Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel

[Dachs]

Would Sher Khan be able to establish a long lasting empire much more easily? Actually would Sher Khan be able to rise to power in the first place?

IIRC das sort of explored this in his Agincourt TL which led to DisNES II; just another short-lived empire.

 

[das]

Whoa. I'm not sure if the Russians would have been *that* drastic, but then again Alexander was an odd bird (though not as weird as Paul). I guess that's entirely possible; the Petersburg court moves back and forth between that city and Moscow a lot already as it is; why not a third "capital"?

Throughout 19th and early 20th century, emperors and ministers kept looking for new capitals; St. Petersburg was getting very uncomfortable, whereas a capital in Warsaw or Kiev (two very popular choices) would have both helped with the European/southern focus respectively and, it was thought, would've reconciled the local uppity minorities, assimilating them into the empire and turning their fervour to work in its favour. Constantinople wasn't all that good (if only because it wasn't conquered yet; however, it would've also been very difficult to defend and rather detached from the main empire), but made up for it all by being Constantinople.

There is a new such craze nowadays, btw. St. Petersburg, Samara, Ekaterinburg, Novosibirsk and Vladivostok all strive for the status of the next capital. Obvious superiority of Ekaterinburg aside ( ), it might be nice to see how Vladivostok would work out.

Who would get Belgium? The Austrians don't want it at all anymore, and the Dutch Republic isn't in the British good books, while the Oranje don't have enough support to even get the Seven Provinces as of 1805-6.

Make it independent and put a Hannoverian on the throne. Or hell, just add it to the personal union.

The industrial might of Britain and Belgium united is the stuff of nightmares, though.

I don't see much of a remedy at all outside of giving them basically all of northern Italy.

Well, why not? I mean, everybody else with serious influence in this place (a.k.a. France) isn't in position to do anything about it, and I don't think Prussia, Russia or Britain would be really opposed to it; they all have their own backyards to deal with, why not throw the Habsburgs a bone as well?

What if Tokhataymesh won the war against Timur and preserved Golden Horde's power?

The reason he lost the war was that there was no real power to preserve. The Golden Horde was already disintegrating; even had Tokhtamysh pulled off a victory (which is interesting, mind you, as the only way to get a lasting victory against Timur would probably be to neutralise him, one way or another; otherwise he'll just go back, raise another army and destroy everything in his wrath; but if he's dead or captured, then the Middle East will probably fall into infighting again, while the Ottomans would not be pushed decades behind in their progress), it would've imploded soon enough.

What if the Malmukes had lost at Ain Jalut, or the Il-Khanate was not torn apart by civil war and the Khan was able to revenge the defeat and advance into Egypt and further into Turkey and such?

It was not "torn apart by civil war"; not yet, that is. Abaqa, the son of Hulegu, did try to get revenge, but once again failed miserably. The Mamlukes were fighting in their own home turf, while the Mongols had already ran out of steam and lost their main advantages.

Recognising this, the next ruler converted to Islam, allied with the Mamlukes and began transforming the Il-Khanate into a proper sultanate. That could've worked out pretty well, actually, but no, Buddhists (namely, Arghun, Abaqa's son) just had to go in and ruin that, and screw over the Il-Khanate's potential. Bah.

 

[Symphony D.]

There is a new such craze nowadays, btw. St. Petersburg, Samara, Ekaterinburg, Novosibirsk and Vladivostok all strive for the status of the next capital. Obvious superiority of Ekaterinburg aside ( ), it might be nice to see how Vladivostok would work out.

Given Putin's self-fulfilling paranoid delusions, I'm shocked the Kremlin hasn't been airlifted to Novosibirsk already.

 

[das]

There are few modern follies greater than mistaking a politician's public image for anything even slightly more significant than that.

Besides, Novosibirsk is too close to Kazakhstan.

 

[Symphony D.]

Besides, Novosibirsk is too close to Kazakhstan.

Yes, I believe the optimal location would be somewhere around Tomsk. However, Tomsk is in the middle of nowhere, capitals need infrastructure, and politicians of any persuasion tend to be incompetent, thusly Novosibirsk is a perfectly acceptable solution. Plus Kazakhstan remains nominally within the Russian sphere as Baikonur continues to do launches from Roskosmos. If you can launch missiles into space from somewhere, it's as good as yours.

It's Azerbaijan you have to worry about. And Poland. And the Balkans. And Japan. And everywhere else America is supposedly encircling Russia, because lord knows the country that has to pay its citizens to have kids and has way too much land and energy is the real enemy, not the country a bit further south that already has 1.6 billion of them and actually needs space and energy.

