Alternate History Thread II...

[Symphony D.]

Knowledge is power at rest; it has a high potential energy. But it's just that; a potential.

Anyway, given the holdings during Canute's reign, Wales and Scotland would inevitably be targeted, and I still feel that given the fractional and feudalistic nature of any such government should it survive, the local English contingent of the realm would likely have its eyes on Ireland after those two were pacified. Though, that's obviously no easy task, and by the time they got around to it, the whole assembly might have recentralized sufficient for their attention to be directed toward the Baltic.

That said, their assembly, at the time, was actually more centered on the North Sea than the Baltic, as their Swedish holdings were somewhat small, so there is some play as to where they might focus.

A second possibility exists however, in the kingdom of Danish King Hardeknut. He died only two years later, and was succeeded by Magnus the Good, who lost England but got Norway, which then split up again only five years after that. Yet another possibility rests in King Sven though his rule was even less promising and lasted but a year. He had a bunch of sons though, who squabbled amongst each other and split up his kingdom. If one of them were prudent enough to say, kill the others, things might go different.

There are quite a number of scenarios for a Viking England, and I think we could all say they'd be rather interesting. At any rate, a free and isolated Ireland would lead to an interesting anachronism of perhaps the "Age of Discovery" starting in the Middle Ages (at least to some capacity). Admittedly, the Europeans are rather busy butchering one another, but they never really stopped doing that anyway, and if there's some far off land with no opposition that's actually useful... who knows.

 

[das]

But lets go with Canute, that seems to be the most likely scenario.

To sum up:
- Decentralized "Norse Empire" in Norway, England and Denmark gradually goes on to conquer Wales (though the hold there will probably be the hardest to maintain, actually - it is the most distant from the North Sea, the region where the Norse are the strongest) and Scotland; raids against Ireland and Sweden taken place, as for actual invasions these do not achieve any permanent success (in part due to internicine strife and squabbling even in peaceful times, thus lack of coordination). I maintain that Kievan Rus (look it up if you're not sure what I am talking about exactly; but in any case I generally mean the local dynastical system that resulted in comparative continuity despite division) is the best model for this state, having been created by Varangians. Also campaigns against the various Franks, btw.
- Isolationist Celtic Rite Ireland. It would be rather similar to feudal Japan, come to think of it. Heretical Norse "crusaders" will be at some point dispersed by divine wind, proving to the Irish that they're right and everybody else isn't, theologically speaking. The continued raids and crusades however would eventually cause the Irish to rally around a single leader. Here we will diverge from Japan; an united Ireland even more cut off from Europe than at any point in OTL will naturally look for some different direction of expansion and commerce, and inevitably at some point it would discover Iceland, Greenland and eventually Avalon. Missionaries, traders, colonists from the overpopulated homeland and so forth would move in en masse...

Some other thoughts, then:
- Norse Empire later (in early 15th century?) recentralizes and goes on to conquer the Low Countries, and generally will get involved in continental wars. It will probably try to play the French and the HRE off against each other, but I doubt that this policy will be very succesful. However, it could do well to rally the various disloyal vassals around them. Now, in this world Aquitaine will probably remain powerful, but at the same time somewhat frustrated unless it succesfully grabs the French crown. German vassals are pretty obvious, there are always some malcontents amongst them. If the Norse play their hands right, they could forever secure their predominant position in the North Sea, and impose Pax Nordicum on the ruins of France and Germany, annexing Normandy, Bremen and Holstein, and letting lesser kingdoms - Aquitaine, Bavaria, Austria and so forth - roam comparatively free as long as they don't cross it.
- Ireland would usher in an Age of Discovery. It would keep its secret for a while, but it couldn't do so forever. IMHO its best competitors would come from Portugal (if it becomes independent in this world; hard to figure out, but...) or some other Hispannic state with access to the Atlantic. If France is broken up by the Norse as I have suggested, Brittany and Aquitaine may become lesser players there as well. Norse Empire might also establish a presense, but it will be more involved in Europe... Incidentally, it may be fun to also allow a shrunken, but defiant Andalusia (see below, on Crusades) get a new golden age and clash with the Portuguese in South America. Golden opportunities here.
- Sweden's ascendancy will come much earlier, with Denmark and Norway switching their attention westwards. It could perhaps become the predominant Baltic power, especially if it reconciles with the Norse Empire to fight against the HRE; something I could imagine very easily. After that, however, it will probably become the Norse Empire's direst enemy...
- Religious reform; I rather doubt that the Celtic Rite would expand, but the Reformation may possibly come earlier here. The Scandinavians were always pretty distant from Rome in all but in name, as far as Europe went ofcourse. With the example of Irish defiance, and the probable clashes with the Pope over the Norse warmongering, it might split off separately, creating a Norse Rite church. I rather doubt that this will spread however; not sure. On the other hand, though this varied, the Pope wasn't always on good terms with the Holy Roman Emperor. So possibly he could instead ally with the Norse, forgiving them their insolence. I suspect that what is rather more likely is a Catholic, but far more decentralized Church. Then again, it could go either way.
- What of the Crsuades and other European events? Actually, I suspect that the Crusades might as well be scrapped - without Normans roaming everywhere, the Pope and the Byzantines will have less mutual interests, the former will probably still struggle with the HRE (allying with France), and probably without much real success, while the Byzantines might manage on their own in Anatolia. Just a thought though.
- An interesting change may happen with the HRE; without the Normans in Italy and the subsequent creation of the Kingdom of Sicily that was subsequently inherited by the Hohenstauffens, it will be less Italo-centric. Barbarossa will concentrate on France and Poland more. I doubt that he will crush or be decisively defeated by the former, but the latter he just might subdue. Incidentally, a stronger HRE also probably means no Crusades, so there. In any case, the HRE will be much stronger than in OTL at first, without the defeats in Italy and the bungled Crusades. However, by the 15th century it would probably be a colossus on clay legs, overstretched and filled with feudal strife, and, as in OTL, with only nominal authority in northern Italy. Its eventual collapse would be all the more spectacular for it...

 

[Symphony D.]

it might split off separately, creating a Norse Rite church.

I must say I rather like the idea of the Norse going off on their own with Christianity. Given the pre-Christian Nordic Pantheon, I somehow can quite easily envision the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost becoming analogous concepts to Odin, Thor, and Vidar... A Christianity even more willing to warmonger than Catholicism is, I think, a rather interesting idea when paired up with, to all intents and purposes, a Viking empire.

Particularly when you factor in the goings on elsewhere in Europe (not to mention Russia and Anatolia) you wind up with a very different looking scenario from our own. Oh, and lets not forget: due to only the Irish being in contact with the Americas for a long time, and being incapable of getting too far, the impact of disease will be more gradual, and there will be a long recovery period to get over it...

 

[das]

Somehow I doubt that the Norse are ones for religious wars; if anything, they strike me as (again, when compared to the rest of Europe at the time) fairly secular. Which is probably the path they would go by if they choose to separate from the Catholic Church, or even stay with it for that matter. Then again, England's comparative secularism didn't prevent the Puritans and other religious fanatics of a wide spectrum...

Particularly when you factor in the goings on elsewhere in Europe (not to mention Russia and Anatolia) you wind up with a very different looking scenario from our own.

The rest of Europe needs more development... In Russia, I think that without Poland (consumed by HRE) or a powerful Lithuania (no Crusades=no Teutonic Order), but with a strong Sweden we might have a Swedish-dominated north and a surviving Golden Horde (no Crusades=stronger Turkic states=weaker Timurids) predominant in the south - both ruling through puppets ofcourse, Swedes being assisted by Grand Duchies of Lithuania and of Vladimir, and the Tartars having the allegience of Ryazan and Kiev (as I said, weaker Lithuania, if any at all).

In Anatolia, I suppose we might as well have a Byzantine resurgence, though not an awfully powerful one.

I'll probably try to develop all this further after the update, though.

 

[Symphony D.]

Another idea: although it's not nearly at all so easy to eliminate as nuclear weapons (which, yes, I'm still very, very slowly working on somewhere in the background) suppose that gunpowder had never risen to prominence when it did.

I say it's difficult because one of humanity's favorite hobbies is setting things on fire. Chinese manuscripts date fireworks all the way back to the 6th Century, however, it could have been any number of mixtures; hard evidence for gunpowder only comes in the 11th Century with the "Wu Chang Tsung Yao" by Tseng Kung-Liang, written 1044. He includes various mixtures in his work. About a century later, somebody gets the bright idea to pack some of these mixtures in bamboo for defensive purposes.

It was possibly transmitted to Europe via some unknown means, among which are cited the Mongols, Merchants, or even the Moors sometime around 1240. It's impractical to eliminate them all, and even then there's some evidence that the Europeans could potentially have discovered it themselves (or did). Crude guns of some sort appear potentially as early as 1284, 1304, or 1313, but can accurately be dated to at least 1320s, with a definitive acknowledgement of their use at Metz in 1324. So, within roughly 75 years, the gun had become a weapon, however pathetic at the time.

The only way to eliminate gunpowder, really, is to squash Medieval Alchemy, both Western and Eastern (although both the Islamic world and India also had significant Alchemical research, the fractious nature of their conditions would seem to nullify them as major concerns). In China it's much easier, given Chinese alchemy was heavily connected to Taoist principles. The obvious solution is to eliminate the Taoists. Given its competition in the form of Confucianists, Legalists, and Buddhists, it probably isn't too terribly difficult to concoct a means by which they fall from grace and become relatively obscure and useless.

The Europeans are more difficult, but not by too much. The main method of crippling the movement is doing away with Roger Bacon, since he was the first and most notable of the Medieval Alchemists as we recognize them today. Meanwhile, given the fact the Catholic Church was quite fond of surpressing scientific elements (Copernicus, Galileo, so forth) later, and was even more paranoid and dogmatic in the centuries before, and not at all adverse to burning heathens, heretics, or infidels (first Medieval Inquisition began in 1184) it's not at all difficult to believe that some alchemist somewhere might irritate the wrong authority and those strange people trying to play God and transmute His works might be put to the torch. The early inquisitions were decentralized but it might spread, and might be enough to kill the movement, or drive it underground and make it irrelevent. This can be easily presumed as butterfly effect from whatever killed the Taoists.

If you do this (and presume the same in-fighting and calamities befall the Muslims and Indian subcontinent) you have effectively ******** chemistry (and a number of other sciences for that matter) a great deal, and progress will fall a great deal along more mechanical and utilitarian lines for the next three to four hundred years, at which point the Renaissance might come along, though it will be much more difficult. The net result is it might be some time until gunpowder is resolved, and even then its implications might not be seen, the alternatives (some form of crossbow likey) long since having become entrenched and highly developed. At any rate, the gun will show up much later, and be much less well developed (though such development would likely go faster) with enormous implications for warfare and the world.

The Medieval Age, in such a sense, would never really quite go away entirely. It is inevitable really that feudalism, kinghts, and so forth would crumble under the death march of technology as peasant armies became capable of felling them (though not at the hands of the longbow [ignoring the training required], as is commonly claimed; longbow arrows typically employed wrought iron points which were incapable of piercing steel plate; Agincourt, at least, if not Crecy, was the product of numerous other factors, most notably the terrain - the crossbow is the obvious replacement, especially given advancements to it elsewhere, eg: Chu-ko-nu) and ambitious kings gathering power to themselves arose, I think, but the general character of the period would persist for quite awhile longer.

 

[das]

IMHO you understate the likelihood of developing nuclear weapons.

Sadly my technological knowledge is insufficient to properly contribute to this timeline, but I suspect that if we cripple chemistry, we naturally assist other spheres of technology. So I agree with this:

progress will fall a great deal along more mechanical and utilitarian lines for the next three to four hundred years

Only (and sorry if that IS what you meant), this doesn't mean a technologically-backwards world, rather it means a world whose technology has developed in a different direction. I recall some gunpowderless scenario online where it was suggested that this might result in an earlier industrial revolution. Steampunk?

 

[Symphony D.]

In a way, it is what I meant. Alchemy was science done in the name of some random ambitious goal which if it worked was great, but never produced any results contributing to that goal (but useful nonetheless). Research would likely be directed toward immediately practical and useful things instead of pie-in-the-sky science, the vast bulk of which would probably be mechanical (retarding also Medicine, Astronomy, so forth). In that regard, machines would likely be the focus.

In the absence of gunpowder, and since explosives aren't all that known as a result, compressed gasses work pretty well. The Pumpkin Chunkers have managed to get a Pumpkin nearly a mile using nothing but compressed air. As a little visual aide, here's an example of what such a thing might possibly look like:

Spoiler Image :

Longer barrels are likely possible too, since they improve accuracy for smoothbores and who knows how quickly or slowly rifling might come about. Obviously, compressing air is more difficult than generating steam, and so strange steam cannons would probably arise at some point. That would leave your average footsoldier with advanced crossbows until pneumatics or hydraulics came around then. Sort of lethal Airsoft guns...

It would be all quite strange and very different, yes. Combine that with some political permutations and you'd have a very colorful world. A very large number of things can be done through purely mechanical means (I've been watching The Secret Life of Machines lately) and so you could put it into a Steampunk type perspective fairly easily if desired. Now that's an interesting thought... humans becoming disciples of water instead of fire. How curious that would be.

