Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

[Buba]

A Dutch Empire greater than British? I suppose several PODs would do.
1 - The 1568 Revolt kicks out the Spanish in 1568, hence the 17 Provinces remain a single entity - and not a battleground. Habsburg invasions are met in Luksemburg and Rheinland, and not between Antverp and Brussels.
2 - the West Indies Company keeps Brazil (and Angola). And then finds gold in Minas Gerais, providing the Netherlands with 2 tons of gold a year for a hundred years. Result - fewer pretty churches in Portugal and a Dutch Empire which can into space in 1920.
3 - William - husband of Mary - lives a few years longer and Britain does not fuck over the United Provinces at the close of the War of Spanish Succession and thus the republic gets the Spanish Netherlands. Then he dies and Britain descends into civil war between supporters of Stuart and Hannoverians. All that the latter needs is a slightly less stupid Stuart ...

IMO Netherlands going Lutheran and not Calvinist could also help in empire building, this making it easier to integrate Germans (and Scandinavians) into the Empire and thus expanding the population base. There simply were many more German Lutherans than Presbyterians ... and the Netherlands need people for the colonies, armies, fleets, etc. In OTL a high percentange of soldiers/sailors/low level VOC officials were Germans and Scandinavians, with native Netherlanders not being very keen on such risky and unhealthy occupations, preferring to enjoy the high standard of living of the Seven Provinces.

Netherlands have coal deposits aplenty - there is lots of it in Artois (which need not be lost to France), Hainaut and Brabant. Adding Kleve and/or Julich - which is not so far fetched - would had made Netherlands a coal mining giant

 

[ATP]

Apart from the timing being all over the place and a lot bearing no relationship to reality why do you want a 'Christian' Europe when your stated in the past you don't believe in Christianity??


On the 2nd point probably somewhere but I'm not aware of it. The Americas are still likely to suffer more than the old world simply because the latter is much larger and have more variety of domesticated animals. However given that incomers would be making a difficult crossing of the Atlantic such a blow to colonial activity might well give at least some of the western cultures time to recover.

I am catholic,so i belive in Christianity.I simply do not recognize state protestant churches as such,becouse they are part of state.That is why in sweden lesbian bishops could support muslims.Becouse their states support both,and they are part of state.

About reality - only reason why France do not become monarchy after 1871 is becouse would be King do not accepted new french flag,when everybody,including pope, urged him to do so.

In 1878 carlist lost becouse french rebublic supported their enemies.If Kingdom of France supported them,they would win.

Poland in 1920 could become monarchy,if one of main parties,like nationalists, supported it.
Becouse nationalist supported France,now they would support monarchy,probable with french candidate.

When Stalin started genociding farmers in 1931,entire country except jews waited for anybody invading them and making normal state.So,France and Japan with Poland help would finish them in one year.

Germany - no matter who would rule,Hitler or prussian,they would try rearming.Quick war then,making Bavaria and other catholic state free,Saxony the same - and occupy only Prussia till they pay for WW1.Nobody except England would care.

And now,we have about 1940 mostly united Europe,except England,Prussia/occupied/ and Scandinavian countries.Becouse all catholic Kings would support each other.
England could start something,but without country in Europe acting as their tool,like Prussia,they would lost.

About @Zyobot idea of swapping England and Dutch empires - till at least 1700 not impossible.And,i f i remember correctly,dutch language almost become USA official .

Could you imagine world with dutch-speaking yankes ?

 

[Buba]

And,i f i remember correctly,dutch language almost become USA official .

Misconstructed legend.
From what I remember reading* on similar boards, at some point very early in the USA's existence there was a request to have something translated into GERMAN (Articles of Confederation? Constitution? some pieces of legislation? - I no longer remember) from English, and having that translation be OFFICIAL and of equal value to English language version. The idea was to make that legislation easier to understand by the then numerous German speakers in Pennsylvania, with this request being narrowly rejected.
This was later twisted to mean that "German almost became the official language of the USA". For Americans Deutsch=Dutch (which for an Obi-Wan truth-twister is true ).

