It may well be overstated but John I is widely seen as one of the worst monarch's England ever had. [Partly in reaction possibly to him succeeding Richard I, who was probably most popular because he only spent 6 months of his 10 year reign in England and was hence largely unknown apart from his crusade highlights]. That's why I was wondering as well that the new king would use the name Johan as far too similar to John to be popular. [Not quite as bad as a king Herod say but gives you the general idea of how it would be viewed].
Ah. Probably not, then. Adopting a middle name seems sensible. Or perhaps William III just names him something else—i.e. William, so he becomes William IV.
One other thing. Have read that William III tended to be his own commander, as at the Boyne for instance. As such, especially without his wife having the same influence, would Marlborough have gained as much power? Might be that if things get desperate William calls on him as a general but possibly also if he's too successful that would expose him to mistrust and intrigue. As such would suspect that the Anglo-Dutch forces might fair less well if William lives longer.
ITTL Mary II lives longer, surviving her bout with smallpox. The increased attention from William III results in them producing an offspring.
Presumably this butterflies William III's death for the moment as he died from complications from his horse going down, but it's entirely possible his wife surviving leaves him with a moderating influence as seemed to IOTL before her death. I do note your point on Marlborough but as he's pretty much the only guy that could have captured Antwerp—I kinda need him.
Suggestions?
Also, if the Austrians suffer such a big defeat how would that affect them in the east? During this same period OTL they were fighting the Ottomans and after fighting off a siege of Vienna eventually they regained Hungary, most of which for the past 150 years having been under Ottoman rule. [This war finally ended 1699 if I remember rightly]. If the Austrians are battered that badly might the Turks try mixing it again. They did defeat Austria in ~1718. Although given that they withstood the 1683 siege I rather suspect that Vienna would fall that easily to the French in the same time-period.
Hmm. Well, losing Vienna is a strictly brief thing and we could also change it to the threat of losing it, as the Austrians may not know that Marlborough & Eugene of Savoy are moving to their relief. We could even see the Austrians withdrawing over it because they're worried about the Ottomans…*which would likely worsen their bargaining position over the Treaty of 1705 (whatever it gets called).
Heck, if they withdraw over the threat of losing Vienna after a couple days of siege it looks Eugene of Savoy is getting a nice chunk of Italy (as would the French) and both the Austrians and Spanish get shut out—as always, everybody has a reason to screw over the Spanish in the ATL: the British because the Spanish will get the French throne, the Austrians because of Italy, the Dutch because of the Spanish Netherlands, Eugene of Savoy (duh), and even the French if it gets them a better deal elsewhere.
As for the Turks giving it a second try, moving in 1706-7 might be a mistake—would the Austrians be able to win when they lost in 1718 OTL?
Last edited: