)

Still, manageable with the right decisions, and we already covered the issue of making them or not.

Well, plenty of peripheral bits could still be gained or lost and the borders hence changed in the next six centuries, but barring unforeseen disasters, I'm fairly confident that the bulk of these empires (except maybe Prussia) may easily be as solid as OTL Western European nation-states.

The bulk, yes, the whole, no. But a lot of that depends on what counts (within the empires) as "peripheral" and "secondary". It would still be possible to fall short of the potential to cover so far for the BE and HRE - the Gallic Empire is probably within the realm of the doable as long as the Celtic areas aren't determined to revolt.

Well, I may or may not agree depending on which point of Canadian history we pick up. IMO, there was no pressing reason why Britain and the Dominions could not evolve into the Imperial Federation or stay tied into a confederal bond akin to the pre-1914 setup.

I think there being ties is probable, thus mentioning Canada of OTL - but "Canada referred to the northern North American territories of the Gallic Empire, it has no meaning beyond that." is probably too far.

More likely to be a close union than full control, in other words. There's no absolute reason its impossible, but at some point, this starts being "for some reason, everyone joyfully supports the hegemon with all their heart" and that gets increasingly implausible - just because humans are good at being discontented.

Of course, there may be variations within the basic model. But I see no pressing reason why the modern versions of these European states should want or need anything more than your typical federal democracy.

Optimist. Not unreasonable, but certainly the "happy ending" version.

My exact point. As it concerns Eastern Europe, it depends what we mean by that term: I do not see the parts of it posing any special difficulty that have been so far included in the HRE, BE, and Rossiya. OTOH, I'm not yet sure about the long-term outcome of Prussia (it shares OTL Poland's geopolitical curse), and Hungary and the fragmented buffer zone between HRE and BE could turn in a variety of ways.

Eastern Europe: If Germany is Central Europe, the area east of Germany.

Its not unconquerable or unruleable, but its evolved differently than its two neighboring empires so the process of neo-Romanizing is built without the existing ties that are there between say, the German and Italian parts of the HRE.

Very good point. Although the impact of neo-Roman ideals is always going to be maximum within western Eurasia-northern Africa for obvious reasons, if they drive TTL hegemons to give a fairer deal to colonized extra-European peoples, and do not cheat too much on the promise that "the White Man's Burden" implied, the consequences are going to be substantial. The natural outcome would seem to be a much more graceful, gradual, partial, efficient, and amicable decolonization.

Seems sensible. Easier said than done, but its ideologically doable.

 

[Eurofed]

Gallic Empire isn't as cool as Franglia though. Oh well.

Well nothing stops us from using Franglia as an informal name, even in an IC sense, but Gallic Empire is the official name because it was the only way for its rulers to claim an Imperial title with some Roman pedigree and precedent (the Gallic Empire was a short-lived Roman breakaway state during the 3rd century crisis) and so claim equality with the HRE and BE.

That "if" is quite a problem, though.

Indeed.

Yep. I think the HRE is a mite oversized to be an "almost could", but a lot of that depends on how well they handled the eastern part (Poland and is that also Hungary?)

No. While Poland indeed got absorbed by the HRE (or to be exact, it was divided between the HRE and Prussia at the Vistula), Hungary so far remained independent as a buffer state between the HRE and the BE.

I think there being ties is probable, thus mentioning Canada of OTL - but "Canada referred to the northern North American territories of the Gallic Empire, it has no meaning beyond that." is probably too far.

More likely to be a close union than full control, in other words. There's no absolute reason its impossible, but at some point, this starts being "for some reason, everyone joyfully supports the hegemon with all their heart" and that gets increasingly implausible - just because humans are good at being discontented.

Well, then we are in agreement, since I was arguing for the maintainance of some kind of close union, but not full control, being feasible if everything goes well. I was just objecting to the use of modern Canada or Australia as an example, since they are fully independent, and their residual personal union with Britain through a figurehead with no real powers is meaningless.

Optimist. Not unreasonable, but certainly the "happy ending" version.

Optimism is my second name and nature, in AH as in everything else. I'm the guy who tackled Axiswank totalitarian genocidal dystopia and eventually turned it into a liveable semi-authoritarian spacefaring biopunk postfascist superstate over three generations, although I had to wade through a mountain of bodies to get at it.

Eastern Europe: If Germany is Central Europe, the area east of Germany.

Its not unconquerable or unruleable, but its evolved differently than its two neighboring empires so the process of neo-Romanizing is built without the existing ties that are there between say, the German and Italian parts of the HRE.

Admittedly, this makes a difference, but not an unmanageable one.

By the way, besides correct application of neo-Roman ideals and practices, there is another significant factor that is going to bind HRE Eastern Europe and North Africa to the empire: peaceful immigration of HRE settlers. This is a process that took place IOTL, and given the circumstances, we can only expect it shall take more massive proportions than OTL.

