Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel

A Mexico strong enough to actually upset the Monroe Doctrine and get away with it is pretty much "super". ;) And changes in Europe to enable it were pretty much necessary; early 19th century is way too late to build up Mexico without Britain making propping it up a priority of the first order, and there are few realistic ways of achieving that without drastically altering the global balance of power.
 
Thinking about it, a different outcome to the XYZ Affair, and possibly war with France, could further damage the Democratic-Republicans more than OTL, leading to more Federalist dominance. The Quasi War would become a real war, though likely not too changed in scope. This could lead to a greater friendship with Britain, unless a quick and reconciliatory peace is signed, which would be a possibility.

The perceived threat from foreign powers could also lead to the war with Spain, and later alarm Britain, with the War of 1812 having something along the lines of OTL causes (doable, even with a weaker pro-French faction in the US), but being fought differently due to the more militarily-prepared US.

Or, on the other hand, a less offensive French response might improve relations and lay the grounds for cooperation, and the Franco-American Alliance might stand, leading to US invasions of Louisiana and Canada, while France is at war with Britain and Spain. With a stronger pro-French faction than OTL, and the addition of another divergence to give the Federalists the White House in the 1800s, this is the more realistic possibility.
 
However, that might still not be enough to stop Spain from invading Mexico again; if the Anglo-American rivalry does not coincide with Spain being utterly ravished, then it would actually hurt Mexico rather than help it.
 
There are a lot of Great War divergences what I've been thinking about, and other than the one that I basically already did (Greeks land at Gallipoli with British support in winter 1914-5 is similar enough to the "death of Mustafa Kemal" PoD), there is one that intrigues me: suppose Lloyd George didn't support Grey's faction when the decision for entry into war was coming up; Asquith would have fallen without support from most of his ministry. Churchill had already been talking to Bonar Law about forming a coalition government, but the time to set this up would have allowed the Germans even more time to crush the French, combined with the inordinate amount of time that the British took to actually get the BEF to the Continent. Without the British at Mons, Le Cateau, and the Marne, perhaps the Germans would have been able to beat the lone French army and secure Paris in early September (as the BEF's participation at the Marne was rather critical to the success of Joffre's counteroffensive). By this time the coalition British government may have dispatched the BEF anyway, but with the fall of Paris the Germans would have been able to force them into the Channel ports at the very least and perhaps all the way out of France. Bonar Law's coalition government plus the Bordeaux French government would probably have had to sign a peace with the Germans, especially seeing as the German war aims would have to be significantly different than OTL (for example, lack of Belgian annexation, just taking over Luxemburg, and no French annexations; the September Memorandum war aims were circulated after the failure at the Marne and the realization of an imminent long war).

This would lead us to a fun war between the Germans and the Russians (plus weak Austria-Hungary) in the East, with the Germans probably forcing the Russians out of the Congress Kingdom by the end of 1915 a la Gorlice-Tarnow; Russia may have even surrendered earlier, with the attendant liberations of Poland and Finland, and perhaps even the Baltic States.

Anyway: a shorter Great War with German victory and the ability to set up a real Zollverein Mitteleuropa, without the absurd colonialism of das' Eurasian War TL (:p) and a real chance for a German-led "European Union" in the first half of the twentieth century being a real counter to the United States and Russia as world powers.

Oh, and if someone made a NES out of that "Greater Mexico" scenario, it'd be awesome. I'd go for Prussia again. ;)
 
On the topic of WWI, a rather more interesting (or at least less cliche) scenario would be one that ups the brutality and sheer epicness by having the Germans dominate the continent late in the war (really, all that involves is crushing France before American reinforcements arrive; harder to do than some might think, but at the same time perfectly feasible), but still suffer from various internal and economical problems plus overstretchment. A continued conversion into a brutal, but unstable and unpopular military dictatorship will help things further. Somehow I doubt that the Anglo-Americans would sign peace very easily even though it might be economically reasonable; that and the increasing desperation/fatalism of the German leadership will probably result in interesting developments at the sea and in the east, as the Hochseeflotte might sally forth for that last battle after all in this world, while in Russia, both the Entente and the Germans will intervenne to support their assorted allies, probably sweeping aside the Bolsheviks along the way.

