Worst 19th Century Alternate History Cliches

[Gukpard]

In my TL I'm planning for Habsburg Mexico to retake northern territories after WW1, and I kinda stuck at how to hold off the Americans before European reinforcement arrive.
Poor Mexico.

He was the cousin of emperor Pedro II of Brazil

The best way is to have him to gravitate towards Brazil and prevent the republican coup in brazil, and somehow makes the Mexican entry in the war be due a american agression, this is enought to put Brazil on Mexico's side

 

[TRH]

China pulls a Meiji between the 1840's to 60's and becomes a global superpower. Japan on the other hand, remains a backward feudal state plagued by warlordism. Fast forward to the 1940's and we have Chinese planes bombing Pearl Harbor and Little Boy turning Shanghai to ash. Come the 50's and say hello to Red Japan and Best (Read: South) Korea

Cliche? I've never even heard of a timeline that does that. Japanscrews are damn rare in general outside of WW2.

 

[Augenis]

German are the bad guys, it wouldn't be German enough if there isn't a genocide here or there.

I feel like this is no longer a cliche, because AH.com has begun to prefer a CP victory as the standard WW1 result.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Cliche? I've never even heard of a timeline that does that. Japanscrews are damn rare in general outside of WW2.

All I've ever seen for Japan is they either do the same or greater as in OTL (unless Russia beats them in the Russo-Japanese War) or they get colonised. Not much in-between.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Royalists are the best, and will always beat the evil republicans. I've also never understood the view that monarchs make things more stable.

The notion is because of a view in political science that dynastic states are better at holding many different groups of people as the basis for the state's legitimacy is tue monarch and not an ethnic group. Hence disparate or semi marginalized groups have more of an interest in putting up with things, as they need only reach the monarch for aid, not reach a majority vote or setting up institutions.

Additionally, theres also the view a monarchy can check established landed oligarchs because he has a power base independent or parallel of state institutions. See for instance the Empire of Brazil; Thailand; Morocco, etc.

 

[Hydraphantom]

The notion is because of a view in political science that dynastic states are better at holding many different groups of people as the basis for the state's legitimacy is tue monarch and not an ethnic group. Hence disparate or semi marginalized groups have more of an interest in putting up with things, as they need only reach the monarch for aid, not reach a majority vote or setting up institutions.

Additionally, theres also the view a monarchy can check established landed oligarchs because he has a power base independent or parallel of state institutions. See for instance the Empire of Brazil; Thailand; Morocco, etc.

For the first point, best example would be Habsburgs, they hold on all the way until 1918 when most of their counterparts had already collapsed.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

In fairness most of their counterparts by 1918 were also their cousins so it hardly counts as collapsed.

 

[TRH]

All I've ever seen for Japan is they either do the same or greater as in OTL (unless Russia beats them in the Russo-Japanese War) or they get colonised. Not much in-between.

Even the Russo-Japanese losses usually have Japan come up smelling of roses before long.

 

[Boss]

The notion is because of a view in political science that dynastic states are better at holding many different groups of people as the basis for the state's legitimacy is tue monarch and not an ethnic group. Hence disparate or semi marginalized groups have more of an interest in putting up with things, as they need only reach the monarch for aid, not reach a majority vote or setting up institutions.

But that only really works for multiethnic states. For others, well, other stuff happens.

Additionally, theres also the view a monarchy can check established landed oligarchs because he has a power base independent or parallel of state institutions. See for instance the Empire of Brazil; Thailand; Morocco, etc.

Unless the monarch is a landed oligarch in their own right. See France to see this at its logical conclusion.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

But that only really works for multiethnic states. For others, well, other stuff happens.

Unless the monarch is a landed oligarch in their own right. See France to see this at its logical conclusion.

Like everything in Poli sci, theres never a "one shoe fits all" approach.

 

[Jared]

Like everything in Poli sci, theres never a "one shoe fits all" approach.

That's why most people wear two shoes, surely?

 

[Indicus]

Unless the monarch is a landed oligarch in their own right. See France to see this at its logical conclusion.

I think this is where different kinds of monarchies come into play. Compare France to other countries, and you'll see how different monarchies can really be.

Though, in general, whether a monarch stabilizes a country depends on how a monarch came in power. The Second Mexican Empire, for instance, rose because of a French invasion - this immediately makes it unpopular. Same goes for the Bourbon Restoration - as it was installed by a coalition of monarchies (and revoked many revolutionary principles), it was unpopular. But if the monarchy is seen in other ways, and rises differently, such as with the First French Empire, it can indeed be a stabilizing force.

However, I do think the stabilizing effects of monarchy are quite overrated, if only because things would be more "different" with more monarchies, and so people like to include them everywhere.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

That's why most people wear two shoes, surely?

Nah, that's why sandals are better.

 

[thezerech]

That the 1848 Revolutions or the French Revolution can be switched to another country and have the same effects. Which happens far too often. Of course Revolutions are to be expected, its nice when the results are changed even if the circumstances are similar.

Russia never collapses until WWI

Austria collapses all the time

Germany that doesn't unite after 1871 would totally not want to ever unite, because why would they?

The Royal Navy is invincible

Italy cannot into great power

America cannot into not Great Power (post civil war)

 

[longsword14]

America cannot into not Great Power

Unless you break the states up into mutually non cooperating regions, USA was set to eclipse everyone else.

 

[Indicus]

That the 1848 Revolutions or the French Revolution can be switched to another country and have the same effects. Which happens far too often. Of course Revolutions are to be expected, its nice when the results are changed even if the circumstances are similar.

The French Revolution is a fair point, but the 1848 Revolutions are fairly complicated, and I do think they could have held similar effects in different regions.

Russia never collapses until WWI

Russia was powerful for a very long time. Quite frankly, I think Russia collapsing is the implausible part.

America cannot into not Great Power (post civil war)

I do think the US is destined to be a great power at this point, but as great of a power? Well, that's a whole other story.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

Also, Germany only either stays disunited or comes under the Prussian yoke. No exceptions.

 

[cmakk1012]

Unless you break the states up into mutually non cooperating regions, USA was set to eclipse everyone else.

I also think there's a little bit of a cliche of random American balkanization. That's not to say that America couldn't be balkanized considering how the CSA had a good chance to secede and that precedent could have inspired other parts of the nation to do the same; it's the details of the balkanizing that get to me.

TLs and (especially) maps that balkanize America often do it arbitrarily, choosing to break off bits to achieve an effect like, say, a balance of power rather than due to plausibility. Just because the Midwest seceding and forming the "Farmer States of America" makes the map pretty doesn't mean it doesn't need a damn good rationalization.

 

[Indicus]

Also, Germany only either stays disunited or comes under the Prussian yoke. No exceptions.

Indeed. I've always liked the idea of Austria unifying Germany, but sadly I've never seen it done.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

I feel like this is no longer a cliche, because AH.com has begun to prefer a CP victory as the standard WW1 result.

Honestly I think people just like Imperial Germany.

Most of the time the problem revolves around not having Frederick III die in 1888, or else its an SI into William....

Also, Germany only either stays disunited or comes under the Prussian yoke. No exceptions.

The only time I have seen different is if its a Napoleon TL, or else its Glen's DSA, which has Prussia-Poland and Germany was united by Hanover I think, and also Wolf-brothers The Smallest Possible Difference

(pity wolf-brother was banned years ago though.)