Alternate History No Brandenburg-Prussia union

[Buba]

In OTL 1618 the Electorate (Kurfeurstum) Brandenburg and the Duchy (Herzogtum) Prussia unite under single ruler.
Because reasons.
One (major) reason being this dude:

Albert Frederick, Duke of Prussia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

not leaving living sons.
Let us imagine his eldest son - in OTL imaginatively named Albert and thus "the IIIrd", directly following Alberts I and II - living and ruling the duchy.

 

[ATP]

In OTL 1618 the Electorate (Kurfeurstum) Brandenburg and the Duchy (Herzogtum) Prussia unite under single ruler.
Because reasons.
One (major) reason being this dude:

Albert Frederick, Duke of Prussia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

not leaving living sons.
Let us imagine his eldest son - in OTL imaginatively named Albert the IIIrd - living and ruling the duchy.

Well,if polish History do not change,Prussia would probably backstab us with Sweden,just like in OTL.
But,after that,they would remain independent state.
After Russian- swedish wars in 1720 they would become russian vassal state,like Poland.

So,no Partition of Poland,Russia take both Poland and Prussia as vassal states - till Napoleon come.
What would happen after that....
too many possibilities.

 

[Buba]

Well,if polish History do not change,Prussia would probably backstab us with Sweden,just like in OTL

Maybe. But a major driver - Royal Prussia laying BETWEEN two main holdings - does not exist.

till Napoleon come.

I suppose that if the Prussian male Hohenzollerns die out before c.1730 AND the PLC allows a Brandenburg-Prussia union, then we still get the Silesian Wars and 7YW and their aftermath leading to the French Revolution. But with no such union then a weaker Frederick II either does not backstab Maria-Theresia, or gets curbstomped.
Speaking of Frederick the "never to be Second" - Albert III is likely to marry off his sisters differently, not necessarily half of them into the Brandenburg line - which a few generations later produced Freddy Backstabber. Hence the Oathbreaker is butterflied away.

 

[ATP]

Maybe. But a major driver - Royal Prussia laying BETWEEN two main holdings - does not exist.

I suppose that if the Prussian male Hohenzollerns die out before c.1730 AND the PLC allows a Brandenburg-Prussia union, then we still get the Silesian Wars and 7YW and their aftermath leading to the French Revolution. But with no such union then a weaker Frederick II either does not backstab Maria-Theresia, or gets curbstomped.
Speaking of Frederick the "never to be Second" - Albert III is likely to marry off his sisters differently, not necessarily half of them into the Brandenburg line - which a few generations later produced Freddy Backstabber. Hence the Oathbreaker is butterflied away.

French Revolution happened becouse England paid for it,they paid for it becouse France supported USA,and that happened becouse France lost Canada in 7yW.

Now,without strong Prussia,France could not lost Canada.If so,no USA and no Revolution.
World different to the point,where i could not quess what could happen till our times.

Except one things - we would still have real Kings.

 

[stevep]

French Revolution happened becouse England paid for it,they paid for it becouse France supported USA,and that happened becouse France lost Canada in 7yW.

Now,without strong Prussia,France could not lost Canada.If so,no USA and no Revolution.
World different to the point,where i could not quess what could happen till our times.

Except one things - we would still have real Kings.

That avoids all the earlier butterflies and also is inaccurate. The prime cause of the French revolution - other than the incompetence of the Bourbon monarchy - was the sheer stupidity and greed of the 1st and 2nd estates i.e. the clergy and aristocracy. If they were willing to respond to the crisis that prompted Louis XVI to call the Estates General in a responsible way, allowing some taxation of their assets rather than insisting their privileges stay untouched then the crisis might have been resolved. Not necessarily permanently but at least for a while, in which case some other resolution might occur.

Actually without a strong Prussia Britain and Austria remain allies which is equally bad, if not worse for France so it while there are going to be butterflies you could see both mentioned impacts on N America, i.e. the French loss of Canada - which is likely sooner or later for sheer economic and demographic reasons - and then a greater move to revolution by the colonies.

 

[ATP]

That avoids all the earlier butterflies and also is inaccurate. The prime cause of the French revolution - other than the incompetence of the Bourbon monarchy - was the sheer stupidity and greed of the 1st and 2nd estates i.e. the clergy and aristocracy. If they were willing to respond to the crisis that prompted Louis XVI to call the Estates General in a responsible way, allowing some taxation of their assets rather than insisting their privileges stay untouched then the crisis might have been resolved. Not necessarily permanently but at least for a while, in which case some other resolution might occur.

Actually without a strong Prussia Britain and Austria remain allies which is equally bad, if not worse for France so it while there are going to be butterflies you could see both mentioned impacts on N America, i.e. the French loss of Canada - which is likely sooner or later for sheer economic and demographic reasons - and then a greater move to revolution by the colonies.

1.You are victim of soviet propaganda.evul aristocrats and priests evul - those in Prussia was worst,and there was no revolution there.peasants there were still slaves.

2.If Austria nad England beat France together,you could be right.

 

[stevep]

1.You are victim of soviet propaganda.evul aristocrats and priests evul - those in Prussia was worst,and there was no revolution there.peasants there were still slaves.

2.If Austria nad England beat France together,you could be right.

No I'm not. Your a victim of the propaganda you keep spouting. I'm stating facts that were known at the time, long before the incompetents in Russia created the Bolsheviks. The only reason the king summoned the estates general in 1789 was that the government needed money. The clergy and aristocrats had a lot but refused to give up any - with a few intelligent and responsible exceptions. The peasantry had none and the only other source of revenue would be the merchants and small tradesmen who already bourn the brute of the existing taxation. Screw them further and you not only make them even more unhappy but you fuck up your economy even worse.

You can try and force more in kind taxes - i.e. forced labour and the like - out of the peasants but what do you think will happen when they go from their children crying from hunger to dying from starvation?

 

[ATP]

No I'm not. Your a victim of the propaganda you keep spouting. I'm stating facts that were known at the time, long before the incompetents in Russia created the Bolsheviks. The only reason the king summoned the estates general in 1789 was that the government needed money. The clergy and aristocrats had a lot but refused to give up any - with a few intelligent and responsible exceptions. The peasantry had none and the only other source of revenue would be the merchants and small tradesmen who already bourn the brute of the existing taxation. Screw them further and you not only make them even more unhappy but you fuck up your economy even worse.

You can try and force more in kind taxes - i.e. forced labour and the like - out of the peasants but what do you think will happen when they go from their children crying from hunger to dying from starvation?

And Revolution happened,becouse Filip Egalite helped started it,England supported it,and King refused to send Swiss guard after ringleaders.
Result - Swiss guard massacred,king martyred,and rule of terror and taxation which Kings never dare to use.

If King have brain and used army,there would be no Revolution.

Did you hear about any revolutions in North Korea? no? Exactly.

 

[Buba]

The first major butterfly a living Albert - a regent for his institutionalised father - could have on history is during the Zebrzydowski Rokosz (rebellion). The rebels "deposed" Zygmunt III (not that anybody noticed or cared about their act) and were fishing around for a substitute ruler. Here Albert or - to use the Polish of the time - Olbracht - could be a candidate due to his Jagiellon connection. Maybe in the 1590s he marries into one of the magnate houses in the 1590s? Not all had (re)converted to Roman Catholicism at that point, whereas in the early 17th century the Radziwił (part) were the sole holdout.