I swear, real leaders are infinitely stupider than NESers. Which is frightening. If Putin or Ahmedinijad had an ounce of sense they'd be buddying up with the US to get an advantage over their local competitors, get stronger, then try and backstab it. You get free stuff, money, and American protection. The former is like being Japan to NES2 VI's France. The latter is like being Persia to NES2 V's FK. Compare their eventual fates.

Opposing the big kid on the block openly and boldly from the beginning is a mark of idiocy. It's like shouting "Hey, I'mma kill you if you lets me!!1" The only saving grace is that America is too busy and complacent to bother with it. You don't even have to worry about the commoners (who are being told lies anyway--"Stalin was OK, even though he killed 20 million of you!", "America is the Great Satan and the Holocaust was lies! Here's how you do a Nazi salute!") and you can always just shoot the hardliners if they complain.

But that's your rant for the day.

 

[ThomAnder]

Persia didn't have nukes to act bad boy with against FK, so it's not the most comparable situation

 

[das]

I swear, real leaders are infinitely stupider than NESers.

Way to not pay attention to the whole point of my post. What was said for a leader's public image also goes for public diplomacy in general; it got progressively irrelevant over time, and I seem to recall a large discrepancy between official oaths and such and real actions in ancient Mesopotamia.

Anyway, finally had the time to read up on this thread.

perhaps a third of Christianity now answered solely to the Patriarch of Constantinople

Remind me again, whom did he get apart from the usual suspects and East Hungarians?

he drove a Freisinger army under Friedrich of Staufen out of Lombardy

Ironic.

[5] = Due primarily to pro-Shiite policies despite the fact that the Seljuks themselves were Sunni; they weren't stupid, after all.

Pro-Shiite policies of Sunni rulers in Persia are stupid prior to the 16th century.

they saw an opportunity in Ireland and they took it.

This was already pointed out, but anyway: bah, humbug!

As to the rather anticlimatic battle of Constantinople - boo. One would've thought the Caliphals would've kept some reserves to continue the fight in the event of a setback, seeing as they have such a huge army.

The Strategos - excellent as always. Nice cliffhanger, too.

 

[Symphony D.]

Way to not pay attention to the whole point of my post.

No, I ignored it, because there isn't much of a discrepancy between what Putin does and says.

 

[Dachs]

As to the rather anticlimatic battle of Constantinople - boo. One would've thought the Caliphals would've kept some reserves to continue the fight in the event of a setback, seeing as they have such a huge army.

Don't talk to me about anticlimactic, Mr. "I'm going to end the Eurasian War, which was basically a German victory everywhere, with a weird failed campaign in Burgundy". As to unlikely...how about Louis XIV gaining virtual hegemony in Europe and nobody seems to want to challenge him? But aside from those ridiculously idiotic ad hominem attacks, there are some genuine points to be brought up.

On concluding this siege of Constantinople just like the other sieges of Constantinople (in this universe): repeated Arab costly failures to little detriment to their empire. Frankly, I don't see how it could have turned out otherwise, if it were to be believable. While it seems unlikely, I also compare the Norman flight to Ireland to be somewhat comparable to that of Veritas - and perhaps also to that of the Irish to Affalon. It may not be a direct payoff, but where else are they going to go? This world is currently dominated by large empires, where the Normans would be little better than mercenaries; in Ireland, they managed to construct a real country, such as it was. On the subject of the Seljuks: I originally had them being Shiite, then realized that the PoD was too off to have them turn that way; the footnote is more like a poor-quality fix to keep me from having to renumber all of the footnotes. As to the Orthodoxals: they control a fair piece of Italy, as well as Sicily, in addition to Hungary, the Rus, the Poles/Liths (sort of, outside of the Catholic and pagan holdouts that still make up a fair majority), the citizens of the Empire itself (which added Syria and still has Armenia)...and a few of the barbarian tribes in the Ukrainian steppe.

Yeah, that althist really isn't working for me right now, and besides, Dschingis Khan was a little too unbelievable in the function he would have fulfilled. I'll probably try to develop that Napoleonic PoD, or perhaps an entirely different PoD, in a much less well examined part of time.

 

[das]

Actually, it does seem to be working out quite well; those things I had pointed out are just about the only sub-par details. And I'm fine with the grand strategy of the war, as well as with the Byzantine victory in Constantinople in general; what I meant was the way the Arab attack seemed to collapse immediately upon the beginning of the Byzantine counterattack. As I already said, shouldn't they have some reserves at the city to fall back upon after overruning the outer walls?

