Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

TheRejectionist

TheRejectionist
That's why I came up with Labians (Łabian, Elbians in English) meaning the Polabians and Sorbs being the basis for a new Slavic nation replacing the Germans.
Tough call :)
For this you need quite a few brilliant, ruthless and very LUCKY rulers. Preferably back to back, for several generations ...
I'd start with the Franks failing to conquer Saxony. Followed by the Franks dividing their empire sooner and/or into smaller bits. Hence no Frankish/Saxon*/German steamroller, but weaker, divided neighbours to the west.
Then the Hungarians - can be Bulgars or Pechengs, any sort of steppe nation will do - set up shop not in Pannonia, but along the upper Danube in what today is Bavaria. They wreck the entire neighbourhood weakening everybody, causing westward flight of people and institutions, for two or three generations, before being wiped out, conquered or assimilated.
To this add Viking raids from the north and the Polabian encroachment.
This sets the stage for westward expansion of the united Polabians in the early Xth century.

* in OTL it were the Saxon lords - part of the Western Frank state, evolving into "Germany" - who conquered Lusatia and Polabia. In the former case this led to the name transfer, i.e. Lusatia being known as "Saxony" today while the original Saxony is called LOWER Saxony.

This some Witcher series good shit...!;)(y)
 

Batrix2070

RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
This some Witcher series good shit...!;)(y)
Precisely that it has little to do with The Witcher. Ironically, The Witcher is more of a fractured Arthurian legends plus legends from all over Europe, reworked into a dark fantasy poured with a sauce of Polishness. Slavism was added by the Reds.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
The Holy Empire of the Labians or the Elbe Slavs conquer the Germans and Slavicization them.

Does anyone have an idea how to achieve this?

Historically, the Elbe Slavs, placed between Poland and Germany, were the arena of clashes between their neighbors from which the Germans ultimately emerged victorious, conquering and Germanizing the lands up to the Oder River.
How to make the "Labians" (literally Elbians) kept their independence as well as conquered the Germans?
Tough call :)
It is indeed a tough call. I think @Buba's POD and general scenario would suffice to cripple the Germans and thus allow for the consolidation of a Polabian state covering, essentially, OTL's (modern-day) "East Germany".

I don't think that such a POD would suffice to bring about the annihilation or displacement of the Germans, however.


I'd start with the Franks failing to conquer Saxony. Followed by the Franks dividing their empire and/or into smaller bits. Hence no Frankish/Saxon/German steamroller, but weaker, divided neighbours to the west.
Then the Hungarians - can be Bulgars or Pechengs, any sort of steppe nation will do - set up shop not in Pannonia, but along the upper Danube in what today is Bavaria. They wreck the entire neighbourhood weakening everybody, causing westward flight of people and institutions, for two or three generations, before being wiped out or assimilated.
To this add Viking raids from the north and the Polabian encroachment.
This sets the stage for westward expansion of the united Polabians in the early Xth century.
The major issue is that this is too late. Basic truth that has to be recognised: the Germans were in closer contact with Rome, and in a better position to (re-)build stuff on the ruins of Rome's power structures. Thus, you get Romanised Germanics founding post-Roman successor kingdoms, and less-Romanised Germanic states further North. But the latter could and did still use Rome's legacy very effectively. The "Christianity bonus" was theirs, too, since early conversion really made a difference.

We should also consider that any Hungarians or Bulgars or whatever are unlikely to just cross the Alps en masse. So they either stay in Pannonia, or they screw over *Czechia, or... they move into *Bavaria.... through *Poland and Polabia. In the process screwing those regions over in a major way, and negating any advantage it might provide for the desired scenario.

So what to do? I think the required POD, truly at the very latest, would be "no Clovis". Or rather: instead of Clovis, the Franks get some guy like Redbad, who decides "Screw all Christians, I hate them!" and creates a conflict with the states to his South. That should create a nice mess.

The end result is that Southern *France (extending further North than in OTL; I'd say to the Loire) consolidates as a Post-Roman, Christian region, whereas the Franks remain pagan (and more decidely Germanic, too). They get crushed both by the Christians and by other pagan peoples (e.g. Frisians, Saxons, Thuringians), which in turn causes those people to focus their attentions South(-West), where they can hit and loot the Frankish domains.

This general Germanic warlord area (between the Loire and the Elbe) stays a big, violent mess for a while. This allows the Polabians to consolidate, since they don't face any pressure from those aggressive Germanic raiders who were so pushy and bothersome in OTL.

The most plausible scenario is that the Polabians end up doing what Charlemagne did. They conquer various neighbouring Slavic peoples first. Thus, they establish a "Polabian Empire" that includes the proto-Poles and proto-Czechs and whatnot-- all the way up to the Vistula in the East, and extending so far South as to include the early Croats, too. So you get the basis for a "Slavia" instead of a "Germania". And then, like Charlemagne did to the Polabians, in OTL, they push West and subdue the Germans living between the Elbe and the Rhine, and they make that region thoroughly Slavic over the span of a few centuries.

