genyodectes
Warrant Officer
I'm just a Ceratosaur trying to make his way in Alternate History
Posts: 226 
Likes: 119
|
Post by genyodectes on Aug 5, 2019 21:44:43 GMT
What are some underused PODs from the 900 years given in the title?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Aug 5, 2019 22:49:51 GMT
What are some underused PODs from the 900 years given in the title?
Tons of them as plenty of different points that could occur. To name a few that come quickly to mind:
a) ~1016 Edmund Ironside defeats Canute and restores the house of Wessex. A hell of a lot of butterflies could occur there
b) 1071 Battle of Manuzikert goes the other way, or some other combination of events means that the Byzantine empire comes out of its post-1025 dip and begins a new wave of expansion.
c) 1389 - Field of Blackbirds aka Battle of Kosovo is a crushing defeat for the Ottomans with most of their army destroyed and the sultan and his heir killed. Followed by a probable succession war then with Timur aka Tamerlane turning up and smashing any Ottoman revival you could see no lasting Muslim invasion of the Balkans and possibly even a revival of the Orthodox nations returning to Anatolia - although difficult not to see that ending up as a Greek empire again.
d) The Portuguese avoid a crippling defeat in Morocco that enables the Spanish take over in 1580 and possibly maintaining more of their overseas empire.
e) Aurangzeb doesn't become the Mughal emperor, being defeated by one of his brothers. India isn't plunged into religious violence and division that cripples the empire. Could be that instead of direct European control it ends up a bit like OTL China, possibly a bit better or worse.
f) The Dutch rebellion is more successful and maintains control of the OTL Belgium, which would make it a substantially greater power, albeit it would very likely be drawn into more wars on the continent as a result.
g) Frederick V, the Winter King is a markedly more competent leader and successfully defends Bohemia against Hapsburg counter-invasion. Could delay or prevent the occurrence of the OTL 30 years War or make it a radically different conflict with probably a markedly less successful counter-reformation and Germany and other parts of Europe seeing more areas staying Protestant.
h) Related to that what if Henri IV of France hadn't been assassinated, prompting another wave of religious conflict in France?
Anyway a few quick ideas I've thought of at various times.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Aug 6, 2019 5:42:42 GMT
1) No Kievan Rus'-Khazar War for starters. The collapse of Khazaria forced Kievan Rus' to fight off the incoming Pechenegs and Cumans, weakening themselves in the process, and leaving themselves vulnerable to the inevitable Mongol conquest.
2) A successful Giorgios Maniakes rebellion, in which my scenario of a Byzantine analogue to Normandy would have arisen.
3) A surviving House of Godwin in Anglo-Saxon England. England or Aengland would have kept its Germanic roots, and even the English language would remain Aenglisc.
4) Byzantine Conquest of the lands that became Wallachia and Moldavia, as well as the entirety of the Caucasus and Circassia.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Aug 6, 2019 7:58:23 GMT
1) No Kievan Rus'-Khazar War for starters. The collapse of Khazaria forced Kievan Rus' to fight off the incoming Pechenegs and Cumans, weakening themselves in the process, and leaving themselves vulnerable to the inevitable Mongol conquest. 2) A successful Giorgios Maniakes rebellion, in which my scenario of a Byzantine analogue to Normandy would have arisen. 3) A surviving House of Godwin in Anglo-Saxon England. England or Aengland would have kept its Germanic roots, and even the English language would remain Aenglisc. 4) Byzantine Conquest of the lands that became Wallachia and Moldavia, as well as the entirety of the Caucasus and Circassia.
1) I'm not sure that war could be so easily avoided or that either/both states could withstand the Mongols given the powerhouse they were. Although either state surviving as a significant power without coming under prolonged Mongol control would be very interesting. [Or possibly as a result of being so significant a subject of the Golden Horde it ends up becoming either Orthodox or even Jewish ]. I have wonder if Batu's coup had failed the Horde might have becoming Orthodox anyway.]
