What countries could have become great powers/empires but didn't?

[alexmilman]

Creating a new entity out of Lithuania sounds a little bit like Vytautas, maybe, but I think you are downplaying the importance of Lithuania Propria somewhat.

Of course, I do: otherwise we'd just have OTL.

But, OTOH, if Vitold is getting a considerably lager state and, in addition, resources of the "Golden" (just using the traditional European name to minimize the confusion) Horde, then Lithuania is seriously marginalized in the terms of territory and population.

Sure, it was by no means a massive or an overwhelmingly most populous part of the country, but because of the extreme decentralization of the Lithuanian state (as you said, each constituent duchy had its own laws and stuff like that), its importance was disproportionately higher because it belonged directly to the Grand Duke, rather than a vassal duke or a viceroy. It committed much more troops and taxes to the state per capita (in the Battle of Grunwald, ethnic Lithuanian banners composed nearly half of the Grand Duchy's army, despite Lithuania Propria only having 20-25 percent of the population).

Now, you touched a critical issue which I intentionally did not mention in the 1st post (more or less expecting it to come up if there is a meaningful discussion). Lithuania of Vitold was more or less a loose confederation which included the lands of Lithuania proper (which also was not exactly a centralized state), "Russian" princedoms of the modern Belarussia and Ukraine and the lands which were just recognizing Vitold as their feudal superior (like Novgorod). Furthermore, the more or less significant Russian princedoms also had been "structured" having the senior prince (direct vassal of Vitold) ruling the main city of a region and his subordinate princes ruling the smaller cities. Plus, each of these personages had a recognized rule to go (with or without his princedom) to a foreign service (a number of these personages, later killed at Worskla, had been earlier fighting for Prince of Moscow against Emir Mamai).

OTOH, approximately at the same time the Great Princes of Moscow started consolidation of their territories into the centralized (by the standards of time) state. Vitold's grandson was a rather mediocre ruler but his son, Ivan III, "The Great", was quite successful in accomplishing this task. So, if (with a little bit of luck, helped by few murders) we have succession of Vitold's line through Sophia, then the end product is a major centralized state in the XV century. Of course, as I said, this "centralization" is still reasonably far away from the modern standards but at least it involves a very strong power of a supreme ruler.

As such, any wannabe Grand Dukes absolutely had to pay attention to the interests of the nobility and governors of Lithuania Propria, and having an Orthodox Muscovite take control would stand directly against their interests. Barring a much earlier centralization of Lithuania, and much wider than what Vytautas did during his reign, I can't see Vasily taking the throne without at least a large civil war.

This is more than a little bit anachronistic: serious confrontation started later when only Catholic nobility got the same rights as the Polish nobility. If there is an equality of the faiths, then the reasons for confrontation are absent.

Creating a new entity out of Lithuania sounds a little bit like Vytautas, maybe, but I think you are downplaying the importance of Lithuania Propria somewhat.

Of course, I do: otherwise we'd just have OTL.

But, OTOH, if Vitold is getting a considerably lager state and, in addition, resources of the "Golden" (just using the traditional European name to minimize the confusion) Horde, then Lithuania is seriously marginalized in the terms of territory and population.

Sure, it was by no means a massive or an overwhelmingly most populous part of the country, but because of the extreme decentralization of the Lithuanian state (as you said, each constituent duchy had its own laws and stuff like that), its importance was disproportionately higher because it belonged directly to the Grand Duke, rather than a vassal duke or a viceroy. It committed much more troops and taxes to the state per capita (in the Battle of Grunwald, ethnic Lithuanian banners composed nearly half of the Grand Duchy's army, despite Lithuania Propria only having 20-25 percent of the population).

Now, you touched a critical issue which I intentionally did not mention in the 1st post (more or less expecting it to come up if there is a meaningful discussion). Lithuania of Vitold was more or less a loose confederation which included the lands of Lithuania proper (which also was not exactly a centralized state), "Russian" princedoms of the modern Belarussia and Ukraine and the lands which were just recognizing Vitold as their feudal superior (like Novgorod). Furthermore, the more or less significant Russian princedoms also had been "structured" having the senior prince (direct vassal of Vitold) ruling the main city of a region and his subordinate princes ruling the smaller cities. Plus, each of these personages had a recognized rule to go (with or without his princedom) to a foreign service (a number of these personages, later killed at Worskla, had been earlier fighting for Prince of Moscow against Emir Mamai).