Ultimately Germany might more or less hold the ground militarily, but still will succumb to economical collapse and, in all the probability, a communist revolution, pulling out from Eastern Europe and France. The latter is likely to be highly revanchist, though inasmuch as it is economically crippled it might not be able to do much. Britain will be left theoretically hegemonic, quite possibly picking up a lot of land in Africa especially if France is unable to hold on to its colonies there, but will in reality be far weaker than in OTL and might easily implode towards the 1940s. The Balkans and the Middle East will probably see much more blatant and aggressive land-grabbing; if Italy is not crushed by the Germans then it may well be able to occupy Illyria, for instance, and Turkey will be even worse than in OTL. Russia will be carved up; Armenia and Ukraine in particular will be doing lots of local land-grabbing in all directions, and after fleeing Turkey Enver Pasha may yet have a career as the founding father of Turan in Central Asia. I suspect that a central military government in Moscow might be able to reunite most of European Russia and possibly Western Siberia by the 1930s; quite conceivably Bermondt-Avalov will be the one to do it, starting out as a German collaborationist ruler in late WWI. Eastern Siberia and the Far East will see lots of squabbling governemnts and foreign interventions. Japan will be faced with an immense power vacuum in the Pacific region in the immediate post-war period; by then, I suspect that an USA disgusted with American affairs will turn to the Pacific as well, resulting in a Japanese-American Great Game from Siberia to New Zeeland.

This is just some random brainstorming that I felt the need to post here, now that the topic came up.
 
(really, all that involves is crushing France before American reinforcements arrive; harder to do than some might think, but at the same time perfectly feasible)
Maybe. That would mean in 1917, and at that point the Germans were on the defensive in the West; IMHO Ludendorff's offensive of April 1918 didn't really stand much of a chance even without Americans, because of the creation of a central Allied reserve; without the Americans, conceivably the Allies might only be able to push partway into Belgium, still not getting to the German frontier. The Allies did after all have much greater economic strength than the Germans did overall; the fact that they wasted most of it in poor manpower allocation and suicidal attacks like the Somme is probably why the Germans came so close to winning later in the war. Anyway, Germany might be able to mount a serious westward offensive in the wake of the Nivelle mutiny if they contribute fewer troops to crushing the Russians; this might add some strength to the Kerensky government, but the Russian situation would probably degenerate just as you indicated. Yes, it would be difficult to pull off and would require inspired work on the part of Ludendorff and Hindenburg but it is within the realm of possibility.

And I resent the "cliche" remark. :p

das said:
Ultimately Germany might more or less hold the ground militarily, but still will succumb to economical collapse and, in all the probability, a communist revolution
AAAARGH....not commies!

das said:
The Balkans and the Middle East will probably see much more blatant and aggressive land-grabbing; if Italy is not crushed by the Germans then it may well be able to occupy Illyria, for instance, and Turkey will be even worse than in OTL. Russia will be carved up; Armenia and Ukraine in particular will be doing lots of local land-grabbing in all directions, and after fleeing Turkey Enver Pasha may yet have a career as the founding father of Turan in Central Asia.
And he rejoiced, and once more spake of the Megali Idea and the gospel of Venizelism.

If we're just doing rapid brainstorming like this, why not go back further and plumb the depths of the sixteenth century? Personally, I'd love to see Turenne's Alsace Offensive (one of the greatest military masterpieces in history) go belly up earlier, perhaps due to the absence of the master himself; it seems a crime to me that France always seems to get Elsass-Lothringen all the time. :p
 
Yes, it would be difficult to pull off and would require inspired work on the part of Ludendorff and Hindenburg but it is within the realm of possibility.

Pretty much what I meant. ;)

AAAARGH....not commies!

Well, if there's any timeline where they could really take over Germany with any degree of success, then this would be it.

If we're just doing rapid brainstorming like this, why not go back further and plumb the depths of the sixteenth century?