BTW - the confusion between Deutsch and Dutch continued for a very long time - look at the ridiculous and improbable number of Dutch soldiers - 90K! - in the Union's army here:

Union Army - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

* caveat emptor

As to Dutch Empire replaces OTL British empire, background for my late 16/early 17th century POD suggestions:

Cologne War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and

War of the Jülich Succession - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hence there is potential of a Netherlands holding the whole Nordrhein portion of today's Nordrhein-Westfallen. Think of all that coal!
That far back these areas might become "nederlanderised", as identity in that area and that time was still fairly fluid.

 

[stevep]

Thanks for the write-up, man.

I don't have many other comments to add right now, though I do wonder what a map of the Dutch Empire at its greatest territorial extent might look like? Surely, the fact that its fate emulates OTL Britain's will make it the greatest empire to walk the earth here, but spanning a quarter of the world and land on all inhabited continents is a damned hard feat to match--let alone surpass, if we're feeling particularly ambitious.

Netherlands Proper is also on the edge of the European mainland rather than a collection of islands off the coast, which makes it easier for future adversaries to march onto the Dutch doorstep. As such, I imagine the Dutch would do well to stanch or obviate the rise of hostile, next-door neighbors (looking at you, France and Holy Roman Empire). Maybe if the going gets tough, the Dutch will create a contingency plan(s) that draws all their colonies into the fray to ensure that its empire survives elsewhere, should the mainland be taken or suborned by beefy local powers?

That was probably the biggest single problem for the Netherlands as the 17thC became the 18th. Especially with the rise of France as the primary military land power and replacing the Hapsburgs as the primary threat to them they had to maintain markedly larger land forces and fortifications, including some in OTL Belgium which drained the treasury severely.

Its possible if England/Britain is screwed over badly as described that the Netherlands will manage to maintain its lead in many areas of trade, technology and naval strength - although again the shallow water off the country is another barrier here. However their always going to be vulnerable to the land threat in a way that Britain wasn't.

 

[Buba]

How serious was the water depth issue?
Also - Dutch Empire can use Scheldt (Antwerp) - does this change things?
The little ports on the Belgian coast, up to and including Dunkirk?

 

[stevep]

I am catholic,so i belive in Cristianity.I simply do not recognize state protestant churches as such,becouse they are part of state.That is why in sweden lesbian bishops could support muslims.Becouse their states support both,and they are part of state.

About reality - only reason why France do not become monarchy after 1871 is becouse would be King do not accepted new french flag,when everybody,including pope, urged him to do so.

In 1878 carlist lost becouse french rebublic supported their enemies.If Kingdom of France supported them,they would win.

Poland in 1920 could become monarchy,if one of main parties,like nationalists, supported it.
Becouse nationalist supported France,now they would support monarchy,probable with french candidate.

When Stalin started genociding farmers in 1931,entire country except jews waited for anybody invading them and making normal state.So,France and Japan with Poland help would finish them in one year.

Germany - no matter who would rule,Hitler or prussian,they would try rearming.Quick war then,making Bavaria and other catholic state free,Saxony the same - and occupy only Prussia till they pay for WW1.Nobody except England would care.

And now,we have about 1940 mostly united Europe,except England,Prussia/occupied/ and Scandinavian countries.Becouse all catholic Kings would support each other.
England could start something,but without country in Europe acting as their tool,like Prussia,they would lost.

About @Zyobot idea of swapping England and Dutch empires - till at least 1700 not impossible.And,i f i remember correctly,dutch language almost become USA official .

Could you imagine world with dutch-speaking yankes ?

You said you didn't believe the bible which is pretty much the only source we have for the ideas - or for that matter the existence - of a certain Jewish preacher. True assorted religious groups have often sought to manipulate what's in their form of the bible, hence the different versions around the world so its not exactly a reliable source even apart from the factual inaccuracies.

You assume that many things change but don't have effects on other events, such as a USSR even existing, let alone being led by Stalin with butterflies that much earlier. That's why I find your argument is flawed.

Its possible but unlikely that the Netherlands could remain the primary economic and trading power in modern Europe until say ~1900 simply because of its geographical problems. I could see England/Britain being screwed into insufficiency as suggested by a couple of posters but whether the Dutch could continue to maintain their economic and political power into the last century or so would be very difficult I think.

