I just watched Oversimplified's video on the Second Punic War and was wondering why Hannibal Barca decided to risk so much crossing the Alps? Couldn't he have invaded the Roman mainland faster and with far fewer casualties if he had launched a naval invasion?
Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
Not a Carthaginian expert, but there may be a few problems with a naval assault and a few advantages in crossing into Italy by foot which convinced the man to forgo invasion via sea
1.) Naval assaults may be a risky endeavor
2.) Maybe Hannibal just hoped to team up with the local Gauls and Etruscans present on the march to Italia
3.) Maybe he wanted to show his strength by crossing the, once thought of as impenetrable, Alps
I would also add that by this point in the Punic wars Rome and Carthage had done an almost one eighty when looking at their strengths and weaknesses, with the first round of fighting seeing Rome dominant on land and Carthage ruling the waves, by this stage though Carthage had reformed itself to become a major land power while Rome had dominance of the seas.
Was going over Charles I/V succession and realized that his splitting of the Hapsburg Empire prevented a much worse succession crisis once Charles II died.
Basically, the potential Spanish/HRE succession would’ve been:
1) Charles I/V 1516/9-1558
2) Philip II/I 1558-1598
3) Philip III/II 1598-1621
4) Philip IV/III 1621-1665
5) Charles II/VI 1665-1700
Going by pure primogeniture, his successor would’ve been Charles older sister, who was married to Louis XIV, meaning that the heir would be Louis the Grand Dauphin, skipping over his son (died a few months after his father), this means that the man we know as Louis XV IOTL would also be King of Spain and HRE.
6) Louis I/V 1700-1712
7)Louis II/VI/XV 1712/5 (France)-1774
8) Louis III/VII/XVI 1774-1792
My questions are: 1) How big would the continental shitstorm be from one man basically leading all of Central and Western continental Europe (sans Portugal, but that’s iffy…)?
2) Assuming there were no succession wars and the inheritance went off without a hitch, how stable could this empire be? How could its economy work?
3) What would the colonization of the Americas look like since on paper, the Spanish and the French are working together, and the Germans and Italians are now part of colonial empires?
4) What would a bigger empire look like? (Yes, I know the idea of a bigger empire than Spain, France, and the HRE sounds ludicrous, but it is possible.) If Philip II managed to keep Portugal and married Queen Elizabeth (and let’s say has the same heirs as IOTL), what would this mean for Europe? An empire that spans from England to Germany, and where all the main colonial powers of Europe (Spain, France, Portugal, and England) are under the control of one person. How would that affect the colonization of the Americas, Africa, and Asia? Would they work together as a pan-colonizer or would there still be distinct flavors of colonization from where the colonists originated? (The colonists have their own national origins but are administered by the same empire.)
(Establishing massive butterfly nets, seeing as the French kings are the ones in control, does this make the Empire vulnerable to a French Revolution? Even if there’s no successful American Revolution? If so, what does it mean for Napoleon if he manages to take over an Empire that’s essentially his Continental System before he even has a chance to need to invent the system to get back at the British? Does he take the opportunity to try and conquer Indian if it’s not already done? Does he ally with the Russians as the much bigger power to carve up the Ottomans and take Egypt? Would he not establish an independent Poland ITTL since it now represents a threat against the realms he controls?)
Would love to make a thread about this, but wanted to see if I had enough for one before posting.
Basically, the potential Spanish/HRE succession would’ve been:
1) Charles I/V 1516/9-1558
2) Philip II/I 1558-1598
3) Philip III/II 1598-1621
4) Philip IV/III 1621-1665
5) Charles II/VI 1665-1700
Going by pure primogeniture, his successor would’ve been Charles older sister, who was married to Louis XIV, meaning that the heir would be Louis the Grand Dauphin, skipping over his son (died a few months after his father), this means that the man we know as Louis XV IOTL would also be King of Spain and HRE.
6) Louis I/V 1700-1712
7)Louis II/VI/XV 1712/5 (France)-1774
8) Louis III/VII/XVI 1774-1792
My questions are: 1) How big would the continental shitstorm be from one man basically leading all of Central and Western continental Europe (sans Portugal, but that’s iffy…)?
2) Assuming there were no succession wars and the inheritance went off without a hitch, how stable could this empire be? How could its economy work?
3) What would the colonization of the Americas look like since on paper, the Spanish and the French are working together, and the Germans and Italians are now part of colonial empires?
