Alternate History Thread III

[Israelite9191]

It's true that Florida's territory isn't very valuable, but its strategic position in the Caribbean should not be underestimated. Also, before we go speculating about the effects in the 19th century, perhaps we should consider the effect in the 16th century. We are jumping 300 years ahead of ourselves, especially considering that the obstruction of Spanish trade routes could have serious concequences.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Very true, and i find it unlikely the Spanish would ever recover Florida from the French, who's garrison was strong for a colonial outpost, and was captured by much good luck and weather which favored the Spaniards.

So how exactly would a crippled Spain effect politics in Europe?

 

[Israelite9191]

Spanish recapture would also be highly unlikely seeing as the French would no doubt recognize the strategic value of Florida to the Spanish and thus strive to protect it.

 

[Swissempire]

Has the Treaty of the Pyrenees been signed yet, because if it hasn't, maybe the French gain more?

And Florida had the Potential to be very valuable, but the Spanish were morons.

 

[das]

IMHO you far overstate the actual strategic importance of Florida; the Spanish captured it as an afterthought (well, that and to defend their northern flank in the Carribean), and when the British did have it it had failed to play an important role...

So I doubt that it would have a really major influence on the 17th and 18th centuries, much less the 16th; there might be some local changes, but probably not enough to seriously affect the geopolitics of the time period.

Now, in the 19th century things get more interesting. I still think that a Huguenot Florida would remain loyal - further so because it would be a natural destination for Loyalist refugees from the south. As for the greater geopolitics, I already made clear my opinion on the excellent opportunity for the British to barr the American westwards expansion. Such a move would have major long-term consequences, as I had already said, seriously affecting the geopolitics of Europe and the world.

For one thing, the Monroe Doctrine entirely rested on Anglo-American cooperation, impossible on those conditions. While Britain and America are deadlocked in the various border clashes and frontier wars, the Spanish will probably get another chance to retake their Latin American holdings, with French assistance. I doubt that they would be very succesful, but still, some regions might be retaken.

I don't think it would be enough to prevent the July Revolution, or 1848 for that matter (but there ofcourse will be some changes); when Napoleon III comes to power however, we will get a major change. France, Spain and USA in this world will be natural allies; together with various rebels and Latin American countries they will challenge the British naval supremacy and domination in the Carribean; and that will ofcourse mean no Anglo-French Entente. Very possibly Russians will not have to fight a Crimean War, but instead will impose various concessions from the Ottoman Empire; it is however also possible that Austria, Prussia or both might ally with Turkey, at British instigation.

World War One in the 1850s is a possibility.

 

[Luckymoose]

Thats very interesting. That would be a good alt hist to read and to play. *points at das*

 

[das]

I'm busy writing another one, alas; but I do intend to put up some maps and additional information, having brainstormed on this issue while on the bus.

 

[Luckymoose]

I'm busy writing another one, alas; but I do intend to put up some maps and additional information, having brainstormed on this issue while on the bus.

Do that, its very interesting so far. And with my interest in Spain at it's peak right now I would enjoy more information.

 

[silver 2039]

I was thinking about an intreasting scenario on the bus that could lengthen the life span of the Roman Empire.

Large scale Hunnic migaration and invasion of Sassanid Persia as a pose to the Roman Empire. The White Huns caused problems for Persia yes, but if the rest of the Huns attacked Persia as well it could be conquered or at least seriously damadged. A weakened Sassaind Persia means no invasions of the Eastern Empire, no oppurtunity for Palmyra to rise and conquer vast swathes of Eastern Roman territory. Also no Hunnic invasion of Europe means the Visigoths and Osrogoths won't be drivien into Roman territory thus Alaric would never arise as a leader and sack Rome. and if the last great Roman General Stilco isn't executed...that could mean other barbarian invasions could be defeated.

 

[Luckymoose]

I was thinking about an intreasting scenario on the bus that could lengthen the life span of the Roman Empire.

Large scale Hunnic migaration and invasion of Sassanid Persia as a pose to the Roman Empire. The White Huns caused problems for Persia yes, but if the rest of the Huns attacked Persia as well it could be conquered or at least seriously damadged. A weakened Sassaind Persia means no invasions of the Eastern Empire, no oppurtunity for Palmyra to rise and conquer vast swathes of Eastern Roman territory. Also no Hunnic invasion of Europe means the Visigoths and Osrogoths won't be drivien into Roman territory thus Alaric would never arise as a leader and sack Rome. and if the last great Roman General Stilco isn't executed...that could mean other barbarian invasions could be defeated.

but what would come of Europe say 500 years later? Would it still be Roman?

 

[das]

Rome had too great an internal weakness as I had already mentioned; it will simply fall apart, IMHO, only into more Latin states. Btw, Palmyra will be only stronger in this world, silver, although it will rise up later.

EDIT: Also, you forget that the Huns weren't the only ones in the Steppe. The situation there was too explosive; someone else would've given the first push instead, like say the Avars. Still, this will win the Romans some extra time.

 

[North King]

The "Huns" that invaded Persia were a rather different, though related, branch of the steppe nomads, the Ephthalites. Assuming the Huns all went that way would mean that there would be much more of a problem for the steppe nomads as internal rivalries threatened to tear them apart; and it might mean a Sarmatian resurgence in Ukraine, if the Avars didn't get there first.

 

[das]

They'll slaughter each other, ofcourse, but first they'll cripple Persia and a good deal of northern Indian states.