 

[stevep]

How serious was the water depth issue?
Also - Dutch Empire can use Schedlt - does this change things?
The little ports on the Belgian coast, up to and including Dunkirk?

I don't have the details to hand but its noted that from say the early 18thC the Dutch ships didn't increase as much in size as their rivals in England, France and Spain did simply because of the amount of shallow coastal water as far as I'm aware.

For instance at the Battle of Camperdown in 1797 the ships on both sides, see Battle_of_Camperdown for details - are pretty small, with the largest ships being 74 gunners and many in the 50's and 60's. At a time when the major powers were building ships with gun totals in the 90's or greater. Partly this might have been a factor of the decline in the economic power of the Dutch but also I've often seen it mentioned as caused by the problems of operating bigger ships in the shallow waters. Tried to find some maps showing the water depths in the southern north sea but not that good at looking for such things.

Possibly Antwerp could be a factor if dredging could keep it active. Also I know that places like Dunkirk were source of privateers who cause the British fisheries and merchant fleet continued problems in the 18thC. So much so that at least one treaty involved the French agreeing not to use it for such purposes. Even so a privateer is generally much smaller than a merchant ship or major warship.

Steve

 

[Buba]

pretty small, with the largest ships being 74 gunners and many in the 50's and 60's

Which would make the bigger ones 3rd rate, the rest 4th rates. No 100 gunned 1st rates for them, then.
Still, it were the 74 gunned ships which were the backbone of the battleline (or so I remember reading), supposedly the best mix between cost, seakeeping, manning, size and gun number.

The sea between Friesland and East Anglia - that's the famous Broad Fourteens, i.e. 183cmx14=25 metres.
Not very helpful as it are the depth of harbour approaches which really matter

 

[ATP]

You said you didn't believe the bible which is pretty much the only source we have for the ideas - or for that matter the existence - of a certain Jewish preacher. True assorted religious groups have often sought to manipulate what's in their form of the bible, hence the different versions around the world so its not exactly a reliable source even apart from the factual inaccuracies.

You assume that many things change but don't have effects on other events, such as a USSR even existing, let alone being led by Stalin with butterflies that much earlier. That's why I find your argument is flawed.

Its possible but unlikely that the Netherlands could remain the primary economic and trading power in modern Europe until say ~1900 simply because of its geographical problems. I could see England/Britain being screwed into insufficiency as suggested by a couple of posters but whether the Dutch could continue to maintain their economic and political power into the last century or so would be very difficult I think.

Sorry for misundarstanding.
1.Bible apparently lied few times - for example,becouse we knew that Caanan belonged to the same population from bronze age till1948,tales of caanan genocide are just tales.
The same goes for Salomon never existing empire or genocide of persian elites by queen Ester.
But i am catholic,so i do not need to take all worlds as written by God,like some protestants.

2.Kingdom of France which change regime in Spain change nothing till WW1.But,if they do not finish commies in 1920,they would do that in 1931.
So,another possibility is finishing commies in 1920,made few states there,and made free Bavaria and other normal states in 1921.Result would be the same.

3.You are right about Dutch - they are in Europe,so they always must keep strong army.Which is costly,and strong navy to rule over seas.
England need only navy.It is obvious,who would win in the end.Unless...there would be no united Britain to compete.Scotland and Irealand as free states could lead to that,becouse England would need to have strong army then,too.

 

[Buba]

England need only navy.It is obvious,who would win in the end.Unless...there would be no united Britain to compete.Scotland and Irealand as free states could lead to that,becouse England would need to have strong army then,too.

Now this indeed would be an interesting POD, with juicy side effects ...
What if there are more legitimate Tudors (e.g. Edward lives and has half a dozen sons, or more Henry VIII's sons live) and there is no personal union with Scotland. Or even have one of the Grey girls take the throne and pass it on.
Hence Auld Alliance and all that is alive and strong, forcing England to keep an eye on the Scotch dagger on its kidney whenever the English monarch has a bout of "southron ambitions" i.e. pressing claim to the French throne or something silly (but manhood boosting) like that.
Hmm, here taking Calais from the English could turn out to be a negative for the French as the English - with no easy invasion port - would stop attacking them and thus turn north, conquer the peaceful and freedom loving Scots, and then use savings from a smaller army on their navy and commerce and overrun the world!