Sure, why not, but you haven't plumbed deep enough yet. ;)

As to Alsace; I think that in the 17th century it was pretty much bound to fall into the French sphere, one way or the other. In the 18th century, however, during the War of Austrian Succession, Prince Charles Alexander of Lorraine had some brief success with an Austrian invasion of Alsace; but der alte Fritz had to go and stab Austria in the back again. Perhaps if he were to be removed early on and if Prussia were to remain in the Austrian field, Alsace might have been snatched away, either in the War of Austrian Succession or some althistorical mid-18th century grand conflict.

Actually, the War of Austrian Succession in general is surprisingly fertile, as far as alternate history goes. For instance, there was at some point a plan for Russia to enter the war early and on the Franco-Prussian side, not just to backstab Austria (that may well have been enough to doom the Habsburgs in the Empire at the least) but also to start partitioning Poland a few decades earlier; but La Chetardie botched it terribly despite the heavy French involvement in Elizabeth's coup that made this possible in the first place. Alas.
 
das said:
Pretty much what I meant.
I was just fleshing it out is all.
Perhaps if he were to be removed early on and if Prussia were to remain in the Austrian field, Alsace might have been snatched away, either in the War of Austrian Succession or some althistorical mid-18th century grand conflict.
Yeah, I always thought that the Seven Years' War was rather boring and only tactically stimulating if anything; if we do get rid of der alte Fritz, it would be most interesting right after the Peace of Breslau. With August Wilhelm on the throne, Prussia would likely still be anti-Austrian, though. Then again, the new dynastic ties that the Prussians would have with the Brits might have them completely change sides altogether. Maria Theresa would probably still want to scheme to get Schlesien back; the resulting war might still see British extra-continental hegemony, but without any allies left in Germany after Prussia gets crushed. This way the Austrians might centralize the HRE much faster as well...hooray for Germanic super-states...
das said:
Actually, the War of Austrian Succession in general is surprisingly fertile, as far as alternate history goes. For instance, there was at some point a plan for Russia to enter the war early and on the Franco-Prussian side, not just to backstab Austria (that may well have been enough to doom the Habsburgs in the Empire at the least) but also to start partitioning Poland a few decades earlier; but La Chetardie botched it terribly despite the heavy French involvement in Elizabeth's coup that made this possible in the first place. Alas.
I never much liked Bestuzhev anyway. :p
 
With August Wilhelm on the throne, Prussia would likely still be anti-Austrian, though.

Not quite so god-damn opportunistic, though. Probably.

the resulting war might still see British extra-continental hegemony, but without any allies left in Germany after Prussia gets crushed.

A source as credible as a Stalin-era Soviet textbook on the history of diplomacy ( :p ) had suggested that the British foreign policy in Germany amounted solely to looking for night guards for the Hannoverian holdings (or some similar metaphore), and therefore the British had only allied with the Prussians because they could deploy a large army to Hannover faster, while the Austrians would've been at the very least delayed by the Prussians; that actually kind of makes sense, so if the Prussian military is sufficiently crushed the British are likely to simply switch sides and ally with Austria again.

This way the Austrians might centralize the HRE much faster as well...hooray for Germanic super-states...

One can only hope, but I fear they might settle for a loose hegemony for that geopolitical cycle. Things might change later on, but these changes might not be in Austria's favour.

I never much liked Bestuzhev anyway.

He wasn't *that* bad, but yes, he really slipped up, especially later on.
 
Not quite so god-damn opportunistic, though. Probably.
Well, of course. August Wilhelm wasn't a terrible general, but he also wasn't a Great Captain of History.
das said:
if the Prussian military is sufficiently crushed the British are likely to simply switch sides and ally with Austria again.
Against the French? Sure, why not?
das said:
One can only hope, but I fear they might settle for a loose hegemony for that geopolitical cycle. Things might change later on, but these changes might not be in Austria's favor.
Yeah, on reflection, Austria probably won't get to live with that for too long, and then Germany will be crushed by the usual Franco-Russian alliance that seems almost preordained...unless Russia can be directed away from Germany, perhaps to the south and the Ottoman Empire, or north to Sweden again. That way France would be relatively isolated...but they're not that stupid...and the British wouldn't ally with the French mainly on principle at this point in time...and the Austrians are out of the question because of Alsace. Maybe it will be Austria+Britain against France and Russia, with the attendant consequences for all involved and the probable loss of Alsace, which is what we were trying to avoid in the first place. :p
 
