I'm current revisiting this scenario lately, and I've want to clarify: As I highlighted Extremadura, was it the Spanish region (Badajoz y Caceres) or its Portuguese counterpart, particulalrly the pre-1933 definition of the said region.
Una diferente ‘Plus Ultra’ - the Avís-Trastámara Kings of All Spain and the Indies (Updated 11/7)
- Thread starter Torbald
- Start date
I'm current revisiting this scenario lately, and I've want to clarify: As I highlighted Extremadura, was it the Spanish region (Badajoz y Caceres) or its Portuguese counterpart, particulalrly the pre-1933 definition of the said region.
The Extremadura mentioned was the OTL Spanish region, where some Portuguese have filtered in as artisans or cattle/sheep hands. Castilians have likewise been moved to Portuguese Alentejo to recoup the population loss of that region, as a disproportionate amount of Portuguese colonists in the Americas/Africa/Asia have come from that region.
So I've been considering some (relatively) minor retcons to this TL recently, and wanted to know what you guys thought. Don't worry, these would change nothing important about the current borders ITTL, and changes virtually nothing in regards to Spain.
- France and the Italian Wars - The retcon here is that Charles VIII doesn't suffer the same laughable fate as IOTL (dying after striking his head on the lintel of a door in Amboise), and instead lives on to have a daughter with Anne of Brittany, who has the exact same name and fills the exact same role as TTL's Claude/Claudia "la Ganada," the bride of Miguel da Paz and inheritor of the duchy of Brittany. Charles VIII also has a son with his second wife (not sure who yet, but nobody that would seriously change the TL) who likewise has the same name and role as TTL's Charles IX. TTL's Louis XII therefore never becomes king and instead is gifted with the Duchy of Milan, and he uses this new center of power to channel his ruthless cunning towards Italian affairs. The Italian wars are therefore much more drawn out and bloody, and the Spanish don't back out after the Second Italian War. Without a Habsburg sitting on the Spanish throne, the Habsburgs likewise cannot directly utilize the very useful armies of Spain and therefore the Italian quarrel is much more difficult for them. Cesare Borgia still seizes the duchy of Florence under the auspices of the Papacy and successfully defends it from a French siege, but now also cows Siena and Lucca into his hegemony, turning the Italian wars into a conflict between pro-French Northern Italy and anti-French Central and Southern Italy, with the Spanish fiercely guarding their hold on the kingdom of Naples and attempting to extend their influence over the Papcy and Tuscany, the Habsburgs making attempts of varying effort to restore order/control over the North, and the Venetians sort of vacillating between sides in the whole mess.
- The Ottoman Empire - Suleiman doesn't die at Chaldiran, and instead lives past his father's death. However, Selim's death is more drawn out, and the fevered state he languishes in (caused by a leg infection), somewhat muddles the succession and allows the Safavids to jump in and offer Musa assistance in seizing the throne (in exchange for an implicit life debt, of course). A Safavid loan allows Musa to pay off the assassins sent by his popular older brother and turn the tables, having Suleiman strangled in Edirne. This sudden upstaging causes chaos, which is made even worse when Musa breaks his promise with the Safavids, who find a new pretender to support. Musa just barely comes out on top after defeating his other brothers and repulsing a Persian invasion. All in all, the succession crisis is much more serious than it was ITTL, with many Christian princes planning invasions and hopeful that the whole affair would collapse the Ottoman state. This better explains why the Ottomans are so slow in regaining steam, only intervening in Hungary more than a decade later (with mixed results) and only being able to conquer the Mamluks in the 1540s. Likewise, these decades are also complicated by Musa's early attempts to restore confidence in the High Porte by the ever-reliable steam-blow-off that is military conquest, which he directs at the Knights of St John in Rhodes. However, the first siege is a failure (due partly to the advanced, cutting edge fortifications of Rhodes) and Musa waits another 3-5 years before mounting another expedition, which is successful but is also just as bloody as OTL. This constitutes another massive drain on Ottoman energy and resources, which also explains their lack of momentum in naval investments such as the Barbary Corsairs, while leaving much of their shipping in the hands of the Venetians for the time being. The Knights of St John are allowed to more or less peacefully depart Rhodes with their Greek allies as IOTL, and they are absorbed into the Spanish Ordenes Militantes, playing in instrumental role in counter piracy and the seizure and defense of ports in the Western and Central Mediterranean.
