Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

stevep

Well-known member
Steve, what are your thoughts on this very old TL? :


Interesting and Grey Wolf is a blast from the past I remember although looks like I never saw this one.

I'm uncertain about a Greek-Turkish agreement or a Greek attack on Serbia as the latter two were allies and the enmity between Greece and Turkey was so deep.

Not sure if a Tory government would win a big majority in Britain in the event of a crisis over Irish self-rule. They might well become the largest party but lack a parliamentary majority in part because the Irish 'Nationalists' would be firmly against them and they held a lot of seats. More likely would be a small Tory majority however as could see many feeling the situation in Ireland as a threat to the union, while others would see mutinies, at least verbally support by the Tory party, as a serious threat to British democracy and the rule of law. However that's a relatively minor matter other than it distracts Britain for at least the 1st part of this crisis.

There are two major blocs, Austria - backed by many Slavs - and certainly Germany v Hungarian rebels backed by Russia and probably ultimately France. The Ottomans if they get involved are going to be on the Austrian side as well. However there are two wild cards as well.
a) A Serbian invasion of Bosnia put them at odds with both Hungary and - barring a probably unlikely deal with FF - with Austria as well. Furthermore while there are a fair number of Serbs in the province there are also a lot of Croats and Muslims and given the [or one] alternative is a reforming Vienna based government rather than a repressive Budapest one I think there would be a fair amount of opposition to such an intervention.

b) Similarly a Romanian intervention in Transylvanian is going to upset Austria but nowhere near as much as the Hungarians and hence the Russians if they want to be seen as 'protecting' Hungarian rights.

As such the Balkans are likely to descend into a mess with all against all in a number of places.

Also not sure about the position of Bulgaria. It was alienated from Russia after the Balkan wars and likely to move into the German sphere while if both Serbia and Romania are in the anti-Austrian camp its possible they could attack either or both.

Italy is another wild card as technically an ally of both Austria and Germany. Plus leaving aside the mess that is the immediate Hungarian revolt Russia is the clear international aggressor here [rather than Austria and then Germany as OTL}. As such its bound to support them but with a desire for lands in the NE and also across the Adriatic it might end up either staying neutral or on the opposing side. I can't really see it supporting Austria with anything more than weak diplomatic support unless Austria makes some considerable territorial concessions which seems unlikely.

Assuming, as is probably likely given the date and the fact the immediate threat is a Russian supported Hungarian rebellion, Germany isn't doing a pre-emptive strike on France via Belgium then its likely to be deploying a lot of forces fairly quickly in support of Austria, either directly or by fighting the Russians on their common border. If so and France hasn't upgraded its heavy artillery park then a French attack on Alsace-Lorraine is likely to be at least as big a disaster as OTL. Possibly even more so as Germany would probably have more forces defending there.

Despite the extra 2-3 years of rearmament and logistical development Russia still has serious problems with its army and government so I would expect the CPs to win. Unless the Germans did still do a Schlieffen move through Belgium, which will raise red flags in London Britain is unlikely to get militarily involved. [Although there's likely to be a lot of frantic diplomatic action to try and stop the madness and it will also incentivize the government to end the mess in Ireland]. Germany simply has too much industrial power as well as a central position while here, without a British blockade it can still trade very freely for what it needs.

A lot would depend on what happens with some of the fringe powers, the most powerful being the Ottomans - probably ending up on the Austrian side - and the Italians - could be anywhere but probably being neutral or joining the Russian bloc if they think the latter can win. Plus how Romania and Serbia end up would be anyone's guess. It could be they get away with some territorial gains simply because a weakened Austria decides its not worthwhile pressing them. The war is going to be very bloody - at least compared to what the people around know - but probably less so than OTL as I would expect it to last ~18-24 months before some sort of compromise is agreed. Gains for Germany and the Austrian empire largely/totally intact with possibly also some gains for the Ottomans. [Hopefully the Armenians don't see the wholesale slaughter of OTL but unfortunately I wouldn't rely on it as some of the drivers were there in the Young Turk movement. :mad:] I suspect that the terms being proposed will be milder than OTL Versailles, let alone the sort of ideas that Germany were suggesting if they won.