 

[ATP]

Now this indeed would be an interesting POD, with juicy side effects ...
What if there are more legitimate Tudors (e.g. Edward lives and has half a dozen sons, or more Henry VIII's sons live) and there is no personal union with Scotland. Or even have one of the Grey girls take the throne and pass it on.
Hence Auld Alliance and all that is alive and strong, forcing England to keep an eye on the Scotch dagger on its kidney whenever the English monarch has a bout of "southron ambitions" i.e. pressing claim to the French throne or something silly (but manhood boosting) like that.
Hmm, here taking Calais from the English could turn out to be a negative for the French as the English - with no easy invasion port - would stop attacking them and thus turn north, conquer the peaceful and freedom loving Scots, and then use savings from a smaller army on their navy and commerce and overrun the world!

Start earlier and add High King of Ireland with real power who defeated Norman invasion in 1175.You would end with 2 states which could hurt England.

 

[Buba]

Start earlier and add High King of Ireland with real power who defeated Norman invasion in 1175.You would end with 2 states which could hurt England.

Such an early POD can butterfly away Netherlands. There was significant interaction between Norman England and the Low Countries.

 

[ATP]

Such an early POD can butterfly away Netherlands. There was significant interaction between Norman England and the Low Countries.

True.Then maybe irish winning in 1598 ?

 

[Zyobot]

‘Largest Possible HRE’.

Honestly, it strikes me as more of a continental power even at its largest potential size, rather than a global colonizer in the same mold as Britain, France, or Spain. Especially with its exceedingly decentralized structure, which I imagine would limit its ability to maintain a central, full-time, blue-water navy under the control of the HRE leadership and no one else. Ditto with outsourcing the job to private explorers and conquerors, who’d also demand much.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

'Swap The Fates Of The British And Dutch Empires'.

Bonus points for making the Dutch language a similar bonanza of mass-borrowing and hybridized vocabulary, which I still deem likely to happen anyway, given how they'd command comparable global reach and prestige ITTL.

Since I have an access to the computer instead of the phone, I'll give my bit on it:

PoD: Anne Boleyn gives birth to a healthy baby boy in 1536 instead of a stillbirth, thereby giving Henry VIII a viable male heir. The survival of a Tudor prince gives the king options on who he will betroth his daughters to. The result is a longer surviving Tudor dynasty in England that prevents the forming of a personal union between them and Scotland. Meanwhile, a different inheritance and division of the Hapsburg territories in Europe results in the Hapsburg Netherlands going to the Austrian branch, rather than the Spanish branch, with northern Italy given to them instead. While this results in a delayed Dutch Revolt, the constant wars with the Ottomans and the higher taxes levied on the Austrian Netherlands creates a reaction that leads to an even bigger version of the Dutch Revolt, only this time we can add the Religious Wars that the French are involved in. The Austrian Netherlands, fearing potential invasions from both France and the German parts of the Holy Roman Empire, would become a militaristic state, albeit with a heavy backing from many of the Dutch merchants that arise as a result. Eventually, during an alternate 30 Years War, the Austrian Netherlands would expand its borders into the Rhine River region, including the Ruhr Valley region (where the coal deposits are). Eventually, the Austrian Netherlands would slowly absorb the smaller Western German states until they become what is essentially a wanked fusion of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and OTL West Germany.

While the Austrian Netherlands (or in this case, we might call it the Kingdom of the Netherlands-Westphalia) becomes more powerful, England erupts in a Religious War that is more brutal than the Wars of the Roses, only this time it is essentially a replay of the French Wars of Religion. While the radical branch of the Protestants eventually win, the sheer brutality and cost of the war forces the English Catholics to seek refuge in Ireland, and at the same time appeal to the Spanish Hapsburgs for protection. Scotland, while keeping the Auld Alliance, had also chosen to get involved in the seemingly lucrative North Sea trade, and is looking more towards Scandinavia. Eventually, England had greatly weakened to the point where its military was badly degraded, allowing the Spanish to launch an invasion of England and to install a Catholic puppet king on the English throne. However, Wales would take the opportunity to secede from England and become a fortified small kingdom.