- England - This is a minor one, but I've decided to rename Edmund to Edward VI. It just makes more sense and the thought of TTL's Edward VI being a Counter-Reformation monarch is just too tongue-in-cheek for me to resist.
Not the update I hoped for, but still good. Yeah, I could easily accept all these. Maybe just add this to the threadmarks and call it "official retcons."
Don't worry, the next (very late) update is currently in the works 🙂 Also I'm probably just going to add in the new/changed elements into pre-existing updates
That's the extra effort that makes this thread so good. Can't wait.
I am on principle very opposed to retcons, they just seem so vulgar to me. Can you imagine famous writers retconning their novels?
Anyway it is your TL so it is your call. I would not have any changes but I would strive to use future events to more closely shape the timeline to be what you want it to be. Still in the case you are adamant about those changes, I think all of them are fine but I am not sure what changes the Italian ones make to the geopolitical situation, and to a lesser effect what changes the French ones make.
Anyway it is your TL so it is your call. I would not have any changes but I would strive to use future events to more closely shape the timeline to be what you want it to be. Still in the case you are adamant about those changes, I think all of them are fine but I am not sure what changes the Italian ones make to the geopolitical situation, and to a lesser effect what changes the French ones make.
I am personally rather fine with reading the story years, or even decades, before it would have been published at the cost of since author didn't get to finish story then spend a long time editing that they will have to do it later.
Last time I checked, AH.com isn't a publishing house for famous novels.
It is just my literary position on the matter, no need to be upset guys. The author can agree or disagree, he asked for our opinions after all. I just find the idea of changing your work post-release very distasteful. For context my first big fandom was Warcraft and that setting is an absolute mess of retcons.
That said, I thought about the idea that we should look at this as pre-release editing before you mentioned it. But it does not quite hold, we as the audience are already absorbing the story. Even if it comes piecemeal like this. It is annoying if it gets changed as what we know becomes muddied and confusing. It diminishes the work and its appreciation.
However if we want to get into a debate about "are retcons ok" we should probably do it in another thread. And I guess I came off like a snob but that was not my intent.
That said, I thought about the idea that we should look at this as pre-release editing before you mentioned it. But it does not quite hold, we as the audience are already absorbing the story. Even if it comes piecemeal like this. It is annoying if it gets changed as what we know becomes muddied and confusing. It diminishes the work and its appreciation.
However if we want to get into a debate about "are retcons ok" we should probably do it in another thread. And I guess I came off like a snob but that was not my intent.
It is just my literary position on the matter, no need to be upset guys. The author can agree or disagree, he asked for our opinions after all. I just find the idea of changing your work post-release very distasteful. For context my first big fandom was Warcraft and that setting is an absolute mess of retcons.
That said, I thought about the idea that we should look at this as pre-release editing before you mentioned it. But it does not quite hold, we as the audience are already absorbing the story. Even if it comes piecemeal like this. It is annoying if it gets changed as what we know becomes muddied and confusing. It diminishes the work and its appreciation.
However if we want to get into a debate about "are retcons ok" we should probably do it in another thread. And I guess I came off like a snob but that was not my intent.
I'm not "upset", simply pointing out a flaw in your analogy. Also, I'm pretty sure Torbald asked for our opinions on his revisions, not on the topic of revisions in general.
And it doesn't matter how we look at his writing, whether it's pre-release or post-release or w.e. He hasn't sold us a product; he has no obligation to maximise our appreciation of anything. There is no debate over whether retcons are ok because it's not even up for debate. He can retcon the whole story, or even delete the whole thread if he wishes.