One other wild card I just thought of. Not sure what Japan might do. Sit on the sidelines selling to both sides? If it joins the CPs than an invasion of the Trans-Amur region and N Sakhalin might be options. Alternatively those German colonies look very vulnerable but without British support and if Germany wins that could be costly for them. Or an earlier attempt to control China - although with Britain not tied up in the war that would bring pressure from both Britain and the US.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Interesting and Grey Wolf is a blast from the past I remember although looks like I never saw this one.

I'm uncertain about a Greek-Turkish agreement or a Greek attack on Serbia as the latter two were allies and the enmity between Greece and Turkey was so deep.

Not sure if a Tory government would win a big majority in Britain in the event of a crisis over Irish self-rule. They might well become the largest party but lack a parliamentary majority in part because the Irish 'Nationalists' would be firmly against them and they held a lot of seats. More likely would be a small Tory majority however as could see many feeling the situation in Ireland as a threat to the union, while others would see mutinies, at least verbally support by the Tory party, as a serious threat to British democracy and the rule of law. However that's a relatively minor matter other than it distracts Britain for at least the 1st part of this crisis.

There are two major blocs, Austria - backed by many Slavs - and certainly Germany v Hungarian rebels backed by Russia and probably ultimately France. The Ottomans if they get involved are going to be on the Austrian side as well. However there are two wild cards as well.
a) A Serbian invasion of Bosnia put them at odds with both Hungary and - barring a probably unlikely deal with FF - with Austria as well. Furthermore while there are a fair number of Serbs in the province there are also a lot of Croats and Muslims and given the [or one] alternative is a reforming Vienna based government rather than a repressive Budapest one I think there would be a fair amount of opposition to such an intervention.

I could see the Hungarians agreeing to give Bosnia to the Serbs in exchange for Serbian support for Hungarian independence.

b) Similarly a Romanian intervention in Transylvanian is going to upset Austria but nowhere near as much as the Hungarians and hence the Russians if they want to be seen as 'protecting' Hungarian rights.

This is why Russia will likely only openly promise Romania Bukovina while secretly promising Romania that it would be open to a territorial revision in Transylvania on Romania's behalf after the war--but without it ever actually making any firm commitments in regards to this, unlike in regards to Bukovina, for fear of alienating Hungary too much if this secret documentation and communications will ever actually get leaked.

As such the Balkans are likely to descend into a mess with all against all in a number of places.

Also not sure about the position of Bulgaria. It was alienated from Russia after the Balkan wars and likely to move into the German sphere while if both Serbia and Romania are in the anti-Austrian camp its possible they could attack either or both.

Bulgaria will initially remain neutral but wait to see who is winning. If the CPs are winning, then Bulgaria will almost certainly join the CP side so that it could conquer Macedonia from Serbia.

Italy is another wild card as technically an ally of both Austria and Germany. Plus leaving aside the mess that is the immediate Hungarian revolt Russia is the clear international aggressor here [rather than Austria and then Germany as OTL}. As such its bound to support them but with a desire for lands in the NE and also across the Adriatic it might end up either staying neutral or on the opposing side. I can't really see it supporting Austria with anything more than weak diplomatic support unless Austria makes some considerable territorial concessions which seems unlikely.

I could see Italy initially remaining neutral here (maybe with some words of sympathy for A-H but with no action, obviously) and then deciding to enter the war later on depending on who is actually winning this war. Italy would clearly benefit more from a Franco-Russian victory here, but if France and Russia are actually losing this war, then Italy might feel like it has no choice but to enter the war on the CP side, just so long as Austria-Hungary will agree to give it Trentino, of course. (Trieste, Istria, and Fiume would all likely be off-limits, but Italy can also expand at France's expense in the west and south.)

Assuming, as is probably likely given the date and the fact the immediate threat is a Russian supported Hungarian rebellion, Germany isn't doing a pre-emptive strike on France via Belgium then its likely to be deploying a lot of forces fairly quickly in support of Austria, either directly or by fighting the Russians on their common border. If so and France hasn't upgraded its heavy artillery park then a French attack on Alsace-Lorraine is likely to be at least as big a disaster as OTL. Possibly even more so as Germany would probably have more forces defending there.