2) I did consider mentioning him becoming emperor himself but thought that might be too obscure.  Definitely a possibility for Byzantium to possibly sort itself out before the Seljuk Turks arrive. Not sure what you mean by a "Byzantine analogue to Normandy"? Do you mean a more militant empire spawning off assorted various colonies like the Normans did with their British, Sicilian and Levantine lands?
3) I didn't mention this option myself as I considered it rather too prominent. Not as say WWII or USCW threads or a surviving Roman empire but still probably one of the most prominent ones in the period.
4) To do both they would have maintain control of their core territories in the Balkans and Anatolia so that would definitely mean some big changes even if a that much stronger empire didn't take over other areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Aug 7, 2019 2:17:41 GMT
1) Absent of the war between the Rus' and Khazaria, it would be the Khazars that would be subjected to repeated attacks from Pechenegs and Cumans. Making them the meat shield that would allow the Rus' to survive.
2) I meant a part of Greece that would be populated by descendants of Varangian Guard members. As in, lands granted to the members of the Varangian Guard by the Byzantine Emperor in a similar fashion to how Rollo and his band were given land by the Frankish King in the region that became Normandy.
3) True. I could have gone with England united by Mercia, Northumbria, or even East Anglia instead of Wessex.
4) True, and another potential PoD involving the Byzantines would be to prevent the Byzantine-Sassanian War that weakened both empires long enough for the Arab conquest and the rise of Islam.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Aug 7, 2019 15:06:47 GMT
1) Absent of the war between the Rus' and Khazaria, it would be the Khazars that would be subjected to repeated attacks from Pechenegs and Cumans. Making them the meat shield that would allow the Rus' to survive. 2) I meant a part of Greece that would be populated by descendants of Varangian Guard members. As in, lands granted to the members of the Varangian Guard by the Byzantine Emperor in a similar fashion to how Rollo and his band were given land by the Frankish King in the region that became Normandy. 3) True. I could have gone with England united by Mercia, Northumbria, or even East Anglia instead of Wessex. 4) True, and another potential PoD involving the Byzantines would be to prevent the Byzantine-Sassanian War that weakened both empires long enough for the Arab conquest and the rise of Islam.
2) Ok thanks for clarifying. That could end up being rather nasty for the empire, although it could still be a lot better than OTL for it.
3) There are other options for a unifying state for the 1st English kingdom although Wessex does have the best protection from the Vikings and especially once the Northumbrian kingdom collapses into disorder it probably has access to more resources than anywhere else.
4) That's very true although outside the dates of the OP. If Maurice had broken with [recent] tradition and served with his forces he might keep enough in touch with the army and gain more respect from the troops that Phoca's rebellion never occurs or is quickly crushed. Conflicting political and cultural interests will mean a new war sooner or later but without the internal division of Phoca's rebellion and rule its likely to end up more as a quick stalemate rather than a long war of attrition that leaves both powers pretty much exhausted. Plus if Maurice could successfully break the Avars a bit earlier then a lot more of the Balkans stays under imperial control and probably with far less devastation and population movements.
|
|
insect
Banned
Posts: 380
Likes: 71
|
Post by insect on Aug 7, 2019 22:51:27 GMT
1. I like to see a t.l. where President Johnson picks Mcarthy in 64.
2.Hawaii and Alaska never joins the union.
3.Britain remains a empire/
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Aug 8, 2019 15:26:37 GMT
1. I like to see a t.l. where President Johnson picks Mcarthy in 64. 2.Hawaii and Alaska never joins the union. 3.Britain remains a empire/
1) would be outside the scope of the OP with its 1000-1900AD limits.
2) Hawaii could be changed fairly easily if someone gets in 1st. Alaska either stays Russian - which if there's a successful revolution at some point would leave it hanging rather or is likely to go to either Canada - by sale or war or US - by war. Can't really see any other candidates for controlling it.
3) Depends on what you mean by remains an empire. If you mean seeking to hold sizeable assorted non-British, non-white settler areas by force and denying them self-rule let alone independence to the present day then that's very difficult and would need a much darker world as a whole, not just Britain. You could have a Britain with a substantially larger economy and a sizeable number of small but strategically important possessions around the world which are possibly not fully incorporated into Britain with full citizen rights. Or say a much more powerful federated 'Britain' that includes large setter states in N America, Africa and Australasia. The latter could possibly be powerful enough and brutal enough to hold large areas as 'colonies' in Africa, the ME and parts of southern or eastern Asia but again that would be a pretty damned dark world as it assumes that either ideas of human rights for non-whites haven't developed across much of the world or they have but this Britain is powerful enough to largely ignore them.
The smaller Britain is a decent probability but would probably need a POD post 1900 whereas the darker great empire would really require an earlier POD, say ~1800 at the latest.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Aug 11, 2019 6:24:22 GMT
2) Regarding a Russian Hawaii, this would also require a stronger Russian presence in Alaska. It would also require a larger Russian population base within Russia itself, especially eastern Siberia, as they would be the natural source of migrants that would go to those places. In actuality, a stronger Russian imperial presence in the Asia-Pacific region is something that I am constantly trying to create as a scenario in my main dormant TL which I may end up doing a map on it instead of rebooting the entire TL.
---
For the next unused scenarios:
A) A rapprochement between the Protestant reformers and the Eastern Orthodox Church resulting in a reversed version of what came out of the Union of Brest, which will be the formation of a Uniate Church (though in this case the Uniate being the Western Christian Churches accepting the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople) through Philip Melanchthon.
B) Yeonsangun of Joseon's Literati Purges going overboard, resulting in a Korean Game of Thrones-esque civil war, a la War of the Five Kings (though it would be Yeonsangun against his other brothers). Though I'm not an expert on Korean history, the idea of Korea undergoing a similar chaos to the Sengoku would be interesting to see, though tragic.
C) Japanese Wokou pirates establishing a pirate kingdom in what is now the Philippines. There is a precedent to this, namely Limahong and his establishment of a Chinese Pirate Kingdom in what is now Pangasinan. Moreover, Aparri would be a perfect stronghold for this plausible Japanese pirate kingdom in northern Luzon, as it was built as a Japanese trading post.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 30, 2019 13:08:31 GMT
How about 'George Washington Serves A Third Term'? I'm aware that he declined to run after serving his first two--and created an American political tradition of doings so in the process before FDR broke it--so the butterflies ought to be interesting, however underrated they may be.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 30, 2019 13:19:06 GMT
How about 'George Washington Serves A Third Term'? I'm aware that he declined to run after serving his first two--and created an American political tradition of doings so in the process before FDR broke it--so the butterflies ought to be interesting, however underrated they may be. I assume if he serves a third term it will be considered normal for the presidents who come after him to do also that. |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 30, 2019 13:25:20 GMT
How about 'George Washington Serves A Third Term'? I'm aware that he declined to run after serving his first two--and created an American political tradition of doings so in the process before FDR broke it--so the butterflies ought to be interesting, however underrated they may be. I assume if he serves a third term it will be considered normal for the presidents who come after him to do also that. True, true. In the short term, however, I wonder if G. Washington will be in good enough health to live out his ninth to twelfth years in the White House? |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 30, 2019 13:27:12 GMT
I assume if he serves a third term it will be considered normal for the presidents who come after him to do also that. True, true. In the short term, however, I wonder if G. Washington will be in good enough health to live out his ninth to twelfth years in the White House? Was he not in good health then after his 8 years of office in OTL. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Aug 30, 2019 14:48:08 GMT
I assume if he serves a third term it will be considered normal for the presidents who come after him to do also that. True, true. In the short term, however, I wonder if G. Washington will be in good enough health to live out his ninth to twelfth years in the White House?
