Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

[WolfBear]

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.

Very true. Though it's worth noting that in some parts of Anatolia, Turkification was already completed by the early 1500s at the very latest, even if a lot of the Turks there were actually mixed Turko-Romans:

Maps on the Web

Religion in five Ottoman provinces in Anatolia according to the 1520s Ottoman hearth census: 92% Muslim, 7.9% Christian. by Lithide: The Christian proportion of Anatolia actually rose in the sixteenth...

mapsontheweb.zoom-maps.com

Anyway:

'AHC: Additional realistic US colonial acquisitions other than the Danish West Indies in a no-World Wars TL'

 

[stevep]

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:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/259938

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

Library Genesis

libgen.li

Many thanks. Only read the 1st bit as pressed for time but sounds like a total mess by all three members of the Triple Alliance and each of them also deluding themselves about their respective positions.

 

[stevep]

There were Christian Turks in Anatolia until the XXth century - Karamanlides.

IIRC that was due to Ataturk who insisted on a religiously based division when it came to the ethnic movements. I.e. all Christians, regardless of their language or other social values were classified as Greek and deported while they accepted any Muslim as Turkish regardless of their language.

 

[History Learner]

@Sārthākā Not sure if this is in your area of expertise, but I do know you're generally well read on Islamic matters so a scenario/question I wanted to posit to you:

Instead of Aurangzeb becoming Mughal Emperor, have Dara Shikoh do so instead as both he and Aurangzeb's father intended. By most accounts, Dara was another Akbar in terms of qualities and this would avoid the disaster that was Aurangzeb's reign. Such would strengthen the Mughals greatly, allowing them to effectively fight off the Europeans later on and would lead to an Islamized India in such. The decline of Mughal fortunes led to less prestige for Islam, while British rule removed the requirement to convert to effectively advance in society as they allowed it regardless of religion. The percentage of Muslims had been increasing steadily (In particular, it was also tied to urbanization) and had reached at least a third of the population by the 17th Century IIRC, so getting a majority Islamic India would be easy with a continued Mughal rule I would think?

 

[History Learner]

Also, another idea I've had but is explicitly ASB: Constantinople, just before the Sack of 1204, is transported to the San Francisco Bay area in North America. This change is not through time, simply location, and is partially inspired by this timeline but here the starting position is better for the Eastern Romans; the city isn't as deteriorated as it was by 1453 and the 15,000 defenders of OTL would given the Romans plenty of capacity to rapidly take over OTL California. Meanwhile in the Old World, everyone is dealing with the consequences of the disappearance of the Queen of Cities.

 

[Buba]

@History Learner
1204 Constantinople moved - interesting.
The ERE is decapitated but:
- the "Crusaders" do not get the loot
- the "Crusaders" do not gain the infrastructure of The City

Hence I'd imagine that any Latin Statelets to be weaker than on OTL, with Nikea or another successor state coming into its own sooner.

In California the Romans overrun the whole place. With such a large "seeding population" and doubling every 30 years they own North America.

 

[History Learner]

@History Learner
1204 Constantinople moved - interesting.
The ERE is decapitated but:
- the "Crusaders" do not get the loot
- the "Crusaders" do not gain the infrastructure of The City

Hence I'd imagine that any Latin Statelets to be weaker than on OTL, with Nikea or another successor state coming into its own sooner.

In California the Romans overrun the whole place. With such a large "seeding population" and doubling every 30 years they own North America.

ERE being decapitated, same as OTL, but the long term results are probably better. I don't imagine there would be any Latin States here, at the very least definitely no Latin Empire; the sudden disappearance of an entire city of 400,000 people right before they can take it would probably seem like Divine Intervention to most if not all of the Crusaders. Better to pack up their bags and continue on to Egypt before God gets more direct with them, I would think. So, I'd imagine no Latin states in Greece but the Empire is still divided up between Nicaea, Epirus, Trebizond and probably Bulgaria.

Long term, without the tempting target of Constantinople I'd imagine Nicaea will focus on reclaiming Anatolia while Epirus will seek to secure Greece and tangle with the Bulgarians a lot. Maybe the ERE will be resurrected later on by marriage alliances and the like, or perhaps the division becomes permanent. At the least, Anatolia (and thus the Balkans at large) remains Christian, as a focused Nicaea can continue to make headway against the Seljuks and finish the job once the Mongols show up.

In North America, meanwhile, yeah you have the aforementioned 400,000 settlers of whom 15,000 at least are skilled professional soldiers and the Navy has roughly ~20 warships. Conquering will be easy, just the administering part will be hard but I imagine a large swathe of the West Coast will be settled by the time the Spanish (or whoever in this ATL) show up. They might not be deep into the interior because of the Rockys, however.

 

[WolfBear]

Long term, without the tempting target of Constantinople I'd imagine Nicaea will focus on reclaiming Anatolia while Epirus will seek to secure Greece and tangle with the Bulgarians a lot. Maybe the ERE will be resurrected later on by marriage alliances and the like, or perhaps the division becomes permanent. At the least, Anatolia (and thus the Balkans at large) remains Christian, as a focused Nicaea can continue to make headway against the Seljuks and finish the job once the Mongols show up.

Fusion Turko-Roman culture FTW?

BTW, I have a question for you: Do you think that the Soviet Union would have actually been willing to fight had the Anglo-French been willing to go to war over Czechoslovakia in late 1938?

 

[Buba]

They might not be deep into the interior because of the Rockys, however.

The ERE has the Central Valley to settle. And the Wiliamette Valley too.
There would be millions of Romans there come 1500.
The surrounding area would be explored to see who and what's there. Hugging the coast the Romans might had established trade with the Andean Cultural Complex.

 

[History Learner]

The ERE has the Central Valley to settle. And the Wiliamette Valley too.
There would be millions of Romans there come 1500.
The surrounding area would be explored to see who and what's there.

Yeah I imagine everything from Pudget Sound to the Sea of Cortez will be explored and be in the process of being settled by the 1500s, I just think the Rockys will pose enough of a barrier to limit expansion to the East for a time. Especially when the valleys available are just so great.

 

[Buba]

I just think the Rockys will pose enough of a barrier to limit expansion to the East for a time

I agree. The ERE as such has enough Quality Clay west of the Rockies
Yet there is scope for heretics and/or losers of political struggles to flee into the Wild and estabnlish themselves there.
The site next to a large salt late would be a good location for some fervent schismatics to set up shop

 

[Sārthākā]

@Sārthākā Not sure if this is in your area of expertise, but I do know you're generally well read on Islamic matters so a scenario/question I wanted to posit to you:

Instead of Aurangzeb becoming Mughal Emperor, have Dara Shikoh do so instead as both he and Aurangzeb's father intended. By most accounts, Dara was another Akbar in terms of qualities and this would avoid the disaster that was Aurangzeb's reign. Such would strengthen the Mughals greatly, allowing them to effectively fight off the Europeans later on and would lead to an Islamized India in such. The decline of Mughal fortunes led to less prestige for Islam, while British rule removed the requirement to convert to effectively advance in society as they allowed it regardless of religion. The percentage of Muslims had been increasing steadily (In particular, it was also tied to urbanization) and had reached at least a third of the population by the 17th Century IIRC, so getting a majority Islamic India would be easy with a continued Mughal rule I would think?

Though Dara Shikoh did military service, and while he was very intellectually gifted, he was militarily, a bit of an incompetent. If he had become Padishah, I don't think the Mughal military would have advanced at all. Dara was more interested in the prestige that came with the positions than any strategic or innovative ideas regarding the military. Economically, however, he would certainly have been a boon to the Mughal Empire had he taken the throne.

 

[Buba]

he was militarily, a bit of an incompetent.

I suspect that he was more than a bit incompetent and not only in the military sphere. Aurungzeb was no genius yet won the civil war. Dara Shikoh is IMO mythologised as The Prince That Was Promised by those unhappy with Aurungzeb or with how events played out after "Mister A" was gone.
"Oh, how grand the Mughals would had been had Dara Shikoh won!" - so sigheth the fanboy ...
Naturally, not ruining the treasure and bleeding the country dry by needless conquest of the South (nothing good ever comes from conquering The South, BTW) indeed would had been good for economy.
Also, not alienating a certain philosophical-religious group leading to their invention of Rule of Two and subsequently to The Revenge of the Sikh

would had kept the Mughals strong. Very stronk.

 

[WolfBear]

@Sārthākā Not sure if this is in your area of expertise, but I do know you're generally well read on Islamic matters so a scenario/question I wanted to posit to you:

Instead of Aurangzeb becoming Mughal Emperor, have Dara Shikoh do so instead as both he and Aurangzeb's father intended. By most accounts, Dara was another Akbar in terms of qualities and this would avoid the disaster that was Aurangzeb's reign. Such would strengthen the Mughals greatly, allowing them to effectively fight off the Europeans later on and would lead to an Islamized India in such. The decline of Mughal fortunes led to less prestige for Islam, while British rule removed the requirement to convert to effectively advance in society as they allowed it regardless of religion. The percentage of Muslims had been increasing steadily (In particular, it was also tied to urbanization) and had reached at least a third of the population by the 17th Century IIRC, so getting a majority Islamic India would be easy with a continued Mughal rule I would think?

What's your source for India being 1/3 Muslim by the 17th century? It was around 20% Muslim in the late 1800s, if I recall correctly. This is based on British Indian census data.

 

[WolfBear]

'AHC: Legally binding US military commitments to European Europe in the absence of World War II'

@raharris1973 @Skallagrim @stevep @Zyobot @History Learner @sillygoose @Buba

 

[History Learner]

Though Dara Shikoh did military service, and while he was very intellectually gifted, he was militarily, a bit of an incompetent. If he had become Padishah, I don't think the Mughal military would have advanced at all. Dara was more interested in the prestige that came with the positions than any strategic or innovative ideas regarding the military. Economically, however, he would certainly have been a boon to the Mughal Empire had he taken the throne.

Yeah, expansion South is off the table but in the long run, combined with his administrative talents, it probably would've stabilized the Mughals and led to their continued prosperity. I'm fascinated with the idea of an Islamized India, honestly.

 

[History Learner]

Very true. Though it's worth noting that in some parts of Anatolia, Turkification was already completed by the early 1500s at the very latest, even if a lot of the Turks there were actually mixed Turko-Romans:

Maps on the Web

Religion in five Ottoman provinces in Anatolia according to the 1520s Ottoman hearth census: 92% Muslim, 7.9% Christian. by Lithide: The Christian proportion of Anatolia actually rose in the sixteenth...

mapsontheweb.zoom-maps.com

I have some immediate doubts about both this map and the link behind it; why were Anatolian Greeks more predisposed to conversion and assimilation than Grecian ones, first off? 1500 to 1900 is the same length of time as 1100 to 1500 after all, which defuses any argument based on their longer cultural contact time. Indeed, areas that had been under Turkic control since Manizkert are less Muslim than areas that passed into their control in less than 200 years?

 

[WolfBear]

I have some immediate doubts about both this map and the link behind it; why were Anatolian Greeks more predisposed to conversion and assimilation than Grecian ones, first off? 1500 to 1900 is the same length of time as 1100 to 1500 after all, which defuses any argument based on their longer cultural contact time. Indeed, areas that had been under Turkic control since Manizkert are less Muslim than areas that passed into their control in less than 200 years?

Well, sizable Greek and Armenian communities remained in eastern Anatolia up to the early 20th century:

 

[History Learner]

What's your source for India being 1/3 Muslim by the 17th century? It was around 20% Muslim in the late 1800s, if I recall correctly. This is based on British Indian census data.

Well, sizable Greek and Armenian communities remained in eastern Anatolia up to the early 20th century:

Indeed, which is why I'm doubtful Western Anatolia was Islamified so much faster. Why would Armenians and Greeks who had been under Turkish rule for 400 years by 1500 convert slower than the Greek populations only recently conquered in Coastal Anatolia? Why would displaced Greeks from the Greek peninsula be more resilient than their co-ethnics, despite the fact they had left behind all of their ties that came with moving?

 

[Eparkhos]

Indeed, which is why I'm doubtful Western Anatolia was Islamified so much faster. Why would Armenians and Greeks who had been under Turkish rule for 400 years by 1500 convert slower than the Greek populations only recently conquered in Coastal Anatolia? Why would displaced Greeks from the Greek peninsula be more resilient than their co-ethnics, despite the fact they had left behind all of their ties that came with moving?

The early phases of Turkish conquest of Western Anatolia--during the beylik period, mostly--involved a great deal of destruction, mass murder and enslavement that drove the Greeks of many of the river valleys/interior highlands to coastal cities, the islands or Peninsular Greece. I know that Michael VIII and Andronikos II (and other emperors, IIRC) evacuated the Greek populations of the Anatolian frontier to more 'defensible' regions in Europe as well, so the Islamification isn't so much voluntary conversion as it is depopulation and 'convert-or-die' tactics from the ghazis. The Ottomans eased up on the forced conversions, hence why Peninsular Greece remained Orthodox while their Anatolian brethren didn't.

Also, I've been told (but not given a source) that many of the Greeks in Western Anatolia migrated/returned their during Ottoman rule, but that's basically hearsay.