Agreed.

Despite the extra 2-3 years of rearmament and logistical development Russia still has serious problems with its army and government so I would expect the CPs to win. Unless the Germans did still do a Schlieffen move through Belgium, which will raise red flags in London Britain is unlikely to get militarily involved. [Although there's likely to be a lot of frantic diplomatic action to try and stop the madness and it will also incentivize the government to end the mess in Ireland]. Germany simply has too much industrial power as well as a central position while here, without a British blockade it can still trade very freely for what it needs.

Agreed. And frankly, I think that British public opinion will be with Germany here since Germany isn't the one who is actively disrupting the European balance-of-power here. So, Yeah, benevolent British neutrality towards Germany and the other CPs.

A lot would depend on what happens with some of the fringe powers, the most powerful being the Ottomans - probably ending up on the Austrian side - and the Italians - could be anywhere but probably being neutral or joining the Russian bloc if they think the latter can win. Plus how Romania and Serbia end up would be anyone's guess. It could be they get away with some territorial gains simply because a weakened Austria decides its not worthwhile pressing them. The war is going to be very bloody - at least compared to what the people around know - but probably less so than OTL as I would expect it to last ~18-24 months before some sort of compromise is agreed. Gains for Germany and the Austrian empire largely/totally intact with possibly also some gains for the Ottomans. [Hopefully the Armenians don't see the wholesale slaughter of OTL but unfortunately I wouldn't rely on it as some of the drivers were there in the Young Turk movement. :mad:] I suspect that the terms being proposed will be milder than OTL Versailles, let alone the sort of ideas that Germany were suggesting if they won.

I could actually see Germany restraining the Ottomans in regards to the Armenians here for fear of avoiding alienating the Brits and Americans. Germany would need their trade, after all.

As for what kind of peace terms Germany would demand, I think that Germany and her allies would be happy with a restoration of the status quo ante bellum--with perhaps minor territorial revisions in Romania's and the Ottoman Empire's behalf in Bessarabia and the Caucasus, of course. (Giving Bessarabia to Romania would help restore goodwill for the CPs among Romanians.) But Yeah, I certainly don't see a victorious Germany and A-H actually voluntarily agreeing to give up any of their own territory, whether such a move is actually justified by national self-determination or not. If anything, they might insist on stripping Russia of Poland and maybe some other territories in order to make Russia pay a price for its unprovoked aggression. Though maybe they would view the Polish salient as being a weak spot for Russia and thus better to keep in Russian hands, especially in the view of Polonophobic Germany. Plus, an independent Poland would very likely demand Galicia from Austria-Hungary as the price of an alliance. Still, the CPs might nevertheless decide to go with an independent Poland here, believing that the gains outweigh the drawbacks. Independent Baltic countries and Ukraine are possible but probably less likely, unless perhaps we're talking about Lithuania and Courland here.

One other wild card I just thought of. Not sure what Japan might do. Sit on the sidelines selling to both sides? If it joins the CPs than an invasion of the Trans-Amur region and N Sakhalin might be options. Alternatively those German colonies look very vulnerable but without British support and if Germany wins that could be costly for them. Or an earlier attempt to control China - although with Britain not tied up in the war that would bring pressure from both Britain and the US.

What about trying to do a 1931-style move earlier and trying to take over all of Manchuria?
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
Italy doesn't have to be paid in Austrian soil for allying with Austria against France. A quick search finds they wanted Tunisia, Savoy, Corsica, and Nice in 1938. Tunisia may not have been on their shopping list yet in 1914, but Nice and Savoy were historically part of Sardinia until Napoleon did Napoleonic things and Italy would have definitely wanted them back. And Corsica used to be Genoese and was Italian speaking until the 19th century and is an island off the Italian coast so there's a good chance Italy would have accepted it off a defeated France as well.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Italy doesn't have to be paid in Austrian soil for allying with Austria against France. A quick search finds they wanted Tunisia, Savoy, Corsica, and Nice in 1938. Tunisia may not have been on their shopping list yet in 1914, but Nice and Savoy were historically part of Sardinia until Napoleon did Napoleonic things and Italy would have definitely wanted them back. And Corsica used to be Genoese and was Italian speaking until the 19th century and is an island off the Italian coast so there's a good chance Italy would have accepted it off a defeated France as well.