4) What would a bigger empire look like? (Yes, I know the idea of a bigger empire than Spain, France, and the HRE sounds ludicrous, but it is possible.) If Philip II managed to keep Portugal and married Queen Elizabeth (and let’s say has the same heirs as IOTL), what would this mean for Europe? An empire that spans from England to Germany, and where all the main colonial powers of Europe (Spain, France, Portugal, and England) are under the control of one person. How would that affect the colonization of the Americas, Africa, and Asia? Would they work together as a pan-colonizer or would there still be distinct flavors of colonization from where the colonists originated? (The colonists have their own national origins but are administered by the same empire.)
(Establishing massive butterfly nets, seeing as the French kings are the ones in control, does this make the Empire vulnerable to a French Revolution? Even if there’s no successful American Revolution? If so, what does it mean for Napoleon if he manages to take over an Empire that’s essentially his Continental System before he even has a chance to need to invent the system to get back at the British? Does he take the opportunity to try and conquer Indian if it’s not already done? Does he ally with the Russians as the much bigger power to carve up the Ottomans and take Egypt? Would he not establish an independent Poland ITTL since it now represents a threat against the realms he controls?)
Would love to make a thread about this, but wanted to see if I had enough for one before posting.
Last edited:
Thing I'm wondering is if Louis XV and Louis XVI were also Kings of Spain/Emperors of the HRE, would there have been a French Revolution? And if yes, what might have happened?
Karl der Große
Banned
Charles V splitting the empire differently/not splitting it butterflies most of those other kings....
How so? Philip III was born 20 years after Charles’ death so things would be different regarding his birth, but he’d still be heir. Sure, genetics would change, but the actual succession lines would stay the same, and that’s what the question revolves around.
That’s exactly my question. There’s no American Revolution, most major wars of this time period would be internal rebellions, and a much more integrated economy could mean there’s no famine or rise in bread prices, or at least more money to help alleviate it.
Plus, who’s to say that even though they’re Kings of France from Louis XV onward, they don’t move to Austria since the HRE is the far more prestigious crown?
One Butterfly I can think of, though admittedly a minor one...
If Louis XV is also Emperor of the HRE, I'm thinking there's no real reason, or need to marry Louis XVI to Marie Antoinette. Would she even exist this TL?
Was there any possibility of the Lutherans or any Protestant state holding a conclave during the Reformation and electing a(n anti)pope in opposition to the one in Rome?
Thomas Cranmer: Have we managed to resolve the disagreement with the pope?
Henry: You might say that... Your Holiness.
Thomas Cranmer: Have we managed to resolve the disagreement with the pope?
Henry: You might say that... Your Holiness.
If John, Count of Nevers had a son in 1486 and Margaret of Austria inherited Burgundy from her brother Philip in 1496-ish, would she consider and possibly marry John’s son or would his youth make him an unviable candidate for her hand? He would be her heir presumptive so it might help his chances.
Considering Lutheranism was built around the idea that the Pope was illegitimate I think it’s unlikely. Though it’s possible different Protestant denomination might establish a counterpart to the Pope.
Six years isn't too bad of a gap, but Margaret would need a stronger husband to protect Burgundy from the French.
Separately, what could English colonization look like under much clearer succession (emphasis post Henry VIII, but starting after Richard II):
1) Edmund (Mortimer) (1399-1425)
2) Richard III (York) (1425-1460)
3) Edward IV (York) (1460-1483)
4) Elizabeth I (York)/Henry IV (Tudor) (1483-1509) (She’s the rightful heir, but to fully stop the War of the Roses since a Queen would lead to uprisings, she marries Henry Tudor and is co-monarch with him. Her life extend to match his.)
5) Henry V (Tudor) (1509-1547) (Avoids the fall that changed his personality, and doesn’t divorce Catherine of Aragon, keeping him Catholic. Also enters into a bigamous marriage with Anne Boleyn.) (Pope was so desperate to stay on his good side he offered to bless a bigamous union.)
6) Henry VI (Tudor)/Mary (Tudor) (1547-1558) (In exchange for the bigamous union, Pope wanted Henry to legitimize his son and marry him to his half sister to avoid the divorce debacle. They’re co-rulers; his life extended to match hers.)
7) Elizabeth II (Tudor) (1558-1603)
8) Edward VI (Seymour) (1603-1612) (Due to a better relationship with her father and siblings, Elizabeth follows Henry V’s will and adopts Lady Katherine Grey, stabilizing inheritance of the English throne, which remains Catholic.)