Maybe it will be Austria+Britain against France and Russia, with the attendant consequences for all involved and the probable loss of Alsace, which is what we were trying to avoid in the first place

Funny, I sort of thought of that too; however, if France loses badly enough early on, it might be enough to push it into an early revolution in the form of extreme rioting (plausibly incited, funded and/or organised by British spies). Not to the point of overthrowing the monarchy yet, but to the point of complete ungovernability and collapse of the war effort, practically forcing peace negotiations.
 
Funny, I sort of thought of that too; however, if France loses badly enough early on, it might be enough to push it into an early revolution in the form of extreme rioting (plausibly incited, funded and/or organized by British spies). Not to the point of overthrowing the monarchy yet, but to the point of complete ungovernability and collapse of the war effort, practically forcing peace negotiations.
Huh, this really does have elements of Tsar Pavel's War TL (specifically, the War of the British Revolution). :p So what would such a war decide - would it be confined to Russian gains in the east (with the war starting over Poland), or would the Anglo-Austrian alliance win out completely in both theaters? Also, would France have the naval strength to sponsor American independence (in your opinion anyway; I certainly don't think so, although Spain might not be entirely out of the question)?
 
Huh, this really does have elements of Tsar Pavel's War TL (specifically, the War of the British Revolution).

It's the same time period, but I think I used the "war-time French Revolution" idea previously. Didn't do it too well, though.

So what would such a war decide - would it be confined to Russian gains in the east (with the war starting over Poland), or would the Anglo-Austrian alliance win out completely in both theaters?

Obviously it's a bit hard to say when things are this ambigous, but an Allied victory in the west and a draw in the east appear likely, ultimately. Incidentally, Poland might survive in its full size as a buffer state, without the Prussians to initiate its partition and with the Russian and Austrian influences now working against one another; post-war, the Russians might indeed focus on southwards expansion, while the Austrians will either go for a rapprochment and war with the Ottomans or indeed will work on a German super-state.

Also, would France have the naval strength to sponsor American independence (in your opinion anyway; I certainly don't think so, although Spain might not be entirely out of the question)?

How America will work out in this world is indeed an interesting question. If we presume that Britain takes over French North America in the 1740s war, then by the time of the 1760s war some dissent may be already ripe. War with Spain plus general upsurge of patriotism will keep the colonies in the fold for the war, but after it the situation will become a vertiable quagmire. Firstly, there would be the vast, greater-than-OTL territorial and administrative issues between the British government and the colonies; secondly, a probably much more active war in Europe will make the ultimate British expenses even worse than in OTL. Thus in the end Britain will end up with an earlier rebellion over a wider area.

I do agree that neither France nor Spain will be in any position to support the rebels; the former might even be having a civil war of its own at this point, and the latter will be simply oblidged to intervenne. Actually, I suspect that Russia, Sweden (at least temporarily in the Russian sphere after France's collapse), Denmark-Norway and Holland might take up the slack, to some extent; Russian interests will clash with the British far more in this world, simply because in OTL the niche of the archenemy was filled by France and here that's no longer feasible. The British will meddle in Poland and support the Ottomans; so the Russians will retaliate through vigorous meddling in the Americas. The Northern League might not be able to do much against the British West Indies, but it certianly will tie down naval resources for some time.