Italy would have 'accepted' anything they could get off a defeated France - although Paris might be pushing it. :p IIRC the majority of the European population in Tunisia when it came under French rule were Italian and they definitely had designs on the region. Especially since they now had Libya as well.
 

stevep

Well-known member
I could see the Hungarians agreeing to give Bosnia to the Serbs in exchange for Serbian support for Hungarian independence.

That would probably be a wise move although the ultras may object or more logically be concerned about the fact that the Serbs want a hell of a lot more.

This is why Russia will likely only openly promise Romania Bukovina while secretly promising Romania that it would be open to a territorial revision in Transylvania on Romania's behalf after the war--but without it ever actually making any firm commitments in regards to this, unlike in regards to Bukovina, for fear of alienating Hungary too much if this secret documentation and communications will ever actually get leaked.

The issue I would think of would be the Romanians seeking to secure those 'secretly' promised lands, especially if there are any reports of abuse of the Romanian populations in those regions.

Bulgaria will initially remain neutral but wait to see who is winning. If the CPs are winning, then Bulgaria will almost certainly join the CP side so that it could conquer Macedonia from Serbia.

Agreed. Espcially if Turkey is with the CPs although an openly pro-Russian Romania could be a matter of concern to them. However definitely both sides would be seeking to recruit Bulgaria but the CPs have much the stronger hand in terms of what they can offer unless Vienna makes some deal with Serbia over Bosnia - instead of the Hungarians doing it.

I could see Italy initially remaining neutral here (maybe with some words of sympathy for A-H but with no action, obviously) and then deciding to enter the war later on depending on who is actually winning this war. Italy would clearly benefit more from a Franco-Russian victory here, but if France and Russia are actually losing this war, then Italy might feel like it has no choice but to enter the war on the CP side, just so long as Austria-Hungary will agree to give it Trentino, of course. (Trieste, Istria, and Fiume would all likely be off-limits, but Italy can also expand at France's expense in the west and south.)

Agreed although not sure that Austria would offer Trentino as they have a lot of French lands to promise them instead. Possibly also a larger share in Albania?


Agreed. And frankly, I think that British public opinion will be with Germany here since Germany isn't the one who is actively disrupting the European balance-of-power here. So, Yeah, benevolent British neutrality towards Germany and the other CPs.

A lot would depend on how things are going in Anglo-German relations and especially with the naval race although it does seem that the Germans were reducing their construction rate - albeit that the size of the fleet they were maintaining was causing tensions and expenditure for the RN. However agree that in those circumstances British opinion would be on the German side. Which might be changed if the latter wins too clearly and starts looking for too much domination. [IIRC the Tories were more anti-German by this time but that's unlikely to be a great factor given that Russia is the clear aggressor. Plus even they would probably have to support Austria seeking greater voting rights against an Hungarian leadership seeking to maintain a close control over power in that kingdom.

Britain can make a hell of a lot of money both trading with both sides and also filling in markets while their distracted by the war but will want the war to end ASAP as its very bad for trade.

I could actually see Germany restraining the Ottomans in regards to the Armenians here for fear of avoiding alienating the Brits and Americans. Germany would need their trade, after all.

I think they will try when they hear about it. They did try some complaints OTL but were generally ineffective in stopping the massacres. However here with Britain still neutral combined pressure could have an impact.

As for what kind of peace terms Germany would demand, I think that Germany and her allies would be happy with a restoration of the status quo ante bellum--with perhaps minor territorial revisions in Romania's and the Ottoman Empire's behalf in Bessarabia and the Caucasus, of course. (Giving Bessarabia to Romania would help restore goodwill for the CPs among Romanians.) But Yeah, I certainly don't see a victorious Germany and A-H actually voluntarily agreeing to give up any of their own territory, whether such a move is actually justified by national self-determination or not. If anything, they might insist on stripping Russia of Poland and maybe some other territories in order to make Russia pay a price for its unprovoked aggression. Though maybe they would view the Polish salient as being a weak spot for Russia and thus better to keep in Russian hands, especially in the view of Polonophobic Germany. Plus, an independent Poland would very likely demand Galicia from Austria-Hungary as the price of an alliance. Still, the CPs might nevertheless decide to go with an independent Poland here, believing that the gains outweigh the drawbacks. Independent Baltic countries and Ukraine are possible but probably less likely, unless perhaps we're talking about Lithuania and Courland here.