Apart from the Reaping Plague and a wave of peasant revolts in the 13th century, Germany and Italy have remained peaceful and prosperous these late three centuries, so they ought to have a sizable demographic surplus, while Poland, Tunisia, and Algeria suffered the ravages of war and conquest, Poland also the rampage of the Mongols and North Africa the displacement of those who fled Christian conquest, so there should be much room for HRE settlers.

The same issue is certainly valid also for the Arab lands conquered by the BE. Mesopotamia, the Levant, and eastern Anatolia were hit hard by the Mongol invasions, with the population displacements caused by Christian (Crusader and later Byzantine) conquest on top of it, and guess who's in the position to replace those losses with its own settlers, since it has largely remained peaceful and prosperous these late three centuries. Egypt admittedly didn't suffer the Mongol rampage, but the other factors still apply.

It is somewhat more difficult to tell what happens to Hungary and the rest of the Balkans buffer area in this regard. My best guess is that, even more so than OTL, they become an ethnic-linguistic hodgepodge between the various natives, HRE settlers, and BE settlers.

Seems sensible. Easier said than done, but its ideologically doable.

Yep.

 

[Elfwine]

Well nothing stops us from using Franglia as an informal name, even in an IC sense, but Gallic Empire is the official name because it was the only way for its rulers to claim an Imperial title with some shred of Roman pedigree and precedent (the Gallic Empire was a short-lived Roman breakaway state during the 3rd century crisis) and so claim equality with the HRE and BE.

Fair enough. Wonder if this means any neo-Roman ideas here as well. Not as necessary, but...

No. While Poland indeed got absorbed by the HRE (or to be exact, it was divided between the HRE and Prussia at the Vistula), Hungary so far remained independent as a buffer state between the HRE and BE.

Interesting times ahead for Hungary.

Well, then we are in agreement, since I was arguing for the maintainance of some kind of close union, but not full control, being feasible if everything goes well. I was just objecting to the use of modern Canada or Australia as an example, since they are fully independent, and their residual personal union with Britain through a figurehead with no real powers is meaningless.

Yep. Not sure what kind of union it would look like as times change, but we'll see.

Optimism is my second name and nature, in AH as everything else. I'm the guy who tackled Axiswank totalitarian genocidal dystopia and eventually turned it into a liveable semi-authoritarian spacefaring biopunk postfascist superstate over three generations, although I had to wade through a mountain of bodies to get at it.

You have way too much time on your hands...

Admittedly, this makes a difference, but not an unmanageable one. By the way, besides correct application of neo-Roman ideals and practices, there is another significant factor that is going to bind HRE Eastern Europe and North Africa to the empire: peaceful immigration of HRE settlers. This is a process that took place IOTL, and given the circumstances, we can only expect it shall take more massive proportions than OTL.

Apart from the Reaping Plague and some peasant revolts in the 13th century, Germany and Italy have remained peaceful and prosperous these late three centuries, so they ought to have a sizable demographic surplus, while Poland, Tunisia, and Algeria suffered the ravages of war and conquest, Poland also the rampage of the Mongols and North Africa the displacement of those who fled Christian conquest, so there should be much room for HRE settlers.

Seems sensible. Not sure how much Tunisia and Algeria are attractive, but I say this as someone who hates hot climates. Iberians will probably disagree with me.

The same issue is certainly valid also for the Arab lands conquered by the BE. Mesopotamia, the Levant, and eastern Anatolia were hit hard by the Mongol invasions, with the population displacements caused by Christian (Crusader and later Byzantine) conquest on top of it, and guess who's in the position to replace those losses with its own settlers, since it has largely remained peaceful and prosperous these late three centuries. Egypt admittedly didn't suffer the Mongol rampage, but the other factors still apply.

Having sufficient settlers is probably more of a problem - but that's just a population thing, Germany+Italy will have more...um...surplus population than the Byzantines.

 

[Eurofed]

Fair enough. Wonder if this means any neo-Roman ideas here as well. Not as necessary, but...

In all likelihood to some extent, although the HRE and the BE remain the torchbearers, for various reasons: neo-Roman imperial ideal is demonstrably much more successful ITTL in the eyes of Europeans, the *Renaissance (Anagennisi) is hitting earlier and more forcefully (and the Uniate Reform means it shall not be sidetracked by the Reformation and Counter-Reformation).

Interesting times ahead for Hungary.

Yup, hard to plot its ultimate outcome, and like the rest of the independent Balkans, in all likelihood even more of an ethnic-linguistic hodgepodge than OTL.

Seems sensible. Not sure how much Tunisia and Algeria are attractive, but I say this as someone who hates hot climates. Iberians will probably disagree with me.

No doubt, and Italians as well.

Having sufficient settlers is probably more of a problem - but that's just a population thing, Germany+Italy will have more...um...surplus population than the Byzantines.