Is anybody interested in this idea? I can't say I would run it for sure, or that I could come up with all the political gobbledygook in the interim, but I could potentially give some technical advice if one of our more skilled craftsmen for that era is interested in developing it.

-----​

Anyway, regarding nuclear weapons, it's fairly simple: if the math isn't present, the work can't be done. Without E=mc², binding energies can't be deduced very easily (if at all, I've never seen a definitive piece on the matter) or accurately. Even with highly accurate tools, the Los Alamos team was not at all certain what the weapon would do: some thought it would be a dud, others that the fissioning process would continue and it would ignite the atmosphere. Given the utterly massive expenditure required to make just one bomb (admittedly, it gets easier after that, but still), throwing in a much more dubious outlook on the feasibility and the end products is, when you add the politicians who must approve all such things, likely enough to kill the project.

Similarly, since only very few nations have enough resources to do such a thing in a timely fashion, and the only way to justify such enormous expense is during wartime or crisis, even if one has a leader or establishment willing to pursue it, the circumstances must be just right too. I would add a note here that Enrico Fermi and Leo Slizard only managed to convince FDR to start the program by getting Einstein to write him and say it was crucial - Einstein's scientific weight was a huge factor in swaying his opinion, even if the science was sound (in retrospect).

I believe it was Michio Kaku who said that it's rather a fluke at all that we possess the energy-matter equivilency equation, and that it seems rather more probable such a thing would only be discovered as a result of unified field theory equations - hopefully meaning your average civilization would be more culturally developed when coming upon the bomb than ours was, and as a result, less prone to blowing itself up (which we have only avoided narrowly on numerous occasions).

The best that could be done without him really, is radiological weapons, since radiation and such were quite independent of his work. Unfortunately these are nowhere near as impressive, destructive, or easily targetted as genuine nuclear devices, and therefore would probably be more along chemical and biological weapons in development. They would not generate the type of excitement to create, say, ICBM systems. A universe without them becomes increasingly focused on conventional firepower that is either much greater in volume, or much greater in accuracy.

Therefore, I think at least within our own universe, picking off Einstein, and removing both his work and credibility (since he was rather quite unique in his approach) kills the bomb rather handily for at least 50 years if not much, much longer. The interesting thing is wars get even larger and more brutal as a result. In other timelines it might not be so easy (or even so hard), but those are not really my concern.

 

[Kozmos]

NOOOOO we need missiles at least, eff the nukes.

 

[Symphony D.]

The way I've got it planned out, tactical, cruise, and SRBM type rockets will actually become more prevalent than in real life, due to their ability to deliver bombarding fire over a greater range than conventional artillery pieces. Things like "Stalin's Organ" and the MLRS will probably be more common. The Space Race will likely be greatly delayed, if it happens at all though.

The interesting part about removing nukes is not just that suddenly conventional weapons have to compensate for their absence, but that suddenly trillions and trillions of dollars spent on them are free to be spent lavishly on any new "superweapon" that looks promising. It also removes the ability to use the nuclear shield as an excuse to not field a large conventional military; Japan and Germany are likely to remilitarize sometime in the decades following WWII (after the dawn of the Cold War sinks in and some previous policies are reversed) and Europe as a whole is likely to become much more militant when confronted with the Soviet Bloc. Massive defense spending also kind of gives socialism a kick in the balls and its less likely to become entrenched or adopted.

On another note entirely, I might counter my own switch and adopt some of those ideas I described for Ice, since I wouldn't have to bother at all with Taoists or Roger Bacon. Have to think about that one.

 

[Kozmos]

^^^
fap fap fap

That would be a brilliant NES. but what you got against Taoists? I once won a Space Race with Taoist Russia yah. And totally nuked the Aztecs.

 

[das]

Massive defense spending also kind of gives socialism a kick in the balls and its less likely to become entrenched or adopted.

Don't forget that both sides spent lots of money on nukes.

 

[Symphony D.]

Ah, but everyone knows the "Communists" were neither Communist nor Socialist. They would be free to come up with all sorts of strange ideas themselves. The main thrust of my statement there was that the Europeans no longer have the luxury of thumbing their noses at the Soviets while sitting under the American arsenal and pursuing "babies and not bombs". Everyone would be likely to wind up quite more heavily armed than their OTL counterparts.

Collective fear also makes the barriers to creating a European Union type organization in the post war years much less difficult to surmount, while at the same time decreasing reliance on America (who clearly might abandon them at any moment).