Its difficult to say. Germany OTL seemed to be intent on huge gains right from early in the war but things might be different here. Possibly especially with Britain still neutral and hence able to influence them more and Belgium not occupied.

Not sure what the victorious CP attitude to Poland would be. Vienna might be more favourable to an independent Poland than Germany, even if it included Galicia, if as suggested the new Polish state had an Hapsburg monarch.

What about trying to do a 1931-style move earlier and trying to take over all of Manchuria?

Could be. They already had de-facto control but could seek to set up a clear puppet state or possibly even directly annex it like Korea - which might open it up more and earlier to Japanese settlement.
 

bullethead

Part-time fanfic writer
Super Moderator
Staff Member
'AHC: Have the US Congress pass a statute that makes the appointment in the US Senate much more proportional similar to what Professor Eric Orts is proposing here AND also subsequently have the US Supreme Court uphold the constitutionality of this statute'
Me, reading the first few paragraphs of this proposal:
Oh, someone literally didn't pay attention to history/government class, where the whole fucking point of the Senate was to counterbalance the House by giving each state equal representation that was elected by the state governments.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Me, reading the first few paragraphs of this proposal:
Oh, someone literally didn't pay attention to history/government class, where the whole fucking point of the Senate was to counterbalance the House by giving each state equal representation that was elected by the state governments.

The senate was never supposed ot represent the people, the senate was supposed to represent the states.

He knows; he simply disagrees with the Founders' view on this issue.

'AHC: A large-scale US military intervention outside of the Western Hemisphere if France doesn't fall in 1940 and if Japan doesn't launch Pearl Harbor or attack the Philippines'

And I mean excluding previous such interventions, such as the US entry into World War I.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Constantine Palaiologos is the heir to Michael VIII instead of Andronikos II, replacing the latter's rule with a fairly competent one, including keeping
Alexios Philanthropenos in command in Asia Minor. Vague idea I have with this one is Constantine is able to assert Roman rule over everything under the Haemus in his reign, while Alexios is able to restore the Empire's borders in Anatolia to their 1265 boundaries.

@Eparkhos and @Basileus_Komnenos any ideas how to make this happen, if my thoughts are valid, and long term projections? My general idea is that the Romans here have the position to take the spot the Ottomans historically did with their expanded resource base.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Constantine Palaiologos is the heir to Michael VIII instead of Andronikos II, replacing the latter's rule with a fairly competent one, including keeping
Alexios Philanthropenos in command in Asia Minor. Vague idea I have with this one is Constantine is able to assert Roman rule over everything under the Haemus in his reign, while Alexios is able to restore the Empire's borders in Anatolia to their 1265 boundaries.

@Eparkhos and @Basileus_Komnenos any ideas how to make this happen, if my thoughts are valid, and long term projections? My general idea is that the Romans here have the position to take the spot the Ottomans historically did with their expanded resource base.

Will the Romans be as friendly towards gunpowder and other innovations as the Ottomans were in real life?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
That would probably be a wise move although the ultras may object or more logically be concerned about the fact that the Serbs want a hell of a lot more.

Then it's best to be buddy-buddy with Russia in order to increase the hopes that Russia will control insatiable Serb appetites! :D

The issue I would think of would be the Romanians seeking to secure those 'secretly' promised lands, especially if there are any reports of abuse of the Romanian populations in those regions.

They won't do so until after the war in order to avoid jeopardizing the coalition, though. I could actually see Russia imposing a settlement similar to the Second Vienna Award after the end of the war where Romania gets southern Transylvania (and Bukovina, though I suppose that Russia could get northern (and only northern) Bukovina as compensation for Romania getting southern Transylvania) while Hungary gets to keep northern Transylvania. Neither side would be fully happy with this arrangement, but this would make both sides dependent on Russia since both sides would know that Russia can make the situation even worse for both of them if they will ever end up seriously displeasing Russia.

