Poland if not for Russia. The time of troubles offered an immense opportunity that was lost by the Commonwealth.
Which nation would be a global power if another country wasn't "holding it back"?
- Thread starter saint polype
- Start date
Conversely, before (say) 1914 remove Britain(*) and whichever one of France and Germany eats the other first gets to dominate Europe, and then the (Old) word.
(*) is that a bad thing by itself?
The Mughals, if they had persisted, could have started reconstituting the old pre-Columbian trade routes and dominating the Indian Rim, as a prelude to colonization. They couldn't have matched states like Portugal pound for pound, but they had the sheer population size to override such concerns.
It wasn't really held back though, it was ruined by a number of factors, some self-induced.
It wasn't really held back though, it was ruined by a number of factors, some self-induced.
MEXICO without The USA influence, this include The direct factors, war, intervention, political dominantion, and indirects factors, attraction of inmigrants, Brain drain, capital drain, extractivist economic police interceptor respect México( and América In general)
After all México Is the third Major economy in América, and their second Major Military, they could be more if not for the USA intervention and
Canadá, The same than Mexico
After all México Is the third Major economy in América, and their second Major Military, they could be more if not for the USA intervention and
Canadá, The same than Mexico
Yes, it was but isn't it somewhat ironic that the long-term results had been mostly opposite to the intended?
Support of Prussia - unified Germany and 2 world wars.
Support of Japan - Japanese attack of the British possessions during WWII
Support of the Ottomans against Russia - the Ottomans fighting on the 'wrong side' during WWI and a following dismemberment of the empire (something that the British politicians tried to prevent for most of the XIX century)
Consistent (most of the XIX - early XX) policy of weakening Russian Empire - Russian under-performance in WWI
Traditional "anti-French" - alliance in both world wars
Skallagrim
Banned
Yes, it was but isn't it somewhat ironic that the long-term results had been mostly opposite to the intended?
[snip]
It's true! Goes to show that you have to be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it in a way you definitely didn't intend!
Indeed. An idea that you'll always be able to manipulate others works only up to a certain degree.
If France or Spain were Ireland's 'sponsor' instead of Britain, the island would have a freer hand, and there would be more reason to want to build it up as independent and outward facing, as a willing ally in potential conflicts with Britain, and less reason to want to build it up as a colony and breadbasket. Cork, Limerick, or Galway could be the capital of this Ireland, they have good harbors, if the main interaction is with the rest of the world, and not Dublin, which is ideal when the main interaction is across the Irish Sea with Britain.
Ireland could easily have been a Portugal or Belgium style state.
Poland.
If Russia didn't exist, or if it failed in some way, Poland would have become a massive empire and possibly taken its place.
If Russia didn't exist, or if it failed in some way, Poland would have become a massive empire and possibly taken its place.
The PLC was a massive empire but b y the time Russia became a noticeable international factor (end of the XVII) it was well on the way down the tubes. You need to go all the way to the Time of the Troubles, make Wladislaw Tsar of Moscow (which means that he has to convert into Orthodoxy) and then make him elected on the PLC's thrones (which means that he has to be a Catholic). Try to resolve this problem.
Or (my personal favorite), have Vitold being victorious at Vorskla (which makes him de jure overlord of the Golden Horde and a direct overlord of the Great Princedom of Moscow), and then Lithuania being inherited by his grandson (Great Prince of Moscow) with the Greek Orthodoxy being a prevalent religion. This way you may end up if not with the Polish then with a great Lithuanian-Russian "empire".
Actually, this opportunity was quite tricky. The direct conquest of the Tsardom was beyond PLC's realistic possibilities (as was proven in OTL) and a peaceful placement of Wladislaw on the throne of Moscow required his switch to the Orthodox creed. If happened, this would create a problem with his chances to get throne of the PLC after his father's death. Not sure if even a successful conquest (putting aside the issues of a physical possibility) would result in a sustainable "empire": too many Orthodox subjects with the noticeably different culture and attitudes.
I think the Romans are the ones who have to strangle the Ottomans. The time to do that is in the early XIV century when the Ottomans are expanding in Anatolia. At that point there would be no reason for a Spanish or Italian to take an interest - but there is a clear interest for the Romans to do so as Anatolia had been their heartland. By the time Spain or the Italian states see the Turks as a rival, it is too late to destroy them.
I'd argue that the Japanese were mostly inconsequential to the development of Korea's kingdoms for most of history, only being heavily emphasised as a result of the colonial period, which was far too late for Korea to enter the world stage in Japan's example in any case (sans Japanese influence, the Joseon may have ended as a Russian protectorate the way Manchuria was becoming prior to the Russo-Japanese War). The Imjin War did severe damage but it only lasted 7 years (compared to any number of major European conflicts, like the 100 Years', 30 Years', 80 Years', etc. Wars) and recovery only slowed due to the Manchu invasions a few decades later and general problems in the Joseon administration, bureaucracy, etc. that had existed and would continue to exist with or without interaction with the Japanese. Sure, piracy was an issue but the wokou became increasingly comprised of ethnic Han crews and that alone won't have accounted for enough to give the Joseon great power status. Other than those events and trade, Japan and Korea rarely interacted in any meaningful manner for the past millennium.
On the other hand, the various Chinese dynasties had a much greater hand in directing the history of the Korean peninsula and its kingdoms. Of the Chinese dynasties, the Sui and Tang invading the Gorguryeo kingom (the former failing, the latter succeeding), the only Korean kingdom that successfully held a significant share of land outside of the Korean peninsula and its islands while the Ming actively prevented the Goryeo from retaking the Liaodong peninsula during the fall of the Yuan and blocking Joseon influence in Manchuria (IIRC, they tried to arbitrate conflicts between the Joseon and Jurchen when the Joseon were intent on invading).
Naturally, northern nomads were a massive problem, as they were for any entities unfortunate to be near the Eurasian steppe before gunpowder weaponry really took off. But the main reason Korean kingdoms could never take or hold Manchuria even in their heydays was the might of the Chinese empires. Without a strong Chinese empire to contest Manchuria and all the natural resources of the land, well, that'd make more of difference in Korean history than no Japan, overall at least.
The point being, Japan wasn't what held Korea back, in the long course of history. That'd be more corruption in administration and Chinese/nomadic opposition.