I think the rebels would have a pretty good shot at independence (holding the much bigger nation together afterwards would be more problematic), but a perhaps more interesting option would be to have the British reconquer Canada and the East Coast, but fail to subjugate the settlements further west, which, reinforced by refugees and the remnants of the Continental Army or equivalent, might develop into a very different civilisation. I already had an American frontier confederation, but this would/could be different, especially if they hold on to Louisiana; a distantly plausible result would be a strongly French-influenced (both old colonists and fresh French refugees; I think it would be best to have the reactionaries win the French civil war here, starting a brutal White Terror and causing lots of people to flee to the "free colonies") and radicalised federation (maybe even an unitary republic; not so hard to pull off when you have a clear centre) with a capital in New Orleans and a pseudo-aristocratic ruling elite. Okay, it's not that plausible, but it's not every time you could make a mostly logical connection between the early death of Konig Friedrich II and something like this.
 
How America will work out in this world is indeed an interesting question. If we presume that Britain takes over French North America in the 1740s war, then by the time of the 1760s war some dissent may be already ripe. War with Spain plus general upsurge of patriotism will keep the colonies in the fold for the war, but after it the situation will become a vertiable quagmire. Firstly, there would be the vast, greater-than-OTL territorial and administrative issues between the British government and the colonies; secondly, a probably much more active war in Europe will make the ultimate British expenses even worse than in OTL. Thus in the end Britain will end up with an earlier rebellion over a wider area.

Why? They can now have a huge amount of money to be made in the selling off/leasing of the vast French territories gained to private individuals - an easy way to get sleath taxes and recover their expenses. Plus the colonials would love it. In OTL Canada they couldn't do that due to the Quebec acts, but with a much vaster and less populated zone won in war...

I do agree that neither France nor Spain will be in any position to support the rebels; the former might even be having a civil war of its own at this point, and the latter will be simply oblidged to intervenne. Actually, I suspect that Russia, Sweden (at least temporarily in the Russian sphere after France's collapse), Denmark-Norway and Holland might take up the slack, to some extent; Russian interests will clash with the British far more in this world, simply because in OTL the niche of the archenemy was filled by France and here that's no longer feasible.

None of whom except for Holland can supply the rebels with material in any meanful way or have as much cash surpluses as france could have.

The British will meddle in Poland and support the Ottomans; so the Russians will retaliate through vigorous meddling in the Americas. The Northern League might not be able to do much against the British West Indies, but it certianly will tie down naval resources for some time.

Why is Britain meddling in poland?

I think the rebels would have a pretty good shot at independence (holding the much bigger nation together afterwards would be more problematic), but a perhaps more interesting option would be to have the British reconquer Canada and the East Coast, but fail to subjugate the settlements further west, which, reinforced by refugees and the remnants of the Continental Army or equivalent, might develop into a very different civilisation.

Who would be ****ed economically, without the infrastructure on the east coast, the vast merchent marine, and easy access to european financial markets and immigrant pools. Leading to a far weaker state probably worse off than mexico.

I already had an American frontier confederation, but this would/could be different, especially if they hold on to Louisiana; a distantly plausible result would be a strongly French-influenced (both old colonists and fresh French refugees; I think it would be best to have the reactionaries win the French civil war here, starting a brutal White Terror and causing lots of people to flee to the "free colonies") and radicalised federation (maybe even an unitary republic; not so hard to pull off when you have a clear centre) with a capital in New Orleans and a pseudo-aristocratic ruling elite. Okay, it's not that plausible, but it's not every time you could make a mostly logical connection between the early death of Konig Friedrich II and something like this.

This republic would be very much at britains mercy, since they have but one entry point to the interior that would be very easy to blockade. As the reclaimed east coast rise in population and industrial might and britain gradually loosens the strings I can see bits and pieces getting eaten off this Federation (not to mention its rather unlikly to get any of the west coast or mexico).
 
Why? They can now have a huge amount of money to be made in the selling off/leasing of the vast French territories gained to private individuals - an easy way to get sleath taxes and recover their expenses. Plus the colonials would love it. In OTL Canada they couldn't do that due to the Quebec acts, but with a much vaster and less populated zone won in war...

They could do it I suppose, but would they?

None of whom except for Holland can supply the rebels with material in any meanful way or have as much cash surpluses as france could have.

Naturally; one of the main factors weakening the rebels when compared to their OTL equivalents.