 

[das]

Everyone would be likely to wind up quite more heavily armed than their OTL counterparts.

Furthermore, pretty much everyone that matters would. Yes, I agree that this would guarantee WWIII.

 

[Symphony D.]

Precisely. The trick is in the details and the spark... and that is part of why it's taking so damn long.

 

[Azale]

*sigh* time travellers from the future give the Soviets laser guns, it's all very simple really

 

[Symphony D.]

You're not welcome here, Mr. Turtledove. Go back where you came from.

 

[Dachs]

To save the Byzantines, a) have them win at Manzikert and b) tie down the westerners in some more internicine strife. Not sure about exact PoD.

Zoe was the start of the decline IMHO, not Manzikert: the reign of Constantine IX was when the Byzantines officially lost Italy and started to let the Seljuks run wild.

Originally, Alp Arslan's main target was the Fatimids in Egypt: perhaps a diplomatically inclined emperor (i.e. Zoe marries someone else) could recognize that and leverage the Seljuks as the Byzantines' way to grab even more land in the northern Levant with the evaporation of the Fatimids, while the Turks' "Turkey" rises in Egypt? With no real reason to go on Crusade, the West keeps up with the internecine warfare.

Or, of course, I could just remove Andronicus Ducas from the universe. ****ing traitor.

Nice idea about Italy, but IMHO its too late. We should probably simply prevent the Normans from getting there in the first place - distract them with some Spanish opportunities, perhaps?

So they would turn into an earlier version of Roger de Flor's Catalans, maybe?

 

[das]

I was thinking about sending them to Spain, actually. Lots of opportunities for looting and general troublemaking.

 

[Israelite9191]

Back to the Canute POD, why does Byzantium resurge? If they don't have the support of the Pope and the West, I would think it more likely that the Turks would kill off the Byzantines, perhaps even earlier creating a stronger more Eurocentric Turkish Empire. Then again, Byzantine history is not my strength.

Also, while I see your idea of a seperate Norse Catholic Church (either in communion with Rome or seperate, I prefer the later seeing as the Norse kings would likely want the excuse to eliminate the Pope from their political affairs) as very likely, I would also think that the Protestant Reformation on the Continent would still take place. I mean, there is no reason to assume that the indulgences etc. that corrupted Catholicism provoking Martin Luther's and others' protests would simply disapear. Martin Luther would still have his 99 Theses and there would still be the Reformation, I just think it would be stronger. I also think that while the Protestants would most likely not join the Celtic Rite (or Church most likely by this point) (I have given in to your argument), they would addopt some of its ideas. While you seem to think that the monasticity of the Celtic Rite makes it inherently introvert, I disagree. In the Early Middle Ages Irish monks, nuns, etc. spread all across Western Europe establishing monasteries, becoming bishops, etc. In fact, the majority of early Western European monasteries and convents, IIRC, were established by the Irish. Also the majority of manuscripts and books, even beyond the Early Middle Ages and up until the printing press (I suppose although possibly earlier, I can't seem to remember), were made by Irish monks or monks in Irish, Celtic Rite, monasteries on the Continent. This just shows the commitment of the Celtic Rite to spread. I mean, being a traveling friar was equally, or even more so, cherrished by the Celtic Rite as being a monk in a monastery. The monks of the Celtic Rite were not like the Desert Father of Egypt who saught complete isolation and often refused to take pupils and disciples; the monks of the Celtic Rite sought to know the world and the monasteries of Ireland and elsewhere in the sphere of the Celtic Rite were famous for attracting the nobility as centers of education. I would have to argue that by its very monastic nature the Celtic Rite sought to expand, as opposed to being inrovert as you suggest.

 

[Dachs]

Back to the Canute POD, why does Byzantium resurge? If they don't have the support of the Pope and the West, I would think it more likely that the Turks would kill off the Byzantines, perhaps even earlier creating a stronger more Eurocentric Turkish Empire. Then again, Byzantine history is not my strength.

Byzantium never had the support of the Pope and the West after the Great Schism anyway; by not really having to fight there (and have Manuel Comnenus lose that army to William the Bad), the Byzantines can concentrate on the Sultanate of Rum as opposed to the lost-cause West.

That was Manuel's main failing anyway: he counted on the Western Church too much, and diddled around with Italian politics while letting the Turks rearm after defeats in the 1150s - his best chance to annihilate the Seljuks. By the time of Myriocephalum, the Byzantines had let a major chance slip away from them.