Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

Reader mode
WI: Andronikos II killed at Tralleis? - Part VI:

Geopolitical:
- By the early 16th century, the chaos in the Middle East would've started to settle down, likely coalescing around one of the post-Mongol warlords in Greater Persia, who I'll call Iskandar. After defeating the other warlords of Greater Persia and Iraq, Iskandar is in need of funds to repair infrastructure and such that had been damaged in the preceding decades, and a means of dealing with the tens of thousands of experienced warriors who might stir up trouble if allowed to spend time by themselves. After decades of Byzantine expansion and overall conflict there is no small amount of anti-Byzantine sentiment in the region, and Iskandar sees a means of solving his problems.
- The Iskandarids invade after some proxy issue involving the Muslims of one of the eastern border towns. Bands of ghazis, often driven into exile or in hiding within the empire after previous conflicts, lead the charge across the frontier, acting as a thousand roving bands stirring up revolt in the countryside along religious lines and cutting Byzantine logistics into ribbons behind the frontlines proper. The Turks and Armenians are mostly ambivalent and do nothing, allowing the Iskandarids to maintain their own logistics while the Byzantines' go to hell. The frontier armies are caught out of place and destroyed piecemeal, while a string of cities are taken through revolt, surrender or are besieged. Within a few short months, the eastern empire has disintegrated.
- The emperor is forced to an early battle, marshalling as large an army as possible and marching eastward to meet Iskandar with all possible force. The result is a narrow Byzantine defeat, with the superior artillery of the Iskandarids carrying the day. The Byzantines then retreat to defensive lines along the Western passes, only to be defeated and the sitting emperor killed.
- The Iskandarids then push to the Bosphorus, but leave pockets of Byzantine forces in the west coast south of the Troad, the southwestern highlands, the northern coastal highlands and the Cilician plains. The Iskandarids camp on the far side of the Straits, petrifying the people of Constantinople, but the Byzantines are strong enough to hold the Straits. After a long pseudo-siege, Iskandar decides that he's pillaged as much as he can pillage and pulls back. The Iskandarids occupy Central and Eastern Anatolia, leaving a coastal fringe under the Byzantines subject to frequent raids and pillaging.

@stevep Bad timing on my part, but everything you said was right.
 
Eparkhos said:
WI: Andronikos II killed at Tralleis? - Part VI:

Geopolitical:
- By the early 16th century, the chaos in the Middle East would've started to settle down, likely coalescing around one of the post-Mongol warlords in Greater Persia, who I'll call Iskandar. After defeating the other warlords of Greater Persia and Iraq, Iskandar is in need of funds to repair infrastructure and such that had been damaged in the preceding decades, and a means of dealing with the tens of thousands of experienced warriors who might stir up trouble if allowed to spend time by themselves. After decades of Byzantine expansion and overall conflict there is no small amount of anti-Byzantine sentiment in the region, and Iskandar sees a means of solving his problems.
- The Iskandarids invade after some proxy issue involving the Muslims of one of the eastern border towns. Bands of ghazis, often driven into exile or in hiding within the empire after previous conflicts, lead the charge across the frontier, acting as a thousand roving bands stirring up revolt in the countryside along religious lines and cutting Byzantine logistics into ribbons behind the frontlines proper. The Turks and Armenians are mostly ambivalent and do nothing, allowing the Iskandarids to maintain their own logistics while the Byzantines' go to hell. The frontier armies are caught out of place and destroyed piecemeal, while a string of cities are taken through revolt, surrender or are besieged. Within a few short months, the eastern empire has disintegrated.
- The emperor is forced to an early battle, marshalling as large an army as possible and marching eastward to meet Iskandar with all possible force. The result is a narrow Byzantine defeat, with the superior artillery of the Iskandarids carrying the day. The Byzantines then retreat to defensive lines along the Western passes, only to be defeated and the sitting emperor killed.
- The Iskandarids then push to the Bosphorus, but leave pockets of Byzantine forces in the west coast south of the Troad, the southwestern highlands, the northern coastal highlands and the Cilician plains. The Iskandarids camp on the far side of the Straits, petrifying the people of Constantinople, but the Byzantines are strong enough to hold the Straits. After a long pseudo-siege, Iskandar decides that he's pillaged as much as he can pillage and pulls back. The Iskandarids occupy Central and Eastern Anatolia, leaving a coastal fringe under the Byzantines subject to frequent raids and pillaging.

@stevep Bad timing on my part, but everything you said was right.
Click to expand...

Interesting.In OTL pope was gathering money for new Crusade to repel turks,which was main pretext for Luder revolution.
Now,there is no Turks,so no Crusade,and not Luder heresy,too.

Another thing - Lithuania.In OTL they could become orthodox - what happened to them now? are they part of Poland-Hungary union?
If not,they could be independent orthodox state friendly to ERE.
 