Who would be ****ed economically, without the infrastructure on the east coast, the vast merchent marine, and easy access to european financial markets and immigrant pools. Leading to a far weaker state probably worse off than mexico.

It certainly wouldn't be anywhere near OTL USA, but I suspect it still would be a major immigration destination. Given time it could work out, though I agree that the miserable backwater is much more probable here. Maybe more like Argentina, though; there certainly are numerous geographic similarities.
 
Why? They can now have a huge amount of money to be made in the selling off/leasing of the vast French territories gained to private individuals - an easy way to get sleath taxes and recover their expenses. Plus the colonials would love it. In OTL Canada they couldn't do that due to the Quebec acts, but with a much vaster and less populated zone won in war...
That's actually a pretty good idea; the Proclamation of 1763 was silly and in any case the colonists could inundate the natives with sheer manpower.

While the whole "frontier republic" idea is relatively new and fresh (and consequently gimmicky :p), I think that it's a good deal safer to try to develop something like NES2 V's Federated Kingdoms instead; hyperpowers are such fun.
 
They could do it I suppose, but would they?

It certainly wouldn't be anywhere near OTL USA, but I suspect it still would be a major immigration destination. Given time it could work out, though I agree that the miserable backwater is much more probable here. Maybe more like Argentina, though; there certainly are numerous geographic similarities.

I think they would, certainly fits in with earlier selling off of lands and encouragment of emmigration :shrug:, plus with sudden new lands they can send transportees to the interior.

I doubt it would get many immigrants for a number of reasons:
1) Probably would be a lot of black slaves in the lower regions, and europeans preferred to settle elsewhere (and since they would have to go to new orleans first...)
2) Far less wealthy, and thus less desirable, also might be seen as less secure. Plus the near absense of proto-industrial infrastructure (and having in hard to set up than the north east) is going to hurt.
3) Less free land than the OTL US, thus more prone to nativist sentiments (though probably not to the extent of OTL argentina who was just silly about such things ;)).

@Dachs: yeah it was, but in this case the Brits will have not gained the indian lands by treaty, but instead by beating down - so they are not going to be caring so much about their feelings. ;)
 
I realize that this is a rather old idea and that I did it rather poorly the first time; however, it's been awhile since we had much of anything in this time period. This also serves as handy retconning. :p

The Story So Far. (1000-1100)

The 11th century began auspiciously for the Roman Empire. The last vestiges of the Macedonian dynasty, including the great Basil II, smashed the various small emirates on the eastern Imperial border and managed to play the Turks, the Buwayhids, and the Ghaznavids against each other fairly well; a Seljuk Empire wasn't established until the 1050s. At the same time, fairly good relations with the Western churchmen were maintained, especially after the Pope and the Emperor combined to smash the developing Norman immigrants in Roman Apulia, the last small band of which were defeated by 1060. By that time Basil's sons had finally expired and left the throne to the new Comnenus dynasty, led by the dissolute Isaac I, who promptly perished in combat against the new Sadaqid emirate in Egypt; the Phocas family seized power and managed to halt the incoming Seljuk hordes by paying off certain other tribes in the eastern regions of that Empire to revolt (including the Khwarezmians, who actually managed to establish a fairly stable state in Central Asia), while the Sadaqids were beaten off after a decade and a half of bloodshed in southern Syria. After that, the issue of the good old filioque/ex filio clause managed to finally initiate a formal schism between the Eastern (Orthodox) and Western Churches in the 1080s, mostly initiated by a Holy Roman Emperor's tame Pope. This led the Emperor, Leo VII Phocas, to lead an army into southern Italy to battle the Imperial/Papal forces who were trying to seize Roman Italy; after the disastrous Battle of Cannae in 1089, at which Leo was killed during a disastrous cavalry charge, the Romans were forced to retreat from Italy and Sicily, which were both absorbed by the Holy Roman Emperor. Alexius I Comnenus led a coup against the remnants of the Phocas dynasty and beat off a Seljuk attack under Malik Shah, who then was forced to turn against Anush Tigin's Khwarezmian emirate.

