Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel

[Thlayli]

I suppose that's the PoD in general, making Luther a bit more positive towards the lower classes. Which will be reflected in his famous essay, Address to the Revolutionary Peasants of the German Nation.

 

[LittleBoots]

1. Charlemagne is crowned Emperor of the Holy German (or Holy Frankish) Empire instead of using the Roman epithet. The implications here are pretty vast. (I know he was already King of the Franks, but the Pope could still embellish it a bit)

I don't see how this could ever happen ever in the history of everness. Maybe thats a little too strong, but I just don't know why on earth it would happen. One of the most characteristic things of the time was the attempt to reclaim the influence of Roman. Its all about translatio... "Our books have taught us that chivalry and learning first flourished in Greece; then to Rome came chivalry and the sum of knowledge, which now has come to France. May God grant that they be maintained here and may He be pleased enough with this land that the glory now in France may never leave." - Chretien de Troyes, Cliges

There is a similar line in both Wace's Roman de Brut and Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae that runs something like "From Greece by way of Rome did learning come to France/England, where, by the Grace of God, it shall remain forevermore."

Further, look at the Apostolic Succession, the use of Latin by scholars, the repeated comparisons of Arthur to Roman emperors in French and British legend, the tracing of the British back to Brutus, a Trojan, and to the Greeks.

I do not mean to be so vehement... well, actually I do. Its just that the idea of reviving and reclaiming Roman authoritas and influence is too great to be POD'd away, in my very humble opinion.

2. Martin Luther supports the Peasants War; as a result Frederick of Saxony gives him up to the Church, to be burned in Augsburg in 1526. Lutheranism will subsequently never gain princely patronage in North Germany, but the Anabaptist and other radical peasant groups will grow to revere Luther as a saint. Possibility of 'Lutheran socialism' further down the line.

Don't see why he would. Read his political philosophy, its very much based out of Romans 13:1-4 taken quite seriously. The man, for all his faults and arguments as to what he did to the Church aside, was intelligent. He's not going to simply react against the Pope. In any case, the Pope did condemn it. They're Protestant heretic rebels after all. If you want to accomplish this, kill him at some point after he starts preaching and it becomes much easier to misinterpret him and he can be less influential amongst the nobles when his pupils start going off the deep-end with religio-social reform.

Seriously though, don't see why he would do this, especially when the only thing standing between him and death is Fredrick.

3. Barbarossa takes his armor off.

The Muslims lose, end of story I have very little doubt the combined weight of Barbarossa and Richard I would crush them. How far would you take it?

 

[Thlayli]

(On Charlemagne, you could simply give the Pope a premonition of what the establishment of the HRE will actually MEAN for his Papacy. )

I'm generally the most interested in the third. I'm thinking that Barbarossa utterly crushes Saladin as expected, liberating Jerusalem triumphantly. Richard, hardly being bloodied at this stage, suggests a march on Damascus, while the French speak of reconquering Odessa.

But Frederick ultimately decides to lead his armies south, into Egypt, where he forgets to take off his armor and drowns in the Nile. Not before the Crusaders sack Cairo, however. Of course, I can easily see the re-establishment of a stable Outremer, but it depends on whether or not the Moslems are willing to negotiate for pilgrimage to Jerusalem. And the continuing Anglo-Frankish rivalry, of course.

 

[LittleBoots]

On Charlemagne: Touche

That would be interesting to see (and to play). Why does Barbarossa have to die in the Nile? Also, are you envisioning a stable Christian Levant for the foreseeable future? How do you think this will eventually affect Turkic/Mongol invasions and then further down the line, the continuing existence of the Eastern Roman Empire. You might run in to either even more or far less problems with the Eastern Schismatics, given that either A) they aren't as threatened by the Moslems and so aren't as conciliatory towards the west or else, B) recognize that the West has them (1) surrounded and (2) stands as their only defense against the heathen hordes and so act in a more friendly manner.

Thoughts? Dachs? Strategos? I think your contributions to this conversation would be helpful.

 

[Perfectionist]

"Our books have taught us that chivalry and learning first flourished in Greece; then to Rome came chivalry and the sum of knowledge, which now has come to France. May God grant that they be maintained here and may He be pleased enough with this land that the glory now in France may never leave." - Chretien de Troyes, Cliges

There is a similar line in both Wace's Roman de Brut and Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae that runs something like "From Greece by way of Rome did learning come to France/England, where, by the Grace of God, it shall remain forevermore."