@sillygoose @stevep @History Learner @Circle of Willis @Skallagrim @ATP @Marduk @Atarlost @Earl @Zyobot @Chiron @Ricardolindo Why did Hungary never claim eastern Galicia during Operation Barbarossa? It does seem like it would have been a sensible claim for Hungary to make, given that Galicia used to be a part of Austria-Hungary (albeit of Austria rather than of Hungary) and thus Hungary could have capitalized on any remaining love for the Hapsburgs there to justify its conquest of this territory. It seems like it would have been a sensible move for Hungary since it would have ensured that Hungary would have at least gotten some additional territories from participating in Operation Barbarossa.

This would not have made any difference in the long(er)-run, of course, unless Hungary would have avoided trying to defect early, in which case not only could much more of Greater Hungary's Jews have been saved from the Holocaust, but also a huge part of eastern Galicia's Jews could have been saved from the Holocaust.
 
WolfBear said:
@sillygoose @stevep @History Learner @Circle of Willis @Skallagrim @ATP @Marduk @Atarlost @Earl @Zyobot @Chiron @Ricardolindo Why did Hungary never claim eastern Galicia during Operation Barbarossa? It does seem like it would have been a sensible claim for Hungary to make, given that Galicia used to be a part of Austria-Hungary (albeit of Austria rather than of Hungary) and thus Hungary could have capitalized on any remaining love for the Hapsburgs there to justify its conquest of this territory. It seems like it would have been a sensible move for Hungary since it would have ensured that Hungary would have at least gotten some additional territories from participating in Operation Barbarossa.

This would not have made any difference in the long(er)-run, of course, unless Hungary would have avoided trying to defect early, in which case not only could much more of Greater Hungary's Jews have been saved from the Holocaust, but also a huge part of eastern Galicia's Jews could have been saved from the Holocaust.
Click to expand...

@raharris1973 I forgot to link to your name here. Sorry about that. :( Anyway, any thoughts about this? I know that you previously created a thread about this topic on AH.com:

Why was Galicia in Austria, not Hungary after the Augsleich?

When the Austrian Empire became the Austro-Hungarian empire with the Augsleich of 1866, why was a disconnected portion of the Dalmatian coast, and a thinly connected Galicia put in the Austrian (Cisleithania) portion rather than Hungary? A boundary that limited Austria to only those lands...
www.alternatehistory.com
 
Eparkhos said:
Cool. It's in a new thread. https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/wi-andronikos-ii-killed-at-tralleis-the-timeline.8415/
Click to expand...

Thanks! :)

WolfBear said:
@sillygoose @stevep @History Learner @Circle of Willis @Skallagrim @ATP @Marduk @Atarlost @Earl @Zyobot @Chiron @Ricardolindo Why did Hungary never claim eastern Galicia during Operation Barbarossa? It does seem like it would have been a sensible claim for Hungary to make, given that Galicia used to be a part of Austria-Hungary (albeit of Austria rather than of Hungary) and thus Hungary could have capitalized on any remaining love for the Hapsburgs there to justify its conquest of this territory. It seems like it would have been a sensible move for Hungary since it would have ensured that Hungary would have at least gotten some additional territories from participating in Operation Barbarossa.

This would not have made any difference in the long(er)-run, of course, unless Hungary would have avoided trying to defect early, in which case not only could much more of Greater Hungary's Jews have been saved from the Holocaust, but also a huge part of eastern Galicia's Jews could have been saved from the Holocaust.
Click to expand...

@Buba What are your own thoughts about this?

Also:

Who do the Democrats nominate in 1932 if FDR loses the 1928 New York gubernatorial election, as he almost did in real life? Al Smith again?

For reference:

 
Galicia had been Hungarian - both as vassal and even a period as part of Magyarsag, in the 13th and 14th centuries.
Why not after 1867? IMO simple - Hungary was created more or less in its historical boundries - Galicia was an episode hence it was left out. I doubt anybody in Budapest wanted Galicia. Also - and as importantly - why make Hungary stronger?
 
WolfBear said:
@sillygoose @stevep @History Learner @Circle of Willis @Skallagrim @ATP @Marduk @Atarlost @Earl @Zyobot @Chiron @Ricardolindo Why did Hungary never claim eastern Galicia during Operation Barbarossa? It does seem like it would have been a sensible claim for Hungary to make, given that Galicia used to be a part of Austria-Hungary (albeit of Austria rather than of Hungary) and thus Hungary could have capitalized on any remaining love for the Hapsburgs there to justify its conquest of this territory. It seems like it would have been a sensible move for Hungary since it would have ensured that Hungary would have at least gotten some additional territories from participating in Operation Barbarossa.

This would not have made any difference in the long(er)-run, of course, unless Hungary would have avoided trying to defect early, in which case not only could much more of Greater Hungary's Jews have been saved from the Holocaust, but also a huge part of eastern Galicia's Jews could have been saved from the Holocaust.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Galicia largely Polish in settlement at the time so its claim - coupled with the point raised by Buba about only limited Hungarian control and not for ~700 years - would probably seem quite weak to the Germans in control of it. Hungary had already taken land from Romania and Yugoslavia so that would probably seem to the Germans [I know we're talking about the Nazi leadership here so its somewhat ironic:D] rather greedy.
 
Eastern (or "proper") Galicia was mostly Ukrainian.
The Lwów/Lviv Voievodship of the II Republic had a Polish majority as it had been extended westwards to include parts of Little Poland.
Plus the authorities cheating with data.
EDIT:
I misread the concept :(
With Galicia Hungarians would become a minority.
 
Last edited:
stevep said:
Wasn't Galicia largely Polish in settlement at the time so its claim - coupled with the point raised by Buba about only limited Hungarian control and not for ~700 years - would probably seem quite weak to the Germans in control of it. Hungary had already taken land from Romania and Yugoslavia so that would probably seem to the Germans [I know we're talking about the Nazi leadership here so its somewhat ironic:D] rather greedy.
Click to expand...

Western Galicia was Polish-majority, eastern Galicia was Ukrainian-majority or at least Ukrainian-plurality, if I recall correctly.

Buba said:
With Galicia Hungarians would become a minority.
Click to expand...

But what about the magical power of Assimilation (TM)? ;)

Plus, Poles and Hungarians were historically very good friends:

 
Bassoe said:
May eight, 1945, the Yellowstone Caldera erupts and essentially removes America from the geopolitical game leaving the Soviet Union as the sole post-WW2 superpower, a status which they abuse even harder than the yanks did.
Click to expand...
WolfBear said:
lololololololol :D
Click to expand...
Why do I get the feeling I just wrote the plot of the next Call of Duty game?
>alternate history with no nukes available so superpowers can fight directly without simply escalating to the apocalypse
>invading Russians as the baddies
>multinational team of heroes from every faction opposed to the Russians from Europeans to Mujahideen to rearmed ex-Nazis fighting for the good guys this time, honest (just like Azov!), but no Americans, they're all dead
 
WolfBear said:
'AHC: Increase German military (as opposed to German casualties) in World War II even further'
Click to expand...

Initial idea 1)
a) Britain makes peace in 1940 after the fall of France.
b) Hitler invades the USSR in 41 and gets a bit further leading to a death fight in Moscow with a much larger Stalingrad resulting.
c) The USSR - with probably some indirect aid from UK and/or US gradually grinds down the Germans with horrendous costs to both side and any poor people caught under foot.

Eventually some peace agreement is made, depending on the balance of power at the time, before Soviet forces reach German territory. German civilian losses are minimal but military losses are even larger than OTL.

Idea 2)
Simialar to 1) but a virtually exhausted Germany is gradually winning when Britain intervenes with some nukes to force a settlement of some kind. This could include attacks on both civilian targets - but still with German civilian losses less than OTL - or on possible military concentrations or a mix of both. Peace is imposed on both states with Germany occupied and de-Nazification started, the setting up of independent states in eastern Europe and the Soviets restricted in their territories. [I can't see Britain having either the resources or will to try and occupy and control the bulk of the USSR. Even if the US is also drawn in on the allied side but they need to remove Nazi Germany as a threat and also try and restore peace and economic development to continental Europe.
 
stevep said:
Initial idea 1)
a) Britain makes peace in 1940 after the fall of France.
b) Hitler invades the USSR in 41 and gets a bit further leading to a death fight in Moscow with a much larger Stalingrad resulting.
c) The USSR - with probably some indirect aid from UK and/or US gradually grinds down the Germans with horrendous costs to both side and any poor people caught under foot.

Eventually some peace agreement is made, depending on the balance of power at the time, before Soviet forces reach German territory. German civilian losses are minimal but military losses are even larger than OTL.

Idea 2)
Simialar to 1) but a virtually exhausted Germany is gradually winning when Britain intervenes with some nukes to force a settlement of some kind. This could include attacks on both civilian targets - but still with German civilian losses less than OTL - or on possible military concentrations or a mix of both. Peace is imposed on both states with Germany occupied and de-Nazification started, the setting up of independent states in eastern Europe and the Soviets restricted in their territories. [I can't see Britain having either the resources or will to try and occupy and control the bulk of the USSR. Even if the US is also drawn in on the allied side but they need to remove Nazi Germany as a threat and also try and restore peace and economic development to continental Europe.
Click to expand...

Britain didn't have nukes until 1952, though.
 
WolfBear said:
Britain didn't have nukes until 1952, though.
Click to expand...

True but as Buba says without the strain of war and blockade but with a Nazi empire controlling most of the continent that gives in turn resources and motivation for such a development. I'm not saying it would be by 1945 as the slaughter in the east might last markedly longer than OTL in those different circumstances.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top