 

[Thlayli]

If the Romans had merely conquered and settled Eastern Germany from the outset, following, say, a Roman Victory at the Teutoburg Forest, a much larger buffer zone would have been created, and the opposite effect of Germanic tribes fleeing east would be seen.

When the eventual Hunnic invasions do come, they'll be drastically slowed by the Germanic sub-states that have reestablished themselves in Poland and Belarus, perhaps. Not to mention, they'd have to deal with a Roman Germany before they even get to Gaul, let alone Italy. Same goes for Constantinople, which we can assume will be unbreakable regardless of the situation, as long as Constantine is born on schedule.

So in the end, Rome may lose Germany after 400, but retain a better assimilated Gaul, as the barbarian vassals could be settled in Germania instead.

(As an added bonus, the ancestors of the Saxons will be slaughtered or displaced, ensuring the future of a Romano-Briton or Romano-Welsh Britain. The Angles might flee north into Denmark, depending on Roman penetration.)

 

[North King]

They'll slaughter each other, ofcourse, but first they'll cripple Persia and a good deal of northern Indian states.

That's exactly what they did do, and it didn't help the Romans any.

 

[das]

If the Romans had merely conquered and settled Eastern Germany from the outset, following, say, a Roman Victory at the Teutoburg Forest, a much larger buffer zone would have been created, and the opposite effect of Germanic tribes fleeing east would be seen.

When the eventual Hunnic invasions do come, they'll be drastically slowed by the Germanic sub-states that have reestablished themselves in Poland and Belarus, perhaps. Not to mention, they'd have to deal with a Roman Germany before they even get to Gaul, let alone Italy. Same goes for Constantinople, which we can assume will be unbreakable regardless of the situation, as long as Constantine is born on schedule.

So in the end, Rome may lose Germany after 400, but retain a better assimilated Gaul, as the barbarian vassals could be settled in Germania instead.

(As an added bonus, the ancestors of the Saxons will be slaughtered or displaced, ensuring the future of a Romano-Briton or Romano-Welsh Britain. The Angles might flee north into Denmark, depending on Roman penetration.)

Um, no. Germany would have been virtually untenable. Roman Britain would probably have been abandoned much earlier, if conquered at all; Germany would consume too many troops. Even then, it will be wide-open to the more aggressive tribes of Scandinavia and the Steppe - resulting in doomed campaigns to the east and to the north (doomed in that they would be impossible to properly supply), and then static defense, and then - collapse.

And after the fall of Germany, the rest will follow quickly. Celts, pushed by the earlier Vikings (awakened by Roman meddling), will overrun Gaul, steppe peoples will overrun Dacia, and assorted Germannic tribes will plunder through everything else (while the Sassanids would strike from the east and the Berbers - from the south).

Sorry if that sounds a bit incoherent. In any case, the OTL Roman border was very tenable; the reason the Romans abandoned the conquest of Germany was both that it would probably have consumed way too many resoruces and would have been all too hard to keep in Roman hands. The actual defeat did help in hammering the point home. If the Romans had won there, they would probably have just abandoned Germany later on, come to think of it, as they did elsewhere; but if they try to hold on, see above apocalyptic scenario.

NK, I mean that they would do the same but even worse. Btw, as a possibility there might be a Hunno-Persian Empire - all hail Shahanshah Attila, the Scourge of Ahriman!

 

[North King]

Doubtful. The Huns were, if anything, not empire builders.

The padding that a German frontier would give has been a fascination among historians. It really comes down to how fast the Romans can cut down trees.

 

[das]

Trees or no trees, IMHO it was simply impossible to succesfully defend and integrate Germany - simply not worth the effort, IMHO. Rome was quite overstretched even without Germany.

 

[silver 2039]

However a Roman fronteir at the Elbe would be much shorther than a Roman fronteir than that of the Rhine. All the Romans would have to do would be fortify the Elbe, and wall off the Jutland and they have a perfectly defendeable area form steppe and Scandnavian invaders.

 

[North King]

Not so. Gaul was one of the richest provinces of the Roman Empire after a century or two of development, and it was, prior to that, forested and wild. Admittedly, it was not quite to the same degree as Germania would be, but still, the rewards were there if the Romans had enough time to invest in it--indeed, any part of the world has value if you stay long enough to figure it out and work the land. As for them being overstretched, well, conquests like Dacia, Armenia, and Mesopotamia greatly extended the frontier, where moving the frontier to the Elbe would keep it about the same length.

Furthermore, with the conquest of Germania, that would set back Germanic tribes as threats for a long time, thus Rome would have more time to develop their land before the invasions came. Therefore, Germania would become a fairly well settled region in the Roman Empire. The extra padding would ensure that the wealth of Gaul and Hispania were rarely threatened, and the extra riches would probably extend the lifespan of the Roman Empire by at least a century, if not two or three.

This, too, would change the dynamic entirely. Britons would likely be the kings of Britain, while the fairly battered Germans would become a minor group in Europe, far superceded by the Slavs. I imagine that with things even more centralized in the North, the Vikings would have an even easier time of raiding the still Briton-Romanic Britain, and the Roman Gaul and Germania,since the response time of land forces would be even further decreased. So we would see a dynamic of Latin, Norse, and Slav in Europe, instead of the rather more fractured Europe that resulted; it's anyone's guess as to how that would have turned out.