A fair point.

 

[Elfwine]

In all likelihood to some extent, although the HRE and the BE remain the torchbearers, for various reasons: neo-Roman imperial ideal is demonstrably much more successful ITTL in the eyes of Europeans, the *Renaissance (Anagennisi) is hitting earlier and more forcefully (and the Uniate Reform means it shall not be sidetracked by the Reformation and Counter-Reformation).

I doubt this eliminates discontent entirely, but it would be very, very different.

More like the Hussites, less like the sweeping wave of Protestantism and Counter-Reform Catholicism.

 

[Eurofed]

I doubt this eliminates discontent entirely, but it would be very, very different.

More like the Hussites, less like the sweeping wave of Protestantism and Counter-Reform Catholicism.

Yep, for another couple centuries or so, till liberalism starts to become an alternative avenue, sociopolitical discontent is still going to be expressed through flares of heretical movements like the Hussites and the Dulcinians.

However, the Uniate reform largely defanged the Church as an independent power center and hoarder of wealth, so the huge disruption of Protestantism and Counter-Reform Catholicism is not going to happen.

 

[The Stormlord]

Rossiya: A History (Ioannis Melas)

The winter of 1521 was one of the worst ever recorded. Furthermore, the current Czar of Rossiya, Vasiliy II Rurikovich, was a decadent fool. His debauched parties angered the Uniate Church, and he failed to achieve much during his reign, angering the nobles.

A blast of hatred and several food shortages led to major riots in Moscow. The ever-coward, Vasiliy fled to Kiev, where he raised an army, while a figure, Andrei Zakharin-Yuriev (the House of Zakharin-Yuriev was later known as Andreiev, and was descended from a family of royal equerries) raised an army to take his throne. He could have waited it out and marched during the springtime, but Vasiliy foolishly sent it north in the dead of winter.

The army's last stop was at Bryansk; after there, having been reduced from 25,000 to about 3,000, it simply vanished into the winter and, along with its commander Ivan Bessoselsky, was never seen again. Its mysterious destruction was seen by some as a miracle and by Vasiliy as a diabolic thing; the most likely explanation is that the winter climate destroyed them.

Andrei sent his own army of 5,000 south in springtime and met Vasiliy's of 45,000 (the army he had wasted trying to get to Moscow had only been a small fraction) at a village near Kursk; thus, the battle is known as the Battle of Kursk. What resulted was a slaughter.

Vasiliy was an inept commander who still believed in feudal warfare; Andrei conserved his forces. Furthermore, Vasiliy had little artillery, while Andrei had both his own and that of foreign mercenaries. The ground was also wet from the spring melt.

Three assaults came, ended by Floga barrages and the cloying mud. Vasiliy was among the first killed. Panic and confusion killed more of Vasiliy's than any of Andrei's men.By the end, feudal warfare had been utterly discredited.

Andrei took the crown of Rossiya in 1522, beginning the Andreiev Dynasty.

 

[The Stormlord]

No comments?

 

[Zeldar155]

Bye bye Rurikovich.

Hello powerful Russia?

 

[Elfwine]

No comments?

Yay an update!

More seriously, looks good - though 5,000 vs. 45,000?

Still, could happen with great tactics vs. great stupidity. Looking forward to seeing the fate of Rossiya under the Andreievs. It seems Russia is going to be able to avoid being backward in this timeline better than in ours.

 

[Eurofed]

Still, could happen with great tactics vs. great stupidity. Looking forward to seeing the fate of Rossiya under the Andreievs. It seems Russia is going to be able to avoid being backward in this timeline better than in ours.

Yep. It seems Rossiya is doing some housecleaning.

 

[Elfwine]

:: pokes the thread with a stick.:: Is it dead?

 

[Reichenfaust]

I dunno, would like to see it continue.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

Interesting TL, if you can ignore the mistakes and implausibilities.

 

[The Stormlord]

Interesting TL, if you can ignore the mistakes and implausibilities.

Yeah.. .it was made when I was more...dumb. I'm less dumb now, but more insane.

And I don't know which is worse!

 

[Reichenfaust]

Yeah.. .it was made when I was more...dumb. I'm less dumb now, but more insane.

And I don't know which is worse!

Insanity usually has a high level of creativity, trust me I know

 

[Elfwine]

Insanity usually has a high level of creativity, trust me I know

Might be worth resurrecting as an exploration of a Eurofed-like scenario (Europe less divided and Christianity's push outside Europe does better than OTL), if anyone feels like writing that.

Me, I'm too fond of seeing Islamic states triumph (second only to the Byzantines) to want to write a reChristanized North Africa, let alone having Amalric take Egypt and that and all the rest that entails (with Barbarossa's triumph being in Italy, thus starting the Staufen rise even before Henry VI) .

But if it was done, I'd read it and help.