Well even if he died as OTL, which would have been in his 3rd term it would set a precedent for future Presidents to do so, at least unless and until someone successfully changes the constitution to set a term limit. This could mean that someone in say the early 19thC does 3 or 4 terms and possibly that could mean a consideration of influence and power which could have nasty effects.
If Washington did die in a 3rd term who would be the replacement President? IIRC at least in the 1st election the vice President was supposed to be the No. 2 in the election for President. I.e. if we had that in 2016 Clinton would have been Trumps VP!  This was quickly realised to be impractical, especially since the two people would probably have radically different stances on many issues but if it was still in place in a 3rd Washington term starting in 1797 then it could see a sudden shift in some policies and resultant political uproar. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Aug 30, 2019 15:24:58 GMT
What if Princess_Charlottes still died in childbirth in 1817 but her son was born alive and well? That would give a male heir to the Prince Regent, so no Hanoverian steeplechase where most of his younger brothers were urged to quickly produce a son. [At least unless the child dies early in which case it still happens at a slightly older age for them]. Hence no Victoria or William IV before her but instead a young new king who would be 12 when he came to the throne if George IV as he became, died in 1830 as OTL.
I think the aim was to call a son Alexander after the Russia Czar so Britain would have an Alexander I. Believe that he wouldn't inherit the Hanoverian throne as that would go to one of his uncles since author his mother was dead that would still push him further down the line of inheritance there unless the government in Hanover decided it would be worthwhile to maintain the link and hence change the rules on inheritence. Or possibly none of George IV's older brothers had a son either - in which case it might go to him. Think only one of his brothers was already married and he only had one son in 1819 so that could happen.
However assuming the link is broken when Alexander comes to the throne. Two differences come to mind. a) Who would be the person responsible for the young child and then the regent when he ascends to the throne. The obvious figure for the 1st and possibly the 2nd role would be Leopold of Saxe-Colburg-Saafeld. Looking at his wiki article Leopold, he seems to have been a liberal and helped encourage industrialisation and development of Belgium when he ruled there but also sought to increase the power of the monarchy, which here he might seek to do here on behave of his son but could lead to clashes with Parliament and other interests in Britain. Especially since rather than a king in his own right he would be a regent and a foreigner, albeit having been given British citizenship in 1815.
If so then he's very unlikely to be a candidate for the Belgium crown in 1830 assuming the rebellion against Dutch rule still occurs? Both because he's closely associated with the powerful British state and because he will be too busy with his son. So who else would become Belgium monarch and how would their fare? Before Leopold 3 French candidates were considered but that would unpopular with other powers because of France's historical designs on Belgium. Also two were members of the Bonaparte dynasty and Louis Philippe - who had only just become French king after the unrest that deposed the older Bourbon dynasty was also opposed to them as he feared they might use their status as king of Belgium as the basis for a coup against him. Suspect it might be another minor German prince, possibly from a Catholic state.
b) What sort of character would Alexander have? Very difficult to say but as a male I suspect he would be distinctly less withdrawn that the young Victoria and probably be more involved in being groomed for power rather than being largely untrained when she came to the throne. Also with his name he might associate himself more with his Greek namesake, which could be very distablishing while Leopold is likely to encourage him to take a more active role. Likely if he's not too erratic to be in favour of technology and industrial development and possibly a more active role in expanding British power and influence. Which again could go well or badly for both him and the country.
Not sure how things could develop but it would only need a few butterflies to come up with a markedly different world.
|
|
Definitely a possibility for Byzantium to possibly sort itself out before the Seljuk Turks arrive. Not sure what you mean by a "Byzantine analogue to Normandy"? Do you mean a more militant empire spawning off assorted various colonies like the Normans did with their British, Sicilian and Levantine lands?
This was quickly realised to be impractical, especially since the two people would probably have radically different stances on many issues but if it was still in place in a 3rd Washington term starting in 1797 then it could see a sudden shift in some policies and resultant political uproar.