Plus Louis XIV died almost immediately in that althist, and his heir did have to fight off the Swedes at least.

the Normans would be little better than mercenaries

Well-paid mercenaries, as opposed to rulers of a distinctly unprofitable backwater kingdom. Normans are pretty much born to be mercenaries; it's the actual conquest that is the flux. I suspect that even had some of them conquered Ireland (of all places), most still would've gone to the Byzantines or the Holy Roman Emperor or whoever would pay. Actually, the Byzantine option would make a lot of sense; there are both vacancies in the Varangian Guard and eastern territories where the Normans could help form a military frontier. Hell, they might even conquer Jerusalem when the present Caliphate collapses, and rule there as Byzantine vassals.

There are many good possibilities here, so I think you shouldn't give up on it yet.

 

[The Strategos]

Handmaiden of God
A Mini-PoD​

Here, outside the small town of Domažlice, the Hussites proudly stood, determined to prove through the blood of their enemies that they were no heretics, but keepers of the true faith. Though at first they thought that this would be a bloodless victory, the enemy retreating in awe of the size of their army and trembling at the sound of their war hymn Kdož jsou Boží bojovníci:[1]

Ye who are God's warriors and of his law,
pray to God for help and have faith in Him;
that finally with him you will be victorious

However, at noon, the disorganized host that opposed the Hussites formed into battle array. First one charge, than another was contemptuously met by the Hussites behind their wagenburg. As the knights from the second charge slunk away, the Hussites gave a shout. Seeing the demoralized army retreating in front of them, the Hussites poured out of their defensive positions, intending to turn the knights’ retreat into a rout.

However, at that moment, as the Hussites charged after the fleeing crusaders, a solitary banner came towards them. As the rider advanced, those nearest began to stop their flight, distantly, as if coming from heaven itself, came the shout, “The Maid!” “The Maid!” To late, the Hussites realized their mistake. The crusaders were not defeated, for this strange rider had given them a second life. Now, far from the safety of their wagenburg, the Hussite army met the surging lines of the crusaders. In a moment they wavered, in two they broke. The field of battle, and indeed the war, belonged solely to the Maid.


[1] "Ye Who Are Warriors of God"


In 23 March, 1430 Joan of Arc dictated a letter that threatened to lead a crusading army against the Hussites unless they returned to the Catholic Church. Though this threat was forgotten in her own fights against the English, by the time rumors came of a new crusade during the summer of 1431, her enemies at court saw the perfect opportunity to get rid of Joan’s influence. Reminded of her previous promise, and under the orders of Charles VII, Joan set out for Bohemia with a small, but intensely loyal army. In 1 August, this army met a large army of crusaders under Frederick, Margrave of Brandenburg, along with the papal legate Cardinal Cesarini. On 14 August, this combined army met the Hussites at Domažlice, where, thanks to Joan, the Hussites were defeated.

1431 ended with several smaller campaigns and battles that acted as the last bits of gravel being thrown on the casket of the Hussite cause and Joan was looking forward to returning to her native France, her vow having been successfully discharged. Returning, Joan invigorated the French cause which had been stagnant since her departure, cumulating in the successful Peace of Arras, between France and Burgundy. These successes, however, provoked her enemies again at court. As the fighting in France lulled, these enemies hatched the plan to send her on another crusade, this time against the Turks. At this time, the Turks were pressing hard against King Sigismund of Hungary, and he had been pressing the Papal see to declare a crusade against the Turks. Seeing an opportunity to get rid of Joan yet again, the French court added their weight to Sigismund’s plea, resulting in the declaration of a crusade against the Turks in 1436.

Again at the plea of her church and sovereign, Joan reluctantly left France, being reunited during the course of her journey with the fiery Cesarini. Together, these two collected a large army, being joined by many former Hussite-crusaders who welcomed the chance to ride once again with the Maid. Reaching Hungary, they joined forces with the rising John Hunyadi, himself a veteran of the Hussite Wars, who had also distinguished himself in fighting with the Turks. Together, the combined army pushed south, liberating Serbia (1437) and Wallachia (1438). Soon afterwards, the crusaders liberated Sofia and, in the climatic battle of Zlatitsa Pass, Joan led the charge which overwhelmed the Turkish defenders. This battle left the rest of the Turkish European positions vulnerable, a situation which was exploited to allow the Turks to be completely thrown out of Europe by 1440. Hunyadi was, as had previously promised, made King of Rumelia, while Hungarian dependents were established in Serbia, Wallachia, and Albania. Meanwhile, the Invincible Maiden, her crusade vow once again fulfilled, left to return to France.