Agreed. Espcially if Turkey is with the CPs although an openly pro-Russian Romania could be a matter of concern to them. However definitely both sides would be seeking to recruit Bulgaria but the CPs have much the stronger hand in terms of what they can offer unless Vienna makes some deal with Serbia over Bosnia - instead of the Hungarians doing it.

Agreed.

Agreed although not sure that Austria would offer Trentino as they have a lot of French lands to promise them instead. Possibly also a larger share in Albania?

Possibly, Yes. And didn't Austria-Hungary offer Trentino to Italy in real life in exchange for continued Italian neutrality?

A lot would depend on how things are going in Anglo-German relations and especially with the naval race although it does seem that the Germans were reducing their construction rate - albeit that the size of the fleet they were maintaining was causing tensions and expenditure for the RN. However agree that in those circumstances British opinion would be on the German side. Which might be changed if the latter wins too clearly and starts looking for too much domination. [IIRC the Tories were more anti-German by this time but that's unlikely to be a great factor given that Russia is the clear aggressor. Plus even they would probably have to support Austria seeking greater voting rights against an Hungarian leadership seeking to maintain a close control over power in that kingdom.

Agreed. Indeed, I could see Britain offering to use its services to help mediate a negotiated peace here. The US could also offer its own services in regards to this, of course.

Britain can make a hell of a lot of money both trading with both sides and also filling in markets while their distracted by the war but will want the war to end ASAP as its very bad for trade.

Agreed.

I think they will try when they hear about it. They did try some complaints OTL but were generally ineffective in stopping the massacres. However here with Britain still neutral combined pressure could have an impact.

Agreed. Else, Russia could be allowed to keep Ottoman Armenia even if/after it is expelled from Central Europe.

Its difficult to say. Germany OTL seemed to be intent on huge gains right from early in the war but things might be different here. Possibly especially with Britain still neutral and hence able to influence them more and Belgium not occupied.

Agreed.

Not sure what the victorious CP attitude to Poland would be. Vienna might be more favourable to an independent Poland than Germany, even if it included Galicia, if as suggested the new Polish state had an Hapsburg monarch.

Agreed.

Could be. They already had de-facto control but could seek to set up a clear puppet state or possibly even directly annex it like Korea - which might open it up more and earlier to Japanese settlement.

Agreed. This could also result in earlier Japan-US tensions, no?
 

stevep

Well-known member
Then it's best to be buddy-buddy with Russia in order to increase the hopes that Russia will control insatiable Serb appetites! :D

Agreed although with past history - Russian help in suppressing the Hungarians in the past - plus Russia's repeated playing of the 'protector of the Slavs' card they might be mistrustful of St Petersburg.

I wonder if that could end up with some agreement between Budapest and Vienna - or possibly and Berlin whereby a smaller Hungary gets either independence or at least renewed autonomy with Austria taking over most of the non-Magyar lands? Although that might only become a serious option if both Hungary and the CPs thought the war was going in directions they didn't like.


They won't do so until after the war in order to avoid jeopardizing the coalition, though. I could actually see Russia imposing a settlement similar to the Second Vienna Award after the end of the war where Romania gets southern Transylvania (and Bukovina, though I suppose that Russia could get northern (and only northern) Bukovina as compensation for Romania getting southern Transylvania) while Hungary gets to keep northern Transylvania. Neither side would be fully happy with this arrangement, but this would make both sides dependent on Russia since both sides would know that Russia can make the situation even worse for both of them if they will ever end up seriously displeasing Russia.

If their rational they might but people often aren't, especially in periods of highly nationalist feeling and warfare. You could see local Romanians in Transylvania taking action then local commanders of Romanian forces helping out to protect them and things spiraling from there.


Possibly, Yes. And didn't Austria-Hungary offer Trentino to Italy in real life in exchange for continued Italian neutrality?

Can't remember but IIRC I think Austria was refusing to transfer any territory to Italy. Plus as OTL WWI showed Austria had very secure borders in terms of protection against attack from Italy and might not want to give them up.