OTOH, approximately at the same time the Great Princes of Moscow started consolidation of their territories into the centralized (by the standards of time) state. Vitold's grandson was a rather mediocre ruler but his son, Ivan III, "The Great", was quite successful in accomplishing this task. So, if (with a little bit of luck, helped by few murders) we have succession of Vitold's line through Sophia, then the end product is a major centralized state in the XV century. Of course, as I said, this "centralization" is still reasonably far away from the modern standards but at least it involves a very strong power of a supreme ruler.

Being baptised after already taking control is different from having an Orthodox noble inherit the country from the start. The only OTL example of an Orthodox person inheriting the throne of Lithuania was Vaišvilkas, who ruled for a total of two years in the 1260s before leaving, and Shvarn, who ended up killed within a year and possibly never stepped foot in Lithuania at all.

IIRC, both of them had been ruling a predominantly pagan Lithuania so the attitudes and balance of the power really quite different.

It is generally agreed nowadays that Vytautas never actually wished to give Samogitia away with the Treaty of Salynas

I found that the modern historians (and not only those from Lithuania, so don't get it as an offense) made a real headway in the area of a mind reading and applying the modern realities (including national patriotism) retroactively.

Of course, most probably he did not want to give away anything but there is a big difference between personal wishes and necessities of the state. The only thing he had to do differently in this ATL is to stop enticing and supporting the rebels in Samogitia (the rebellions were almost guaranteed, anyway) as a result of recognizing different priorities.

- all he needed was to acquire Teutonic help in his 1399 attack on the Golden Horde as well as make sure they do not attack him while he's campaigning there (and they didn't - they instead attacked immediately after he failed), and then get it back. He recognized the danger of letting the Knights have an immediate border with Lithuania Propria as well as to connect their holdings in Prussia and Livonia - especially since not long after acquiring Samogitia, the Knights began to attack his capital directly, doing so as early as 1402, a mere four years after the Treaty of Salynas.

While the Teutonic Order was not exactly an assembly of the saints, their attitude toward Vitold was to a great degree defined by his attitude toward them. In OTL, the area was important to Vitold because his grandiose plan was crushed at Worskla. In ATL he is successful and all considerations above became insignificant. If he is staying clearly away from the affairs of Samogitia AND is much more powerful than before Worskla, the Order has no reason to blame him for a rebellion and even less reason to attack him in his lands out of a fear of retaliation. And if Vitold is actively siding with them against Poland, the reason for attacking him is gone completely.

And sure, if Lithuania shifted eastward after his death, that would justify caring a bit less about Samogitia - but that's a whole 30 years between Salynas and Vytautas's death during which Vytautas could simply retake that territory. After all, he was as opportunistic as a man could get.

But there is no reason for him to do this (retake Samogitia) because the area is of a zero economic value and, with the established control over Novgorod, loses strategic interest as well. Not sure why would Vitold want an access to the Baltic coast but he gets it in ATL and he also has an access to the Black Sea so the Greater Lithuania is stretching "from sea to shining sea" (sorry ).

As for messing with the Order, the main problem with such a confrontation remains: even the Greater Lithuania is in a good position for an open confrontation with the Order on a battlefield: it does not have a heavy cavalry, which means that it can afford only raiding type of a warfare and this makes it vulnerable to the Order's attack on its own lands. Not to mention that these huge territories do not directly map into the huge armies. At Grunwald, Lithuanian contingent was significantly smaller than Polish (even if Lithuanian territory was much greater) and much "lighter". Of course, from time to time there were victories in the battles but the risk still was very high. Anyway, with the "move Eastward", immediate confrontation could be delayed until the odds are much better and the risk is lower.

The problem, though, is that Jogaila's killing of Kęstutis and near killing of Vytautas was an exception rather than the rule

Well, Mindaugas and his sons also had been killed by Daumantas and Treniota in 1263.

 

[Whiteshore]

Anyways, what about "flash in the pan" powers which could have lasted longer and why?