The only reason I've considered doing any retconning is because I wanted to better flesh out some events and provide more reasonable explanations as to how things have ended up, not to drastically change something that was heretofore set in stone. The Italian Wars and the ascent of the Ottoman Empire were two of the defining developments of the 16th century IOTL, so I've been feeling a bit remiss that I've given them such short thrift. Also keep in mind that virtually nothing is going to change in regards to Spain and its empire, which is obviously the primary focus of this entire TL. I think retcons are also much more admissible in alternate history than they are in, say, your average work of fiction because they revolve around the analysis and comparison of historical facts - something that is more or less inexhaustible by nature and always demanding/capable of re-evaluation. If I were to put out an update that had a historical error that was so egregious that it made any suspension of disbelief impossible, I would consider it sort of lazy to not try to amend it.
Anyway, expect the next update sometime this week or next week In the meantime, are there any questions anyone had or anything they'd like to discuss?
Anyway, expect the next update sometime this week or next week
In the meantime, are there any questions anyone had or anything they'd like to discuss?I forgot to add another retcon explanation/flesh-out, kind of a big one:
The Sack of Rome - Rome is indeed sacked in a manner similar to OTL, but in 1512 rather than 1527. This sack is carried out by unrestrained French gendarmes and Swiss mercenaries instead of Charles V's underpaid troops. During the Second Italian War, a French army under Jacques de La Palice pushes deep into Lazio after routing the Papal army under Prospero Colonna at Viterbo and soon finds itself within range of the Roman suburbs. With no force ready to defend it, Rome is a very tempting target for the French and Swiss, who are (of course) underpaid and fairly irked that over the length of their campaign. Similar to OTL, there's also a widespread, simmering distaste for the corruption of the Papacy and a bit of patriotic hatred for Pope Julius II's "Fuori i Barbari!" anti-French + anti-Swiss + anti-foreigner foreign policies, so the thought of giving Rome a whipping is appealing to even the more devout members of the Franco-Swiss army. When Jacques de la Palice unexpectedly dies from a camp illness, his lieutenant, the Scotsman Robert Stewart, is unable to maintain control. However, since this is before the Reformation, the sack is still less religiously charged than IOTL and while atrocities are committed, they are not quite as numerous and appalling either. This damages the reputation of the French monarchy and is one of the reasons why the French are so isolated in the later 20 Years War (having to ally themselves with the Protestants), and when the French eventually turn around to free Florence from the pro-Papal Cesare Borgia, their defeat there is seen as the anticipated punishment of God. This has a serious effect on TTL's Protestant Reformation. As some of you may have noticed, TTL's Martin Luther is a little bit more subdued in his anti-Catholicism than IOTL, and this is rooted in the 1512 Sack of Rome: having done his pilgrimage to Rome in 1515, Luther sees the long-term effects of the depredations done there three years earlier and is therefore not exposed to an overly venal, debauched Church as he was IOTL, and his primary issues are limited to paid indulgences, simony, nepotism, illiteracy and an overall lack of quality control in the priesthood, and the need for a greater focus on faith rather than works in relation to personal justification. Even Luther's criticism of indulgences is a little less excoriating ITTL, as most of the money accumulated goes to repairing Rome's sack-related damages. Since the Habsburgs ITTL are limited to Central Europe, they have a better finger on the pulse as to that's going on in Germany and therefore choose a much more sensitive approach to Luther and his associates - going so far as to block the entrance and dissemination of papal bulls that announce Luther's excommunication or emphasize his heterodoxy. Luther never fully re-enters the Roman fold, but his followers are much less separated from the Catholic Church and this "Saxon Rite" Catholic congregation more or less remains or re-enters into communion with Rome. Due to the cooperation of the Habsburgs with Luther, you could even say that Charles V was technically a Lutheran ITTL (albeit following our different definition of Lutheranism). Johann Meyer later springs up to fill in the gap left by Luther's closeness to Rome, as Luther's arm is held very tightly by the Habsburgs and there are many people in Germany that are too agitated to stay in the moderate camp. This earlier sack is also one of the reasons the Papacy ITTL is so willing to address the need for major reform and call an ecumenical council. The OTL 1527 Sack of Rome was a major wake-up call for a Papacy that refused to directly devote effort to reform and answer the complaints of its detractors ( Pope Clement VII stated that an ecumenical council should be avoided as long as it could, for instance), meaning that ITTL the Papacy has received this wake-up call 15 years earlier and before the Reformation instead of 10 years after it was already underway.