Agreed. Indeed, I could see Britain offering to use its services to help mediate a negotiated peace here. The US could also offer its own services in regards to this, of course.

Agreed. Britain will definitely want peace because its entire system economically and idealogically valued pretty much unrestricted trade and a massive war across Europe will mess that up, even for a powerful neutral which neither side will want to upset. Also the US will want the conflict ended and Wilson could want to emulate Roosevelt in settling a conflict and possibly getting a Noble Peace Prize himself.


Agreed. This could also result in earlier Japan-US tensions, no?

There were already a fair number of tensions. The US annexation of Hawaii, which had a lot of Japanese settlers at the time, racial discrimination against E Asian migrants, the US presence in the Philippines threatening all Japan's trade lines and the differing opinions over the future of China.

The US might not complain too much as Manchuria was already generally accepted as a Japanese sphere of influence or they might do so anyway. Could go either way.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Agreed although with past history - Russian help in suppressing the Hungarians in the past - plus Russia's repeated playing of the 'protector of the Slavs' card they might be mistrustful of St Petersburg.

I wonder if that could end up with some agreement between Budapest and Vienna - or possibly and Berlin whereby a smaller Hungary gets either independence or at least renewed autonomy with Austria taking over most of the non-Magyar lands? Although that might only become a serious option if both Hungary and the CPs thought the war was going in directions they didn't like.




If their rational they might but people often aren't, especially in periods of highly nationalist feeling and warfare. You could see local Romanians in Transylvania taking action then local commanders of Romanian forces helping out to protect them and things spiraling from there.




Can't remember but IIRC I think Austria was refusing to transfer any territory to Italy. Plus as OTL WWI showed Austria had very secure borders in terms of protection against attack from Italy and might not want to give them up.




Agreed. Britain will definitely want peace because its entire system economically and idealogically valued pretty much unrestricted trade and a massive war across Europe will mess that up, even for a powerful neutral which neither side will want to upset. Also the US will want the conflict ended and Wilson could want to emulate Roosevelt in settling a conflict and possibly getting a Noble Peace Prize himself.




There were already a fair number of tensions. The US annexation of Hawaii, which had a lot of Japanese settlers at the time, racial discrimination against E Asian migrants, the US presence in the Philippines threatening all Japan's trade lines and the differing opinions over the future of China.

The US might not complain too much as Manchuria was already generally accepted as a Japanese sphere of influence or they might do so anyway. Could go either way.

I think that Hungary would prefer to keep its existing internal borders within Austria-Hungary but to get universal suffrage for all its residents (as per Franz Ferdinand's original plan) than to give up all of its non-Magyar-majority territories.

As for Austria-Hungary's negotiations with Italy, here's a good article about this topic:


You can find the full text of this article for free on LibGen:

 

Eparkhos

Well-known member
Constantine Palaiologos is the heir to Michael VIII instead of Andronikos II, replacing the latter's rule with a fairly competent one, including keeping
Alexios Philanthropenos in command in Asia Minor. Vague idea I have with this one is Constantine is able to assert Roman rule over everything under the Haemus in his reign, while Alexios is able to restore the Empire's borders in Anatolia to their 1265 boundaries.

@Eparkhos and @Basileus_Komnenos any ideas how to make this happen, if my thoughts are valid, and long term projections? My general idea is that the Romans here have the position to take the spot the Ottomans historically did with their expanded resource base.
Re: The Ottomans, I'm not entirely sure. It's been a while since I read up on this period, but I believe that there remains evidence for early Ottoman expansion being fueled by a core of Anatolian Turkic ghazis that the Byzzies simply wouldn't have access to. Regardless of how valid the ghazi thesis is for the early development, it was certainly a major factor in the conquest of the Balkans. However, the Ottoman's long term expansion was driven by an efficient bureaucratic state, good geopolitical positions, an incredible army and a string of capable rulers. The Byzantines have two of those and the potential to get a third. Anything more than that would be speculation on my part.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Re: The Ottomans, I'm not entirely sure. It's been a while since I read up on this period, but I believe that there remains evidence for early Ottoman expansion being fueled by a core of Anatolian Turkic ghazis that the Byzzies simply wouldn't have access to. Regardless of how valid the ghazi thesis is for the early development, it was certainly a major factor in the conquest of the Balkans. However, the Ottoman's long term expansion was driven by an efficient bureaucratic state, good geopolitical positions, an incredible army and a string of capable rulers. The Byzantines have two of those and the potential to get a third. Anything more than that would be speculation on my part.