 

[das]

I did think about this possibility when I first read that letter, but dismissed it as unlikely.

Still, I suppose that it's doable as long as the Utraquists go along.

I wonder if French influence in eastern Europe will be established early on? With a presumably friendly Hungary and no Turks, the hypothetic Franco-Habsburg conflict will be very different.

 

[The Strategos]

I did think about this possibility when I first read that letter, but dismissed it as unlikely.

Still, I suppose that it's doable as long as the Utraquists go along.

Why are the Utraquists needed? I specifically chose 1431 as the date, because that was the date of the last anti-Hussite crusade. In OTL it ended in spetacular failure, the crusader army not even fighting a battle before retreating, but with the much more inspiring Maid commanding it, the crusaders actually muster up the guts to attack.

I wonder if French influence in eastern Europe will be established early on? With a presumably friendly Hungary and no Turks, the hypothetic Franco-Habsburg conflict will be very different.

What is of more immediate interest to me is the fate of Hungary. Suppose Albert again dies relatively early, leaving an infant son behind. With both Hunyadi and the Turks out of the picture, perhaps we would see Ladislaus crowned a puppet king? This would presumably weaken Hungary, with Poland of course trying to take advantage of the situation.

Of course then there's Joan. Perhaps, having successfully gotten rid of her twice with crusades, and with the Turks apparently beaten down, perhaps the court could convince her to make an expedition to the Holy Land?

 

[das]

Why are the Utraquists needed?

To actually finish off the more radical Hussites. It's not much of a victory if they remain at large and unrepentant.

With... Hunyadi... out of the picture

He still has Transylvania and such, no? This combined with Rumelia will give him a good power base to try and grab power in Hungary, though I suppose it would most probably result in an early partition of Hungary instead.

 

[Dachs]

He still has Transylvania and such, no? This combined with Rumelia will give him a good power base to try and grab power in Hungary, though I suppose it would most probably result in an early partition of Hungary instead.

Exactly - you don't get rid of a genius like Janos Hunyadi that easily.

Also, just wondering about that previous althist das, after having reread it ad nauseam:

Henry Clay's Republicans (reformist and interventionist)

Interventionist? Um...the US isn't even masquerading as the hegemon power of the New World in this TL. Explain plz.

While Karl vom und zum Stein and Karl August von Hardenberg called for greater reforms and for Prussia to take charge of the German nationalist movement, they were largely ignored as the former sunk into obscurity and the latter died of old age.

Why the devil aren't the Prussians hijacking the nationalist movement if the Austrians and the French are trying to establish hegemony over Germany and Italy? IMHO the Prussians and Russians would be sufficiently terrified to try to at least harness nationalism in some form to act as a counter to their western and southern enemies - there is no Holy Alliance after all, and both groups have very little to lose by supporting the nationalists of Germany, the Ottoman Empire, and the Habsburg Empire and winning. It has been almost twenty years since the Congress of Versailles guaranteed another war, as is the wont of Versailles peace treaties.

At this point, however, a new complication arose; Britain sent an expeditionary force into the Straits to reinforce Constantinople, and "offered" its intermediation. The Ottomans were only happy to agree; as for Alexander, he was obviously unwilling to fight the British. Negotiations were held in Edirne; the British were sympathetic towards the project of creating a Greek kingdom, but did not want to allow Russia any territorial gains. In the end, after several months of stalled negotiations, military demonstrations and diplomatic intrigues all over Europe, the British had to agree to a compromise after failing to draw Austria into the issue on their side; the Russians were allowed to establish a protectorate over the Danubean Principalities and the Kingdom of Greece was created; Crete remained Turkish, as did several eastern Aegean islands and Greek mainland north of the Pindus, however.

Why is Greece so small, anyway? A British fleet really can't hurt the Russians that much, although it can be a nuisance to fight with a world hegemon if the world hegemon is much more concerned elsewhere - in the Americas, in the Indian Ocean, and in the Far East - then it makes no sense for Britain to be able to project that kind of power with a single fleet and for the Russians to actually listen to such a bluff. Whatever happened to the philhellenes anyway?

Also, later today: time for something completely different...than what I've been doing lately.

 

[das]

Interventionist? Um...the US isn't even masquerading as the hegemon power of the New World in this TL. Explain plz.