 

[xsampa]

The Kingdom of Kongo, for one. The Kingdom actually lasted until 1914, when it was liquidated by the Portuguese following an anticolonial revolt. If it were not for the Belgian colonization of the Congo, I daresay that the Kingdom could have expanded into the interior as a fully independent nation, a status which it maintained IOTL until 1896. It was weakened by "clan" rivalries OTL, one of which in 1855-1856 resulted in the Kingdom's first experience as a Portuguese vassal. These "clans", or makanda, emerged as trading associations after the decline of slavery. If the 1855-1856 War of Succession had been avoided, or if one claimant had not requested Portuguese aid, Kongo would have a chance to subjugate the makanda, and focus on outward expansion.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Anyways, what about "flash in the pan" powers which could have lasted longer and why?

Twice the Counts of Celje came within a hair's width of becoming one of Europe's great dynasties. Herman II became King of Bosnia, and was immediately assassinated. His grandson, Ulrich II became Captain General of Hungary, and was immediately assassinated.

If they can hold either title (or even better, both) then they are essentially the strongest force in the HRE and would have a world of opportunities available to them. Even better, if the Habsburg kick the bucket sometime down the line then in accordance with the 1443 agreement all their possessions are transferred to Celje.

 

[Pentapolim]

United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves. Its breakup essentially broke Lisbon's power, but had it survived you could see a pluricontinental superpower ripe to dominate the 19th century, a truly integrated empire unlike anything the world had seen before. It could even have acted as an inspiration to actually implement Britain's Imperial Federation...

Portugal had already been close to being a great power before that, throughout the first half of the 16th century more or less:

-An earlier gold rush in Brazil would provide much of the bullion the portuguese desperately. You only need some incentive to explore the region north of Rio, which is not particularly hard to do. That didn't happen in OTL due to a general lack of interest in Brazil while they were making a lot money in the East, aside from a not so great colonial admnistrative system.
-No inquisition, or at least a weaker one, would result in some considerable advantages for Portugal. Perhaps a lesser influence of the church altogether. It ended up happening in OTL, to a certain point, due to political pressure from Spain, so making the portuguese kings a bit less complacent in especific moments (Manuel I's marriage with Isabel) would help.
-Finally, the biggest geopolitical disaster in the 16th for Portugal has to be avoided, which is the union with Spain in 1580. Portugal's isolation from the continent was shattered from there on, causing previous partners, like the english and the dutch, to target portuguese interests, as they were effectively owned by the Habsburg topdogs.

That should set Portugal to become a power somewhat similar to Sweden or the Nethherlands in the 17th century, in terms of influence and military capabillities. However, this can only be maintained until the late modern era, as Portugal's population and territory make it unfit to become a heavily industrialized nation. In that case, a closer union with it's overseas territories, particularly Brazil, is indeed necessary.

 

[water123]

I'm gonna cheat here and say France. I know that France OTL was one of the biggest powers in the world, but to quote someone who wrote a much better post about this, France at many points in it's history could have been THE power, even more than England or Spain was OTL. However, due to mismanagement during the 16th-18th centuries, it kept loosing wars to England or Spain or it's own incompetence at just the right times. In an ATL, France could have even become a Hyperpower, with only perhaps Russia or China at full strength there to threaten their dominance.

Also, I know that India gets a lot of talk about how it could have been a viable counter to Europe, but IMO the Spice Island/Indonesia could have taken this role too.

 

[Whiteshore]

As for "flash in the pan" powers which could have lasted longer, I'd say the Afsharids for starters.

 

[cmakk1012]

Poland-Hungary could have been quite the power if the Varna Crusade hadn’t been such a dismal failure...

 

[JMT]

Mexico?

 

[Whiteshore]

the Spice Island/Indonesia could have taken this role too.

What makes you say that?

 

[Ultima Ratio]

I've always loved the idea of a Finno-Ugric centered world, which with the right POD is possible. But in all reality, theoretically any nation or group could because a superpower with the right POD

This is my jam right here. I've been entertaining the idea of the Finns taking over the role of the Russians. I mean, given an early enough PoD, who knows? If they unite early on, adopt writing and a unified religion, they could have assimilated nearby peoples and ruled the areas of OTL Novgorod and more. Keisari of All Finns. I like how that sounds.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Oman has a lot of potential due to its geostrategic position and influence in the Indian Ocean.