Later on, this Slavic empire may well fall apart into multiple states, but there is the basis for a strong cultural entity here. Either this empire or its Westernmost successor state can push yet further West (just as the OTL Germans pushed further East), conquering the Franks. With the effect that this Slavic cultural sphere pushes its South-Western border to the Loire.
 
Last edited:

Batrix2070

RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
Wait what how?
Yes, Sapkowski himself did not write anything Slavic, or at least he did not intend to. He relied on legends and myths from all over Europe with emphasis on Arthurian ones of which he is an expert. At most, he pulled something from Slavic mythology, but that was to have some new unprecedented monsters and approaches to them. Well, and names and names.
Although the main feature that many foreigners take as Slavic is the style of storytelling which.... acutely Polish? Heck, the original in terms of writing style is modeled on Sienkiewicz's Trilogy, a series of books about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from the time of the Deluge written in the 19th to strengthen Poles' hearts and money.

It was CD Projekt Red's world-building that gave it a Slavic character, causing it to stand out significantly among other fantasy games. Although this Slavicness is in fact Polishness.

The first Witcher and the first location after Kaer Moren is a picture taken alive from Poland and taken back to the Middle Ages in a distorted mirror. The second Witcher is more generic, but the third beyond Toussount and Skellige is actually Poland!Fantasy invaded by Germany!Fantasy.
 

ATP

Well-known member
The Holy Empire of the Labians or the Elbe Slavs conquer the Germans and Slavicization them.

Does anyone have an idea how to achieve this?

Historically, the Elbe Slavs, placed between Poland and Germany, were the arena of clashes between their neighbors from which the Germans ultimately emerged victorious, conquering and Germanizing the lands up to the Oder River.
How to make the "Labians" (literally Elbians) kept their independence as well as conquered the Germans?

Relative3ly easy.Great Moravia controlled part of their territory.
Let assume,that they repelled hungarians,and take all of Labians territories.Later all future polish territories,and part of prussians.
Made them welcome monks to develop country,especially cisterians later.
After 200 years replace Moravian dynasty with Labian/for example,after mongol invasion/ and conqer germans then.

Before that....It would be tricky,but: romans refugees with technologies and military training run there after 405AD.
After 100 years,irish monks come and christian them.
About 730,when Franks play with arabs,they conqer saxon lands.
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
‘AHC: Worse Soviet Leader Than Joseph Stalin’.

Trotsky’s the default candidate, though aside from him, I’m curious as to who could’ve been even more despotic and bloodthirsty than Stalin himself? For starters, maybe Lazar Kaganovich, since he was a Stalinist par excellence who was all too eager to mass-murder everyone from railway workers to his fellow Ukrainians. Certain NKVD chiefs, like Genrikh Yagoda and Nikolai Yezhov, were more than sadistic enough to qualify, but probably too unstable to last before being “offed” by more moderate elements of the Soviet government in short order.
 

TheRomanSlayer

Unipolarity is for Subhuman Trogdolytes
‘AHC: Worse Soviet Leader Than Joseph Stalin’.

Trotsky’s the default candidate, though aside from him, I’m curious as to who could’ve been even more despotic and bloodthirsty than Stalin himself? For starters, maybe Lazar Kaganovich, since he was a Stalinist par excellence who was all too eager to mass-murder everyone from railway workers to his fellow Ukrainians. Certain NKVD chiefs, like Genrikh Yagoda and Nikolai Yezhov, were more than sadistic enough to qualify, but probably too unstable to last before being “offed” by more moderate elements of the Soviet government in short order.
Lavrenti Beria? His unusual psychotic hobbies would be a nightmare for any woman who is unlucky enough to come close to him.
 

Earl

Well-known member
‘AHC: Worse Soviet Leader Than Joseph Stalin’.

Trotsky’s the default candidate, though aside from him, I’m curious as to who could’ve been even more despotic and bloodthirsty than Stalin himself? For starters, maybe Lazar Kaganovich, since he was a Stalinist par excellence who was all too eager to mass-murder everyone from railway workers to his fellow Ukrainians. Certain NKVD chiefs, like Genrikh Yagoda and Nikolai Yezhov, were more than sadistic enough to qualify, but probably too unstable to last before being “offed” by more moderate elements of the Soviet government in short order.
Well this is easy to do. Nikita Kruschev who makes one wrong move in the cuban missile crisis or Brezhnev who launches in Able Archer. Congrats, you have a soviet leader who makes Stalins bloody hands look quite paltry.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Lavrenti Beria? His unusual psychotic hobbies would be a nightmare for any woman who is unlucky enough to come close to him.
For rape victims - yes.For soviet union - no.
Becouse he would made economic reforms which allow people live better,and probably also gave freedom to countries taken by soviets.
And,since he do not belived in communism,we would have soviets as normal empire.Better for everybody except rape victims of Beria.