The coalescing state of Hungary also attempted expansion during this time; after an initial period under Venetian influence, a pro-Byzantine (and thus pro-Eastern rite) finally managed to seize power in the 1020s, but a following Holy Roman invasion in the 1050s established Western Rite in at least the western regions (with heavy amounts of Orthodoxals on the east and south sides of the Danube). Eventually, Hungary's attempted expansion into Kievan Rus Halych was cut short by further religious strife; most of the rest of the century was characterized by extreme schism-initiated conflict beginning in the 1080s with the official break and still not completed by 1100, although the Catholics were beginning to gain ascendancy. Naturally, the relatively decentralized Kievan Rus still managed to pick up territory on the slopes of the Carpathians, although they didn't dare to penetrate into the Alfold yet.

In Iberia, the collapse of the Cordova Caliphate led Norman knights into southern Spain en masse, searching for job opportunities among the weak taifas [1] and eventually carving out a strong kingdom centered around Badajoz in the southwestern corner of the peninsula. The Norman Kingdom of Iberia, much more tolerant of the Muslims than their Reconquista rivals to the north, had by 1060 managed to secure most of the southern part of the peninsula in fief through mostly the sheer genius of William I, of the Hauteville family. The Hauteville Iberians soon began to clash sometimes with the Castilians under Fernando I the Great, who managed to unite Castile, Leon, Aragon, and Navarre partly through dynastic ties and partly through conquest. A series of on again, off again wars between the Iberians (whose capital was soon after moved to Cordova itself) and the Castilians was only halted when the Castilians wished to play a part in the fun wars in France (see below) and the Iberians decided to fool around in Africa. In fact, the Iberians managed to establish a very strong presence in Africa by the 1080s, smashing the Almoravid Empire and establishing control over parts of Morocco. A Turkish adventurer named Qutulmish carved out his own kingdom in Ifriqiya around Tunis, which managed to secure control over parts of Sicily while the Holy Roman Emperors were busy.

As to France and the HRE...the Hauteville family managed to conquer Arelate (or Burgundy) in the 1040s; King Drogo of Arelate successfully repulsed several Imperial invasions over the course of the next two decades, and extended his holdings in France, with control over much of Aquitaine and the remainder of France south of the Massif going more or less to Hauteville members. The French monarchy was spending much of this time wallowing in decay; this was only somewhat reversed by King Philippe I, who managed to destroy the Duchy of Normandy while the Duke, one William, was in his minority. The end of the Norman threat to the north allowed the royal demesne to concentrate its activities to the south; an alliance was built with the Holy Roman Emperors against the Hautevilles, who consistently supported Pope Gregory VII against his archenemies the Saxon Emperors. These matters came to a head after Heinrich V was forced from Italy by an unholy alliance of the Hautevilles (the Iberian Kingdom and Arelate were united under Robert Guiscard, the greatest of the Norman Kings), the Pope, and...the Eastern Emperor Alexius I Comnenus. Heinrich began to plan for a counterattack, but he was preempted by his own death, and when his son Otto IV demanded to be crowned Holy Roman Emperor the Pope refused, leading to the fun War of German Succession, which began in 1092.

Unfortunately for the Papal alliance, Robert Guiscard died of old age rather early on; his son Bohemund was forced to fight against Philippe I in France, where the Royals managed to wear down the Normans; the Iberian Kingdom was prevented from assisting its brother by an alliance between Yusuf (Qutulmish's son, the emir of Ifriqiya) and the Castilians under Alfonso VI, which pressured Tancred I horribly; the Iberians in fact would only narrowly get out of this scrape by a great victory at the siege of Toledo against the Castilians and then a second, less impressive victory at Oran, but those were in 1096 and 1097...far too late for Arelate. Meanwhile, after a deadlock on the Adige River, Otto managed to besiege and capture Venice after an epic assault in 1093. Unexpected victories by the Normans in Arelate and central France - culminating in the Siege of Orleans, which was only barely relieved by the French King - forced Otto to move west to assist his ally; in 1095 he and Philippe won the Battle of Issoure and crushed Arelate. Alexius had used this opportunity to invade Styria and even move into Bavaria, raising a few rebels to Otto's rule, but supply problems and a renewed German threat to his rear in northern Italy forced him to return south, where he drew against Otto at Lucca and continued to retreat towards Roman Hydruntum. After the Pope died in 1096 and was replaced by pro-Otto Paschal II, Alexius was forced to recognize Otto as Holy Roman Emperor and lost his Italian lands. Arelate was generally split between the HRE and France, with Otto getting a slightly larger slice (which greatly embittered old Philippe); naturally, the HRE once more was hegemon of Italy.