Might I venture the opinion that twelfth century works, written four centuries and two renaissances after Charlemagne, are not particularly reliable indicators of eighth century opinion? At any rate, if we believe Einhard, and there's really no reason not to, Charlemagne was extremely unhappy about the coronation. If the greatest statesman of the age didn't feel that calling himself Roman was necessary, or even beneficial, surely the viewpoint has some merit?

the tracing of the British back to Brutus, a Trojan, and to the Greeks.

Eighth and ninth century Englishmen did not trace their lineage back through Brutus, preferring Aelle, Cerdic, and Woden.

Its just that the idea of reviving and reclaiming Roman authoritas and influence is too great to be POD'd away

Oh, aye. But doing that does not, by any stretch of the imagination, require calling yourself Roman, or submitting to Papal authority. Offa, Cenwulf, and Alfred all spoke of themselves in Roman terms, and surrounded themselves with Roman symbols, but they did not feel the need to call themselves the heirs of Ambrosius Aurelianus, or anything like that. Rex Anglorum was enough.

 

[LittleBoots]

Might I venture the opinion that twelfth century works, written four centuries and two renaissances after Charlemagne, are not particularly reliable indicators of eighth century opinion?

Very well, see below.

At any rate, if we believe Einhard, and there's really no reason not to, Charlemagne was extremely unhappy about the coronation. If the greatest statesman of the age didn't feel that calling himself Roman was necessary, or even beneficial, surely the viewpoint has some merit?

Which was, if I'm not mistaken, largely due to the fact that the Pope was crowning him, thus indicating that it was within his power to do so? I admit some ignorance in this particular case of Charlemagne's opinion.

Eighth and ninth century Englishmen did not trace their lineage back through Brutus, preferring Aelle, Cerdic, and Woden.

This is incorrect, in my opinion, on a couple levels. First, I dispute the existence of Eight and ninth century Englishmen. But I understand what you mean and we both know what you're talking about. Second, Nennius, a Briton monk living between 7th and 9th centuries. This is directly from his Historia Brittonum

Hisicion had four sons, Francus, Romanus, Alamanus, and Bruttus. ... From Hisicion arose four nations: the Franks, the Latins, the Germans, and Britons.

In consequence of this prediction, the magician was put to death by Ascanius; but it happened that the mother of the child dying at its birth, he was named Brutus; and after a certain interval agreeably to what the magician had foretold, whilst he was playing with some others he shot his father with an arrow, not intentionally but by accident. He was, for this cause, expelled from Italy, and came to the islands of the Tyrrhene sea, when he was exiled on account of the death of Turnus, slain by Aeneas. He then went among the Gauls, and built the city of Turones, called Turnis. At length he came to this island, named from him Britannia, dwelt there, and filled it with his own descendants, and it has been inhabited from that time to the present period.

Oh, aye. But doing that does not, by any stretch of the imagination, require calling yourself Roman, or submitting to Papal authority. Offa, Cenwulf, and Alfred all spoke of themselves in Roman terms, and surrounded themselves with Roman symbols, but they did not feel the need to call themselves the heirs of Ambrosius Aurelianus, or anything like that. Rex Anglorum was enough.

And yet the historians of the time did call them those things. No, they did not submit to Papal authority, but thats not exactly a Roman thing to do either. Nor was it practical that the Pope had much authority so far away anyway. Now admittedly, this was not always the case, especially before Christianity was widespread. Kilhwch and Olwen, for instance, is essentially Ancient Epic with Christianity tacked on. The Preiddeu Annwfn really doesn't make much mention of it either. However, while it is not as great in the 800s as it will be later, it is most certainly there.

 

[shortguy]

authoritas

"Authoritas"!? Augh!!

 

[das]

1. Charlemagne is crowned Emperor of the Holy German (or Holy Frankish) Empire instead of using the Roman epithet. The implications here are pretty vast. (I know he was already King of the Franks, but the Pope could still embellish it a bit)

Err, why?

Anyway, LittleBoots said it best.

3. Barbarossa takes his armor off.

There was a pretty good, very long timeline about that somewhere (Changing the Times, maybe?), called the Unholy Roman Empire. Someone, look it up and show it to Dachs. It's likely to provoke an amusing mixed reaction.

Yeah, but wasn't Luther all for noble rights and stuff?

Nobles were crucial, unlike peasants. If Luther were to antagonise them too much they would've simply crushed him and nipped the Reformation in the bud in Germany.

Ah, utopia.

I have very little doubt the combined weight of Barbarossa and Richard I would crush them.

I have a lot of doubt, actually. Barbarossa probably wasn't all that tough if he died so easily.

Rex Anglorum was enough.