I know Nicene was pretty wealthy, so keeping/regaining the 1265 boundaries and establishing a firm hold of Greece should, in theory, at least give the Empire the capacity to engage in a Reconquista of non-Plateau Anatolia. Taking advantage of Bulgaria's instability and marriage alliances should net them the aforementioned as well as Trebizond. From there, with the clock basically rolled back to 1180-ish territorial wise, the Plateau becomes possible and the Mamelukes should still go into decline, which makes them vulnerable. I might be stretching it, but I was thinking of roughly 476-ish borders being possible.

As for the Ghazis, I haven't read up on that either, but I do wonder how a resurgent Empire could take advantage of the collapse of the Seljuks and the like to assimilate the Turks. The Byzantine Turks, 1204-1461 by Rustam Shukurov has been a fascinating read; IIRC, something like 10-15% did convert and largely get assimilated into the Greek population.
 
Last edited:

WolfBear

Well-known member
I know Nicene was pretty wealthy, so keeping/regaining the 1265 boundaries and establishing a firm hold of Greece should, in theory, at least give the Empire the capacity to engage in a Reconquista of non-Plateau Anatolia. Taking advantage of Bulgaria's instability and marriage alliances should net them the aforementioned as well as Trebizond. From there, with the clock basically rolled back to 1180-ish territorial wise, the Plateau becomes possible and the Mamelukes should still go into decline, which makes them vulnerable. I might be stretching it, but I was thinking of roughly 476-ish borders being possible.

As for the Ghazis, I haven't read up on that either, but I do wonder how a resurgent Empire could take advantage of the collapse of the Seljuks and the like to assimilate the Turks. The Byzantine Turks, 1204-1461 by Rustam Shukurov has been a fascinating read; IIRC, something like 10-15% did convert and largely get assimilated into the Greek population.

Worth noting that based on this documentary, starting from the late 11th century onwards, there was a mixed Turkic-Byzantine population in the Anatolian interior:



This documentary speculates that this mixed population could have identified as Christian Byzantines rather than as Muslim Turks had the Byzantines been or ever once again become dominant in the Anatolian interior.
 

Basileus_Komnenos

Imperator Romanorum Βασιλεύς των Ρωμαίων
Will the Romans be as friendly towards gunpowder and other innovations as the Ottomans were in real life?
They were historically open to these ideas. The problem was that with the Palaiologian Renaissance while there was a brief period of cultural and economic renewal, the "fedualization" (its an anachronistic term, but the best possible one we have) of the Pronoia essentially made it so that the the government in Constantinople was unable to effectively utilize these resources in a way that past governments could. Michael VIII had a bad situation and in order to keep the aristocracy on his side he allowed for some Pronoia (land grants) to be made hereditary. This problem only got worse in otl as the state got poorer as the Empire lost more and more land. Then the Black Death hit which utterly devastated the tax base. This combined with Ioannes V Kantekuzenos' idiocy got the Roman fleet burned leaving the Empire's economy at the mercy of the Italian merchants. Then there was the First and Second Palaiologian Civil Wars which further squandered the Empire's resources.

The last real chance to actually save the Empire in any meaningful form was mostly gone thanks to the Second Palaiologian Civil War. The state had squandered all of its resources and would eventually become a rump state that would be clay in the hands of the fledgling Ottoman Sultanate. By the time gunpowder rolled around, the Byzantines were simply too poor to really afford them and make meaningful use of them.

This documentary speculates that this mixed population could have identified as Christian Byzantines rather than as Muslim Turks had the Byzantines been or ever once again become dominant in the Anatolian interior.
Turkification was a long drawn out process that wasn't really completed until the 20th century. Though it should be noted that a large part of the early Ottoman army was made of Greeks and Armenians who converted to Islam.

And on another note when you compare the genetics of modern Turks and Greeks, they share many haplogroups with each other.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top