9) William III (Seymour)/Arabella (Stuart) (1612-1660) (Union of main heirs with an offshoot branch, shuts out Jacobites forever.)
10) William IV (Seymour) (1660-1671)
11) Elizabeth III (Seymour) (1671-1697)
12) Charles (Bruce) (1697-1747) (Descendant of Robert.)
13) James (Brydges) (1747-1789) (With tons of butterfly nets, assuming the ARW happens on schedule, 13 Colonies would be lost, and 🇺🇸 born, under James.)
To restate the question, what could the British colonization of the Americas (particularly 13 Colonies) look like with this alternate succession in a Catholic UK (no full War of the Roses, and most likely butterflying the English Civil Warl)? (Basically, a much more stable and Catholic England with no major Irish rebellions, at least due to religion, while also avoiding the Spanish Armada, and keeping better relations with Continental Europe. Possible they adopt a more Latin structure to slavery and racial hierarchies and more latifundio style setups for agriculture, though mot sure how much of that is down to religion vs. feudalism/land reform in economics and proximity to Africa in terms of race. Also, not such a big deal with Protestant work ethic.)
1) Edmund (Mortimer) (1399-1425)
2) Richard III (York) (1425-1460)
3) Edward IV (York) (1460-1483)
4) Elizabeth I (York)/Henry IV (Tudor) (1483-1509) (She’s the rightful heir, but to fully stop the War of the Roses since a Queen would lead to uprisings, she marries Henry Tudor and is co-monarch with him. Her life extend to match his.)
5) Henry V (Tudor) (1509-1547) (Avoids the fall that changed his personality, and doesn’t divorce Catherine of Aragon, keeping him Catholic. Also enters into a bigamous marriage with Anne Boleyn.) (Pope was so desperate to stay on his good side he offered to bless a bigamous union.)
6) Henry VI (Tudor)/Mary (Tudor) (1547-1558) (In exchange for the bigamous union, Pope wanted Henry to legitimize his son and marry him to his half sister to avoid the divorce debacle. They’re co-rulers; his life extended to match hers.)
7) Elizabeth II (Tudor) (1558-1603)
8) Edward VI (Seymour) (1603-1612) (Due to a better relationship with her father and siblings, Elizabeth follows Henry V’s will and adopts Lady Katherine Grey, stabilizing inheritance of the English throne, which remains Catholic.)
9) William III (Seymour)/Arabella (Stuart) (1612-1660) (Union of main heirs with an offshoot branch, shuts out Jacobites forever.)
10) William IV (Seymour) (1660-1671)
11) Elizabeth III (Seymour) (1671-1697)
12) Charles (Bruce) (1697-1747) (Descendant of Robert.)
13) James (Brydges) (1747-1789) (With tons of butterfly nets, assuming the ARW happens on schedule, 13 Colonies would be lost, and 🇺🇸 born, under James.)
To restate the question, what could the British colonization of the Americas (particularly 13 Colonies) look like with this alternate succession in a Catholic UK (no full War of the Roses, and most likely butterflying the English Civil Warl)? (Basically, a much more stable and Catholic England with no major Irish rebellions, at least due to religion, while also avoiding the Spanish Armada, and keeping better relations with Continental Europe. Possible they adopt a more Latin structure to slavery and racial hierarchies and more latifundio style setups for agriculture, though mot sure how much of that is down to religion vs. feudalism/land reform in economics and proximity to Africa in terms of race. Also, not such a big deal with Protestant work ethic.)
Last edited:
Based off on this, what could Anglo-Franco relations look like if you butterflied away the 100 Years’ War? Now, a change to the English succession wouldn’t change that, but the change done to the English succession, done to the French succession would!
After Louis X died, there was debate over whether his daughter would inherit or his yet unborn child (posthumous son who died 5 days after birth). The French nobles, wishing to take power away from his daughter Joan, decided she wouldn’t inherit, and instead of establishing a regency for her, one of them just took the throne for himself. Once the Capets died out, it was argued that though women couldn’t inherit and rule, they could pass it on to their sons, which was denied since you couldn’t transfer something greater than what you’re entitled to. (How Edward III’s mother claimed the French throne on his behalf.)
