Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

Oh I missed that bit

Well, England could well have had a King Alphonso, so I suppose there is SOME chance in some alternate history of a King Victor

Beset Rearguards
Straggly Wolf
One possibility is for Edward VII's oldest son, Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, to not die young. If he survives to become King of the UK, he might very well choose Victor for his Regnal Name...
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
One possibility is for Edward VII's oldest son, Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, to not die young. If he survives to become King of the UK, he might very well choose Victor for his Regnal Name...
I believe he was Albert Victor Christian Edward and expected to choose Edward like his father BUT of course once his father was dead, you are right he can choose whatever name he wants, and if he doesn't get on with Edward VII during the latter's reign he may well want to create fresh ground between the two of them in this way
 
One possibility is for Edward VII's oldest son, Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, to not die young. If he survives to become King of the UK, he might very well choose Victor for his Regnal Name...
I was hoping for someone in the Middle Ages. I only ask because of him:
 
Probably not, the French were adamant that Henry VI should drop the title king of France which was unacceptable to him which means negotiations would drag on. I doubt the French would back down and so theyd probably try to win Burgundy over with a treaty leaving England alone.
Wow, so even if John of Bedford survived for a little longer, there'd still be some tensions between England and France. Good to know, needed the answer for a test thread.
 
I was hoping for someone in the Middle Ages. I only ask because of him:
Given that the Black Knight goes on to defend Egypt from the Mongols, I figure the simplest change would be to slot Victor in as a replacement for Henry III. Victor is a saint's name, so there's an excuse for it popping up without precedent.
 
Given that the Black Knight goes on to defend Egypt from the Mongols, I figure the simplest change would be to slot Victor in as a replacement for Henry III. Victor is a saint's name, so there's an excuse for it popping up without precedent.
Maybe you could do something with OTL Edward I-Henry III's son and heir. He went on Crusade while a Prince. Maybe score him some impressive victories, reclaiming Jerusalem for example. This would give him a reputation equal to Richard I. Maybe he decides to use the name Victor when he becomes King instead of Edward..?
 
Given that the Black Knight goes on to defend Egypt from the Mongols, I figure the simplest change would be to slot Victor in as a replacement for Henry III. Victor is a saint's name, so there's an excuse for it popping up without precedent.
Maybe you could do something with OTL Edward I-Henry III's son and heir. He went on Crusade while a Prince. Maybe score him some impressive victories, reclaiming Jerusalem for example. This would give him a reputation equal to Richard I. Maybe he decides to use the name Victor when he becomes King instead of Edward..?
I just decided to create a perpetual faux Middle ages Eurasia continent/dimension to put characters like him and Toby/Minoan's Black Knight and the Phantom Knight, both who have no in story references to use to place them in history:
 
Well, England could well have had a King Alphonso, so I suppose there is SOME chance in some alternate history of a King Victor
Alfonso was named after his Castilian half-uncle, so it wasn't exactly as random as it appears today.
I think it's probably unlikely, as Victor just wasn't a common name.
It definitely wasn't common in any of the Medieval circles I'm familiar with (which, granted, are hardly exhaustive). Even the Savoys didn't use it prior to the birth of Victor Amadeus I in the 16th century. I have no clue why he was given such a name, though IIRC he was a second son, so perhaps that had something to do with it?

Certain names do rise in popularity spontaneously, though. Saints' names especially. I don't recall 'John' being a popular name in Medieval Europe prior to the 12th century, but we all know that Henry II's youngest son was given that name despite there being no family connection.
 
In England? I did ask about English history.
far easier way than having the Act of Settlement: have the duke of Savoy not piss William III off when the latter was looking for an heir after the duke of Gloucester's death. W3 offered to name the duke's son, Victor Amadeus, (grandson of Charles II's sister, Minette) heir to England. Conditional that he be brought to London and raised CoE. The duke told W3 that "what for? The crown will come to him anyway" (i.e. that if James II's line was disqualified, Victor Amadeus was the next heir after Queen Anne. Such presumption so incensed England's least favourite Dutchman that he and parliament jumped fifty places in the succession to find Sophie of Hannover (who, had she hesitated too long- she was a James II-supporter through-and-through- he'd have gone with the Hohenzollerns- which would've been opposed by pretty much everyone - as Leibniz wrote- ergo, he'd be forced to come hat in hand back to the duke before accepting a "local" candidate like the Hamiltons or the Seymours).
 
The expansion of the Roman Empire, from the end of the Germanic Wars of Augustus to the Consolidation of Hadrian, can be divided into five parts:
  1. the annexation of a series of client kingdoms early on (Numidia, Maurentina, etc)
  2. the Conquest of Britain
  3. the reorganization of the East following the Armenian War and First Jewish Revolt
  4. the subjugation and subsequent conquest of Dacia
  5. Trajan’s Eastern Campaigns (his war with Parthia and conquest of Arabia)
It strikes me that some of these can be easily averted. Now I’m not sure about this being its own thread -- narrower questions like “What if Rome never conquered Britain?” make for good enough topics, but I’m not sure if generalizing the conversation would work.
 
The expansion of the Roman Empire, from the end of the Germanic Wars of Augustus to the Consolidation of Hadrian, can be divided into five parts:
  1. the annexation of a series of client kingdoms early on (Numidia, Maurentina, etc)
  2. the Conquest of Britain
  3. the reorganization of the East following the Armenian War and First Jewish Revolt
  4. the subjugation and subsequent conquest of Dacia
  5. Trajan’s Eastern Campaigns (his war with Parthia and conquest of Arabia)
It strikes me that some of these can be easily averted. Now I’m not sure about this being its own thread -- narrower questions like “What if Rome never conquered Britain?” make for good enough topics, but I’m not sure if generalizing the conversation would work.
I think Rome might have benefitted from giving Trajan's Eastern Campaign a hard pass...
 
Does anyone know good timelines with no assassination of Lincoln and a successful Reconstruction?

"Until Every Drop of Blood is Repaid" hasn't reached Reconstruction yet, but otherwise it fits the bill of what you're looking for!


I'd also suggest "A Glorious Union, or America: A New Sparta" as also working along some of these lines

 
Top