Look up interventionism.

Why the devil aren't the Prussians hijacking the nationalist movement if the Austrians and the French are trying to establish hegemony over Germany and Italy?

Sheer apathy.

Or, more scientifically, internal issues plus perceived military weakness; also, fear of antagonising the conservative support base by aligning with any of those suspicious nationalists.

Why is Greece so small, anyway?

Probably because it wasn't in any position to expand, as per OTL.

then it makes no sense for Britain to be able to project that kind of power with a single fleet and for the Russians to actually listen to such a bluff.

But they don't know it, do they (both the British and the Russians, actually)? The threat of British intervention - and therefore, a bloody protracted war in the Balkans with the logistical nightmare that involves - was enough on many occassions in OTL. And Alexander I was never known for his recklessness (when not cheered on by advisors and diplomats alike).

 

[Dachs]

Look up interventionism.

No, no, I meant that the Americans didn't really have anyone within which to meddle - the end result would be a war with Britain or Spain, which was the Jacksonian path, no? Or do you mean that Clay basically wanted an alliance with some European Power? There are more than one definition of interventionism after all.

Or, more scientifically, internal issues plus perceived military weakness; also, fear of antagonizing the conservative support base by aligning with any of those suspicious nationalists.

So there will be little to no action in central Europe during this new war about which you haven't yet written?

Probably because it wasn't in any position to expand, as per OTL.

So there is no Markos Botsaris?...how exactly did the Morean revolt start? What happened to the Patriarch, and why didn't the Phanariotes do anything? Was it any different at all than OTL? In OTL there was actually a fair chance of doing significantly better than they actually did manage, primarily due to horrid mismanagement of philhellenic resources. That begs the question of what happened to the philhellenes?

The threat of British intervention - and therefore, a bloody protracted war in the Balkans with the logistical nightmare that involves - was enough on many occasions in OTL. And Alexander I was never known for his recklessness (when not cheered on by advisers and diplomats alike).

Well, he was reckless enough to launch an invasion of the Ottoman Empire, unlike OTL when it took Nicholas I plus support from Britain and France. But besides that, I fail to see how Britain is going to launch a protracted Balkanian war if all they can reasonably do is support the Turks and the Russians will be able to work with the nationalistic movements that clearly exist anyway - what with the Serbians of Kara George and the Obrenovices, and the Greeks. Britain has basically no land resources as of right now after all. Half of the army they used at Waterloo was made up of the Dutch and Belgians, and about the same percentage or higher of the Spanish and Portuguese fought with Wellington in the Peninsula. All Britain can really do is try to prop up the Sultan and hope that the Egyptians, Russians, and the various nationalistic movements don't crush the Turks all at once.

Even if Alex wasn't particularly willing to launch a whole new war with Britain, he could at least have demanded more in the peace treaty, especially if old Constantine is going to be in charge of the Greeks anyway. Using the threat of further Russian intervention ought to have been enough to get the British to waver, along with the aforementioned quasioverextension of the Brits.

 

[das]

No, no, I meant that the Americans didn't really have anyone within which to meddle - the end result would be a war with Britain or Spain, which was the Jacksonian path, no? Or do you mean that Clay basically wanted an alliance with some European Power? There are more than one definition of interventionism after all.

Look up economic interventionism.

So there will be little to no action in central Europe during this new war about which you haven't yet written?

Had I written it there would be a lot of action there (note that it's a slightly later period), but I don't think I'll be writing it any time soon.

So there is no Markos Botsaris?...how exactly did the Morean revolt start? What happened to the Patriarch, and why didn't the Phanariotes do anything? Was it any different at all than OTL? In OTL there was actually a fair chance of doing significantly better than they actually did manage, primarily due to horrid mismanagement of philhellenic resources. That begs the question of what happened to the philhellenes?

AS. PER. OTL. Furthermore, there is always a lot of room for detirioration.

 

[Dachs]

Look up economic interventionism.

Oh, gee, thanks for the clarification.

AS. PER. OTL. Furthermore, there is always a lot of room for deterioration.

I'm just confused about how the existence of philhellenes at all meshes with the decrease in nationalism and pro-nationalist sentiments in this world, and how the rebels survived at all without the London loans, which probably wouldn't have happened without any British Government support, which is notably lacking. That's all.

 

[das]

The decrease in such sentiments was not all that; the philhellenes are still strong and still able to support the rebels financially, to some extent. Things still went pretty poorly in many regards, which is part of the reason why the Greeks simply couldn't try and get more out of the treaty.