Again, let me know what you think, and if you have any questions.
The Sack of Rome - Rome is indeed sacked in a manner similar to OTL, but in 1512 rather than 1527. This sack is carried out by unrestrained French gendarmes and Swiss mercenaries instead of Charles V's underpaid troops. During the Second Italian War, a French army under Jacques de La Palice pushes deep into Lazio after routing the Papal army under Prospero Colonna at Viterbo and soon finds itself within range of the Roman suburbs. With no force ready to defend it, Rome is a very tempting target for the French and Swiss, who are (of course) underpaid and fairly irked that over the length of their campaign. Similar to OTL, there's also a widespread, simmering distaste for the corruption of the Papacy and a bit of patriotic hatred for Pope Julius II's "Fuori i Barbari!" anti-French + anti-Swiss + anti-foreigner foreign policies, so the thought of giving Rome a whipping is appealing to even the more devout members of the Franco-Swiss army. When Jacques de la Palice unexpectedly dies from a camp illness, his lieutenant, the Scotsman Robert Stewart, is unable to maintain control. However, since this is before the Reformation, the sack is still less religiously charged than IOTL and while atrocities are committed, they are not quite as numerous and appalling either. This damages the reputation of the French monarchy and is one of the reasons why the French are so isolated in the later 20 Years War (having to ally themselves with the Protestants), and when the French eventually turn around to free Florence from the pro-Papal Cesare Borgia, their defeat there is seen as the anticipated punishment of God. This has a serious effect on TTL's Protestant Reformation. As some of you may have noticed, TTL's Martin Luther is a little bit more subdued in his anti-Catholicism than IOTL, and this is rooted in the 1512 Sack of Rome: having done his pilgrimage to Rome in 1515, Luther sees the long-term effects of the depredations done there three years earlier and is therefore not exposed to an overly venal, debauched Church as he was IOTL, and his primary issues are limited to paid indulgences, simony, nepotism, illiteracy and an overall lack of quality control in the priesthood, and the need for a greater focus on faith rather than works in relation to personal justification. Even Luther's criticism of indulgences is a little less excoriating ITTL, as most of the money accumulated goes to repairing Rome's sack-related damages. Since the Habsburgs ITTL are limited to Central Europe, they have a better finger on the pulse as to that's going on in Germany and therefore choose a much more sensitive approach to Luther and his associates - going so far as to block the entrance and dissemination of papal bulls that announce Luther's excommunication or emphasize his heterodoxy. Luther never fully re-enters the Roman fold, but his followers are much less separated from the Catholic Church and this "Saxon Rite" Catholic congregation more or less remains or re-enters into communion with Rome. Due to the cooperation of the Habsburgs with Luther, you could even say that Charles V was technically a Lutheran ITTL (albeit following our different definition of Lutheranism). Johann Meyer later springs up to fill in the gap left by Luther's closeness to Rome, as Luther's arm is held very tightly by the Habsburgs and there are many people in Germany that are too agitated to stay in the moderate camp. This earlier sack is also one of the reasons the Papacy ITTL is so willing to address the need for major reform and call an ecumenical council. The OTL 1527 Sack of Rome was a major wake-up call for a Papacy that refused to directly devote effort to reform and answer the complaints of its detractors ( Pope Clement VII stated that an ecumenical council should be avoided as long as it could, for instance), meaning that ITTL the Papacy has received this wake-up call 15 years earlier and before the Reformation instead of 10 years after it was already underway.
Again, let me know what you think, and if you have any questions.
Well, while I think that this would have a greater impact than OTL and indeed could have meant even rather damaging for France public image... I don't think that it could be worse than, in OTL, it was for Charles V and neither that it would so important as was stated in your retcon or at least, that it (as seems) could be so above of other factors. Ones that given OTL/TTL political-religious tension and conflict in Europe probably the isolation 'd be more related to the age's 'political pragmatism' or even more due to political-religious interest...