What might be feasible (but still won't really feel right) would be something like the "Great Kingdom of Gaul" or "Franconia". Although, that still doesn't explain why he wouldn't just stay a humble King of Franks.

The title of "Holy German Emperor", however, is simply ridicilous to the core prior to the 19th century. "Holy Frankish Emperor" is ridicilous in all times.

 

[Dachs]

Thoughts? Dachs? Strategos? I think your contributions to this conversation would be helpful.

I sort of helped give Thlayli the first and third ideas via GTalk...

Nobles were crucial, unlike peasants. If Luther were to antagonise them too much they would've simply crushed him and nipped the Reformation in the bud in Germany.

Yeah, Luther wasn't that stupid. It'd be nice if he wasn't so bloody anti-Semitic, tho.

I have a lot of doubt, actually. Barbarossa probably wasn't all that tough if he died so easily.

It's a good thing you have that smiley there.

Incidentally, das, when are you going to continue that End of the French Empire - Congress of Versailles - Perfidious Albion TL? I can't let it continue to exist that way, with Prussia out of Posen, Greece too small, France in Belgium, America denied the Louisiana Purchase, and a real possibility of their being a real nationalist revolution in Germany in the 1830s.

That would be interesting to see (and to play). Why does Barbarossa have to die in the Nile? Also, are you envisioning a stable Christian Levant for the foreseeable future? How do you think this will eventually affect Turkic/Mongol invasions and then further down the line, the continuing existence of the Eastern Roman Empire. You might run in to either even more or far less problems with the Eastern Schismatics, given that either A) they aren't as threatened by the Moslems and so aren't as conciliatory towards the west or else, B) recognize that the West has them (1) surrounded and (2) stands as their only defense against the heathen hordes and so act in a more friendly manner.

I can't comment on this for various secret reasons. Thlayli will understand.

 

[Luckymoose]

Any body ever thought of Islamic Napoleon?

 

[silver 2039]

Nadir Shah you mean? What about him?

 

[Luckymoose]

Nadir Shah you mean? What about him?

No. Napoleon himself was rumored to have been fond of Islam and wanted to unite people under the Qu'ran.

 

[das]

He wanted to do a lot of things.

I have already mentioned that he was initially supposed to be the French military advisor in the Ottoman Empire, but ended up putting down a revolt in Paris instead and thus beginning his involvement in politics. I'm not sure how much could he have hoped to accomplish in the Ottoman Empire, though; that is to say, in the way of empire-building.

 

[silver 2039]

Hm...but how much would he have been able to help the Ottoman Empire?

 

[das]

Well, not invading Egypt would have been a bonus in and of itself. But generally speaking, he should have been able to help with the military reforms, as well as the forced centralisation efforts.

 

[Dachs]

I have already mentioned that he was initially supposed to be the French military advisor in the Ottoman Empire, but ended up putting down a revolt in Paris instead and thus beginning his involvement in politics. I'm not sure how much could he have hoped to accomplish in the Ottoman Empire, though; that is to say, in the way of empire-building.

You have mentioned an idea wherein he builds an Eastern Roman Empire instead of Ypsilantis or Capodistria or someone similarly non-visionary. That's not quite saving the Ottoman Empire tho.

How about that "death of Napoleon" TL?

 

[Dachs]

There was a pretty good, very long timeline about that somewhere (Changing the Times, maybe?), called the Unholy Roman Empire. Someone, look it up and show it to Dachs. It's likely to provoke an amusing mixed reaction.

You're damned right mixed reaction. Just found it and scanned it briefly - parts of it are a crime and some is unbelievably awesome. Why the hell did we go west? Why not wipe out the Arabs in the east?!?!?!?

 

[das]

Did you read about the new dynasty?

 

[Dachs]

It's a good thing that they didn't last too long.

 

[The Strategos]

That would be interesting to see (and to play). Why does Barbarossa have to die in the Nile? Also, are you envisioning a stable Christian Levant for the foreseeable future? How do you think this will eventually affect Turkic/Mongol invasions and then further down the line, the continuing existence of the Eastern Roman Empire. You might run in to either even more or far less problems with the Eastern Schismatics, given that either A) they aren't as threatened by the Moslems and so aren't as conciliatory towards the west or else, B) recognize that the West has them (1) surrounded and (2) stands as their only defense against the heathen hordes and so act in a more friendly manner.

Thoughts? Dachs? Strategos? I think your contributions to this conversation would be helpful.

I would imagine the religious outcome would have been similar to the afteraffects of the First Crusade. In other words, not much religious change at all.