England and the North were very active for awhile, especially after the death of Canute the Great and the collapse of his empire. Anglo-Saxons soon had control of England once more, and Harold II repulsed the grand invasion of the Norwegian King Harold Hardrada in 1066 at the Battle of York; Harold meddled in France somewhat and managed to gain control of what had once been Normandy in the wake of the destruction of William's duchy. After the defeat of York, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway degenerated into obscurity and ruin, as did Ireland, which were all fairly disunited and home to constant endemic strife.

Poland had achieved a brief period of greatness under Boleslaw the Brave, but found itself inundated by Germanic settlers of the Ostsiedlung; an invasion by Emperor Heinrich IV completely wiped out the Poles after the Battle of Liegnitz. After Liegnitz, many Poles migrated eastward and came into contact with the Kievan Rus; Germanic settlers moved into the western regions of Poland, in a movement called the Ostsiedlung, which continued as the period ended. The Kievan Rus themselves were initially highly disunited (and also fairly advanced), but gained some centralization following the mass Polish invasions of the 1070s, repulsing most of the invaders and forcing them north, coming into contact with Cours, Liths, and the like and creating a renewed syncretic nascent Polish homeland around Wilno [2] by 1100. While somewhat weakened, the Kievan Rus were strong enough to raid into Hungary as noted above and end the endemic conflict that had been a constant pretty much since Yaroslav the Wise.

And to the east?...A major Seljuk invasion of India managed to overwhelm the disparate Rajput princes and begin to harass the Western Chalukyas under the great ruler Vikramaditya VI. An alliance of Cholas and Chalukyas repulsed the Seljuks and forced them into a brief decline; the Chalukyas managed to seize some extra land in Rajputana, along with the Eastern Chalukya lands following the collapse of that dynasty (causing a renaissance of sorts), but most of India really remained static. The Cholas continued to work at establishing their extra-Deccan empire, although that progress was somewhat ******** by the war with the Seljuks.

So...fun...a brief sketch of the 11th century. I wonder what I could possibly do with that...:p

[1] = Petty emirate or kingdom under Muslim rule.
[2] = I know it's a bit early, but it's as good a name as any.
 
I think they would, certainly fits in with earlier selling off of lands and encouragment of emmigration :shrug:, plus with sudden new lands they can send transportees to the interior.

I doubt it would get many immigrants for a number of reasons:
1) Probably would be a lot of black slaves in the lower regions, and europeans preferred to settle elsewhere (and since they would have to go to new orleans first...)
2) Far less wealthy, and thus less desirable, also might be seen as less secure. Plus the near absense of proto-industrial infrastructure (and having in hard to set up than the north east) is going to hurt.
3) Less free land than the OTL US, thus more prone to nativist sentiments (though probably not to the extent of OTL argentina who was just silly about such things ;)).

Still, if Canada is getting conquered earlier, and parceled much more effectively, you can bet that there would be similar deportations of French Acadians and the sort to Louisiana anyways. Since they'll have an extra two decades or so to reestablish themselves, you might have infrastructure, at least near New Orleans, reaching an acceptable level.

@Dachs: Nice TL. Not sure if the Cholas would care to fight the Seljuks, but it's possible. India was relatively uninterested in the Muslims until the "oh crap" factor of Prithviraj's death and the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate, and by then it was too late. ;)
 
Once more, I would like to state my dislike of dach's alt-history. I dislike the death of William the Conqueror and his Duchy as well as the fact it's so military orientated :p
 
Back
Top Bottom