 

[Timaeus]

The Papal States in central Italy were a temporal holding of the church. It seems curious to me that they never had any colonies, took over anybody else's etc.

It's called patronato real. Much easier to let the Catholic powers do their work for them.

Speaking of which, *also points at signature*.

I mean, the Philippines isn't going to become a giant all things considered, but it has some factors that can bring it to at least respectable regional power.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

The Elamite kingdom emerged around 3000BC in the Zagros mountains near the Persian Gulf. It was one of the early urban civilisations, developing writing not long after Sumeria to the west.

In the Old Elamite period (Bronze Age), Elam consisted of kingdoms on the Iranian plateau, centered in Anshan, and from the mid-2nd millennium BC, it was centered in Susa in the Khuzestan lowlands.

Proto-Elamite civilization grew up east of the Tigris and Euphrates alluvial plains; it was a combination of the lowlands and the immediate highland areas to the north and east. The Proto-Elamite city of Susa was founded around 4000 BC in the watershed of the river Karun.

This area of southwest Iran has relatively high rainfall due to the Zagros mountains range and the rivers that flow from it. This made it ideal for cultivation. Some of the earliest evidence of wine production comes from this area, as far back as 9000 BC.

The Elamite kingdoms existed for thousands of years. During this time it successfully invaded and conquered Mesopotamia several times, most notably Elamite forces sacked the city of Ur and also fought against Hammurabi, inflicting several defeats on the Babylonians and even the Assyrians.

While not as famous as some of their neighbours, the Elamites were a notable power of antiquity and probably deserve to be better known. The fact that their script has still not been deciphered may partly explain why they are not.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

I'm gonna cheat here and say France. I know that France OTL was one of the biggest powers in the world, but to quote someone who wrote a much better post about this, France at many points in it's history could have been THE power, even more than England or Spain was OTL. However, due to mismanagement during the 16th-18th centuries, it kept loosing wars to England or Spain or it's own incompetence at just the right times. In an ATL, France could have even become a Hyperpower, with only perhaps Russia or China at full strength there to threaten their dominance.

I would agree with this. A not very different 1700's and 1800's and France rather than Britain would have been the world power. France could certainly have positioned itself to be both the dominant Continental and naval power with luck and foresight.

 

[Whiteshore]

The fact that their script has still not been deciphered may partly explain why they are not.

Which is unfortunate cosidering Elamite was spoken until the Early Middle Ages in rural areas.

 

[SeaCambrian]

Al-Andalus, if the Umayyads had survived and the center of power had remained and thrived at Cordoba, or the later Berber dynasties such as the Almoravids or Almohads were never overthrown and fully relocated their base of operations to Iberia in a way that gave them security from dynastic changeovers in Morocco. A continuing empire based in al-Andalus could have expanded into the Americas like Spain, into the Mediterranean like the Ottomans, or into the Sahel like Morocco.

Scandinavia as a united realm from the end of the Viking Age or shortly after. Based on the vast amount of land and overseas and overland trade that the Vikings controlled, the breadth of the later Swedish and Danish crusades, and how close the Danes and Norwegians came to either holding or reconquering England, then a united Scandinavia could have been capable of forming a significant great power or empire. However, I am not sure why the Kalmar Union didn't form something like the later Swedish Empire.

 

[Byzantion]

The territory of the Catholic church is vast and sporadically placed but certainly worth being called a great power. Or do you mean more like a Caliphate?

Maybe the Portugese and Sanish gift their colonies to the Pope.

 

[stevej713]

Maybe a long shot, but if the Ottomans had some early defeats and Stefan Dusan had a more capable heir, Serbia could have become a neo-Byzantine Balkan power?

 

[Byzantion]

So, historically, what countries do you think had the potential to become great powers/empires but remained weak and (relatively) insignificant on the world stage instead of becoming great empires? What PODs would have made said "empires which never were" develop and why? What of said "empires which never were" do you think were the most fascinating and why, then?

Massilia under certain circumstances ? A Helleno-Celtic powerhouse in ancient Europe. Otherwise Ugarit, a trading city state in Syria. Was an econimic power in the Mediterranian and important trading partner of Egypt.