What if that changed though? What if Louis X had lived long enough to witness the death of his son, and declared his daughter heir, preventing the (legal) challenges to her Joan’s rule, and butterflying the English claims to the French throne?
1) Joan I/II (Capet)/Philip V/III (Évreux) 1316-1349 (Last Capet. Ties France and Navarre forever. Joint rule, his life extended to match hers.)
2) Charles IV/I (Évreux) 1349-1387
3) Charles V/II (Évreux) 1387-1425
4) Blanche (Évreux)/John I/II (Trástamara) 1425-1479 (Joint rule, her life extended to match his.)
5) Francis Phoebus (Foix) 1479-1483 (Great-grandson.)
6) Catherine (Foix)/John II/III (Albret) (1483-1517) (Joint rule, his life extended to match hers. Both their lives extended by a few weeks to outlive their daughter Eleanor.)
7) Henry II (Albret) 1517-1555
8) Jeanne II/III (Albret)/Antoine (Bourbon-Vendôme) 1555-1572 (His life extended to match hers.)
9) Henry III (Bourbon) 1572-1610 (Follows OTL.)
10) Louis XI/II (Bourbon) 1610-1643
11) Louis XII/III (Bourbon) 1643-1715
12) Louis XIII/IV (Bourbon) 1715-1774
13) Louis XIV/V (Bourbon) 1774-1792
This unites on a permanent basis the Kingdoms of France and Navarre much earlier than IOTL (Henry III, IV IOTL). It might even prevent their conquest by Spain, but that’s secondary. The real issue is that with no major controversy over the succession, the English can’t claim the throne of France, meaning there’s no pretext for the Hundred Year’s War, which would be a huge boon for Anglo-Franco relations! Of course, they’ll have plenty of other opportunities to quarrel with each other (especially once colonialism gets in full swing), and they certainly won’t be best friends until about they time they were IOTL, but not having over a century’s worth of conflict has to count for something, right?
What’s really interesting about this succession are the French Wars of Religion, since Joanne II/III was a Calvinist, while Henry III was a Protestant, and would directly inherit the throne ITTL, meaning he might not need to convert (though still might to keep the peace). The big irony of combining this and the English succession TL is that here, France is the Protestant superpower, while the English remain the Catholic superpower. So the religious conflicts between the 2 countries remain ITTL, just that the religions flip, and the rulers of France don’t claim to be head of their own church.
However, Henry’s son Louis had a strict Catholic upbringing. (How much of that was his father’s conversion, and how much of that was his mother being Marie De’ Medici, I’m not sure, and who’s to say ITTL, things don’t work out with Margaret of Valois? Though she was also Catholic.) Meaning France’s 2 Protestant rulers (55 years, 1555-1610) could just be a brief interruption in centuries of Catholic rule, a quirk of history ended by Henry’s assassination. (Also possible Jeanne never converts, though not sure how.)
This also means that if the general ebb and flow of history goes as IOTL (butterfly nets are struggling, but still), and Napoleon comes to power, he won’t have as much pressure regarding heirs since he’ll only need an heir, not a boy specifically, though one would be preferred. (Seeing as how everyone from Henry III (IV IOTL) on is the same (obviously different due to chance and genetics, but still), the conditions for the French Revolution would be set in motion, and I don’t think there’s much this succession alone would do to change it, if at all.)
(Could also mean the places he conquers don’t adopt Salic law, and instead either keep or adopt male-preference primogeniture, which would apply to the German states, as well as Italy.)
Last edited:
Grey Wolf
Donor
For half an hour I couldn't work out why this post was bothering me, at the back of my mind. Then it hit me - Strange New Worlds!
Last edited:
lol maybe I wasn’t being specific enough
Did the Romans of the late 200AD-300AD Roman E view the Illyrians as barbarians or “one of us”? Was the situation similar two hundred yrs ago during Augustus leadership?
The Illyrians by the 3rd and 4th century CE would've mostly been relegated to the countrysides and in rural towns to the poorer classes. They wouldn't be seen as barbarians or as 'one of us' but as just the rural people in Dalmatia. To the latinised people of the region, Illyrians would just be their poorer rural neighbours with less access to higher education, so perhaps the local elites would regard them with disapprobation and classism, but the overall Roman Empire and population mostly wouldn't care much about them. They recognise the rule of Rome, they pay their taxes and they fight in the Roman Armies all the same, they just don't speak Latin maternally nor do they call the gods with the same names and honour them in the same way, but they're Roman citizens.