Eventually, the Netherlands-Westphalia not only becomes a powerful mercantile empire with a militaristic tradition, but it also played a pivotal role in what would become the unification of the German states, making it the dominant Germanic power in the region. In contrast, England would eventually regain its political independence from Spain, but paranoid of Catholic invasions, chose to isolate itself until it was forced out of political isolation by an ambitious Welsh king who wanted to unite the British Isles by force.

 

[PsihoKekec]

So the unification of Germany would be a three way fight between Thicc Netherlands, Bavaria and Prussia, supported by those who wish to counter TN, just like most of Europe united to counter the Sun King.

 

[stevep]

‘Largest Possible HRE’.

Honestly, it strikes me as more of a continental power even at its largest potential size, rather than a global colonizer in the same mold as Britain, France, or Spain. Especially with its exceedingly decentralized structure, which I imagine would limit its ability to maintain a central, full-time, blue-water navy under the control of the HRE leadership and no one else. Ditto with outsourcing the job to private explorers and conquerors, who’d also demand much.

Well I would say France was far more of a continental power than a global colonizer, at least until after 1815. Before that date it held some rich territories in the Caribbean and a massive but thinly populated possession in N America but its need and desire to concentrate on events on the continent meant they never got the attention and resources they needed.

Spain was also a hybrid power as while more famous for its massive colonial empire in the Americas it was for a while the dominant continental power. However once it exhausted itself due to overstretch and internal problems it was predominantly a maritime/colonial state.

It was Britain's big advantage that once it gave up any designs for ruling lands on the continent - isolated positions like Gibraltar excepted - its island nature and a decent - for the time - government structure it didn't need a large standing army.

 

[stevep]

Now this indeed would be an interesting POD, with juicy side effects ...
What if there are more legitimate Tudors (e.g. Edward lives and has half a dozen sons, or more Henry VIII's sons live) and there is no personal union with Scotland. Or even have one of the Grey girls take the throne and pass it on.
Hence Auld Alliance and all that is alive and strong, forcing England to keep an eye on the Scotch dagger on its kidney whenever the English monarch has a bout of "southron ambitions" i.e. pressing claim to the French throne or something silly (but manhood boosting) like that.
Hmm, here taking Calais from the English could turn out to be a negative for the French as the English - with no easy invasion port - would stop attacking them and thus turn north, conquer the peaceful and freedom loving Scots, and then use savings from a smaller army on their navy and commerce and overrun the world!

That was pretty much a LOL situation.

 

[stevep]

Sorry for misundarstanding.
1.Bible apparently lied few times - for example,becouse we knew that Caanan belonged to the same population from bronze age till1948,tales of caanan genocide are just tales.
The same goes for Salomon never existing empire or genocide of persian elites by queen Ester.
But i am catholic,so i do not need to take all worlds as written by God,like some protestants.

OK thanks for clarifying. There is a lot of obvious inaccuracies in the bible, even without the logical and moral flaws involved.

[/QUOTE]2.Kingdom of France which change regime in Spain change nothing till WW1.But,if they do not finish commies in 1920,they would do that in 1931.
So,another possibility is finishing commies in 1920,made few states there,and made free Bavaria and other normal states in 1921.Result would be the same.[/QUOTE]

That assumes that the same alliances and economic developments occur. Which is far from certain. Let alone a communist 'elite' managing to seize power in Russia and its empire.

As you know I disagree with the idea of autocratic dictatorships as the ideal form of government, especially with the totalitarian religious element so we will have the differ there.

 

[Zyobot]

Thanks for the comments, @stevep. Was tired when I posted my scenario, which limited my ability to think carefully. Late-night posting, you know.

Anyhow, anything on the PoD? Like I said, the HRE strikes me as unlikely to conquer as much land abroad as Great Britain at its prime, again due to its decentralized nature and continental position. In which case, I suppose expansion is predicated on it knocking out its neighbors and integrating their peoples and territory, though what PoD(s) work best for this, I can’t say at the moment.