Well this is easy to do. Nikita Kruschev who makes one wrong move in the cuban missile crisis or Brezhnev who launches in Able Archer. Congrats, you have a soviet leader who makes Stalins bloody hands look quite paltry.

Brezniw - yes,world would burn.But Ktuszczow - no,soviets had top 30 missiles capable of reaching USA,and not all could launch quickly.
Which mean - USA crippled with 10-15 cities lost,soviets burned,and Europe partially burned.USA in this scenario would burn Mao just in case,too.
But - no more communism.So,it would be actually good for world in long run.Even for USA,becouse both Waschington and N.Y would burn.No Wall Street and beurocrats.
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Lavrenti Beria? His unusual psychotic hobbies would be a nightmare for any woman who is unlucky enough to come close to him.
My understanding (as @ATP noted) is that despite being "Jack the Ripper as NKVD chief!" on a personal level, Beria was actually quite pragmatic and would've liberalized the USSR more than even Khrushchev IOTL.

Far worse for the women of Moscow, yes, but for the Soviet people and world at large? Probably a great deal better, if I'm being honest.

Well this is easy to do. Nikita Kruschev who makes one wrong move in the cuban missile crisis or Brezhnev who launches in Able Archer. Congrats, you have a soviet leader who makes Stalins bloody hands look quite paltry.
Not exactly what I was aiming at. In those cases, it'd say that's more Khrushchev or Brezhnev being reckless or shortsighted, rather than being deliberately malevolent or actively seeking to visit cruelty on a massive scale, as Stalin was.

The latter is what I'm principally interested in, though in the case of wrathful scourges like Kaganovich or Uncle Joe's other exceptionally monstrous lackeys, their temperaments would make nuking the Capitalist West out of headstrong spite frighteningly probable, indeed. :(
 

TheRomanSlayer

Unipolarity is for Subhuman Trogdolytes
"PC: Austria Joins the Crimean War AGAINST Russia"

What would it take for the Austrians to actually abandon their alliance with Russia a lot faster by siding with France and Britain? Would it be beneficial for them in the long run, since the absence of Russia from the Balkans would have meant that Austria would be free to expand its own influence into that region? Moreover, could Austria also be able to open up another front against Russia during the Crimean War by sponsoring Polish revolts in the region?
 

ATP

Well-known member
My understanding (as @ATP noted) is that despite being "Jack the Ripper as NKVD chief!" on a personal level, Beria was actually quite pragmatic and would've liberalized the USSR more than even Khrushchev IOTL.

Far worse for the women of Moscow, yes, but for the Soviet people and world at large? Probably a great deal better, if I'm being honest.


Not exactly what I was aiming at. In those cases, it'd say that's more Khrushchev or Brezhnev being reckless or shortsighted, rather than being deliberately malevolent or actively seeking to visit cruelty on a massive scale, as Stalin was.

The latter is what I'm principally interested in, though in the case of wrathful scourges like Kaganovich or Uncle Joe's other exceptionally monstrous lackeys, their temperaments would make nuking the Capitalist West out of headstrong spite frighteningly probable, indeed. :(
Indeed.Beria would turn soviets into kind of modern China - capitalism with party power.
Better for state and most people there,not for soviet womans he find interesting.
 

Buba

A total creep
"No US entry into WWI" - does the Kerensky Gov't continue in the war or does it drop out?
I very vaguely remember reading something to the tune of "Provisional Gov't ony stayed in war due to assurance of Entente (US) funding" or something like that ...
How bad is my memory? :)
 
Last edited:

stevep

Well-known member
"No US entry into WWI" - does the Kerensky Gov't continue in the war or does it drop out?
I very vaguely remember reading something to the tune of "Provisional Gov't ony stayed in war due to assurance of Entente (US) funding" or something like that ...
How bad is my memory? :)

It might be better than mine but I get the feeling that while they welcomed the US entry into the war as a boost they were more tied to the existing western allies of France and Britain. Also, at least according to Tooze's The Deluge Wilson seems to have been pretty dismissive of the Provisional government and more favourable later on - at least initially - to the Bolsheviks.
 

ATP

Well-known member
"No US entry into WWI" - does the Kerensky Gov't continue in the war or does it drop out?
I very vaguely remember reading something to the tune of "Provisional Gov't ony stayed in war due to assurance of Entente (US) funding" or something like that ...
How bad is my memory? :)
Dunno,but if USA still send Trocky,Kerensky would fall.If not - Lenin alone would do nothing,he was coward.
So,Russians would still fight,France,too
All depend on blockade - if England really blocked Germany in 1914,they would lost in 1915.Here,it is the same -
If England starve Germany,they fall.If not,we have draw.

In first case,we have peace like OTL with Germans more beaten,probably divided.Free Bavaria,etc.Much better world,no WW2 - germans are to weak to start anything,and they do not have soviet allies for that.

In second case,we would have WW2 after 10-20 years,and this time Germans would lost.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top