If you could change history

[The Archregimancy]

The 30 year war never happened. This means that the crusade against the Ottomans actually happens and Charles Gonzaga with the help of the Maniots and other Greeks become the new Emperor of Constantinople.

I want some of what you're smoking.

The chances of Charles Gonzaga overthrowing the entire Ottoman Empire between 1619 and his death in 1637 were non-existent, even without the 30 Years War. There is absolutely no scenario under which his bizarre and quixotic plan could have succeeded.

Let's put this into context...

When the Ottomans first heard of Charles' contacts with the Maniots, they invaded southern Greece with a large army supported by a strong fleet, and proceeded to raze Mani to the ground.

Charles' 'Crusade' was being proposed post-Reformation, meaning he could only have called on support from Catholic Europe. France was distracted by the conflict between supporters and opponents of Marie de Medici, Italy was fragmented between squabbling city states (the Papacy and Venice were barely on speaking terms), the Holy Roman Emperor had more pressing concerns, and Spain was in the middle of economic collapse. There is absolutely no chance that anyone would have heeded the call for a crusade of a junior Italo-Burgundian nobleman with a tenuous claim to a Byzantine throne that had ceased to exist 170 years previously given the prevailing political climate of the time.

Let's say the 30 Years War doesn't intervene, and Charles manages to cobble together some sort of army. What then? The Ottoman Empire wasn't at its peak in the first half of the 17th century, but it was still one of the strongest powers in Europe. During Charles' time the Empire was ruled by Murad IV, and while the early regency years of his reign were chaotic, he would later become the last strong and capable Ottoman Sultan to lead his armies in person. As late as 1683 the Ottomans came within hours of conquering Habsburg Vienna. The Maniots were constantly rebelling against the Ottomans in the 17th century, constantly turning to Western European champions - and constantly getting crushed, even when backed by a much stronger state. From 1645-1669 the Maniots backed the Venetians during the Cretan War, and the Venetians lost, losing Crete in the process.

Even when the Ottoman State started its long, slow collapse after the 1683 siege of Vienna, the Maniots couldn't sustain opposition with outside help. The Venetians then took the Peloponnese in the 1680s, only to lose it again in 1714.

So your idea that some second-rate minor prince - who was later notably unsuccessful in defending his own home duchy - could lead a 'crusade' in support of a group of Greek brigands against the full military might of a still-strong Ottoman Empire to not just conquer the Peloponnese, but actually overthrow the entire Ottoman state and then take control of Constantinople/Istanbul isn't a "counterfactual history", but a bizarrely unsustainable fantasy given the prevailing political and military conditions of the period.

[Seperates]

The 30 year war never happened. This means that the crusade against the Ottomans actually happens and Charles Gonzaga with the help of the Maniots and other Greeks become the new Emperor of Constantinople.

I want some of what you're smoking.

The chances of Charles Gonzaga overthrowing the entire Ottoman Empire between 1619 and his death in 1637 were non-existent, even without the 30 Years War. There is absolutely no scenario under which his bizarre and quixotic plan could have succeeded.

Let's put this into context...

When the Ottomans first heard of Charles' contacts with the Maniots, they invaded southern Greece with a large army supported by a strong fleet, and proceeded to raze Mani to the ground.

Charles' 'Crusade' was being proposed post-Reformation, meaning he could only have called on support from Catholic Europe. France was distracted by the conflict between supporters and opponents of Marie de Medici, Italy was fragmented between squabbling city states (the Papacy and Venice were barely on speaking terms), the Holy Roman Emperor had more pressing concerns, and Spain was in the middle of economic collapse. There is absolutely no chance that anyone would have heeded the call for a crusade of a junior Italo-Burgundian nobleman with a tenuous claim to a Byzantine throne that had ceased to exist 170 years previously given the prevailing political climate of the time.

Let's say the 30 Years War doesn't intervene, and Charles manages to cobble together some sort of army. What then? The Ottoman Empire wasn't at its peak in the first half of the 17th century, but it was still one of the strongest powers in Europe. During Charles' time the Empire was ruled by Murad IV, and while the early regency years of his reign were chaotic, he would later become the last strong and capable Ottoman Sultan to lead his armies in person. As late as 1683 the Ottomans came within hours of conquering Habsburg Vienna. The Maniots were constantly rebelling against the Ottomans in the 17th century, constantly turning to Western European champions - and constantly getting crushed, even when backed by a much stronger state. From 1645-1669 the Maniots backed the Venetians during the Cretan War, and the Venetians lost, losing Crete in the process.

Even when the Ottoman State started its long, slow collapse after the 1683 siege of Vienna, the Maniots couldn't sustain opposition with outside help. The Venetians then took the Peloponnese in the 1680s, only to lose it again in 1714.

So your idea that some second-rate minor prince - who was later notably unsuccessful in defending his own home duchy - could lead a 'crusade' in support of a group of Greek brigands against the full military might of a still-strong Ottoman Empire to not just conquer the Peloponnese, but actually overthrow the entire Ottoman state and then take control of Constantinople/Istanbul isn't a "counterfactual history", but a bizarrely unsustainable fantasy given the prevailing political and military conditions of the period.

So... what you're sayin is...

The Zags were fucked from the start?

(Basketball/College inside joke... I may or may not go to the rival school.)

[EnragedMaldivians]

Even when the Ottoman State started its long, slow collapse after the 1683 siege of Vienna, the Maniots couldn't sustain opposition with outside help.[/url].

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with that sentence Arch. The Ottomans were in decline long before their second attempt to take Vienna. The influx of Spanish bullion into the old world had been causing their economy to succumb to inflation since the sixteenth century, and in terms of military technology they were not able to keep up with European powers, where (if you agree with Jeremy Black's thesis at least) a military revolution was underway (though it's Geofrey Parker's elucidation on the naval component of this revolution that's most relevant).


I mean sure, they rebuilt their Fleet after the disaster at Lepanto in 1571 within an year, but they were the same lumbering ships incapable of defeating the European galleons that could fire broadside cannons that had dealt them the loss at Lepanto in the first place. In terms of gunpowder infantry they were also far, far behind by 1683.

[The Archregimancy]

Even when the Ottoman State started its long, slow collapse after the 1683 siege of Vienna, the Maniots couldn't sustain opposition with outside help.[/url].

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with that sentence Arch. The Ottomans were in decline long before their second attempt to take Vienna.

I think this is just a slight misunderstanding.

Note my earlier sentence subclause "The Ottoman Empire wasn't at its peak in the first half of the 17th century"; I've already acknowledged the decline was underway.

So yes, the Ottoman state was certainly in decline prior to the Second Siege of Vienna, but the collapse only begins post-1683.

Prior to the Treaty of Karlowitz ending the Austro-Ottoman War, the Ottoman Empire had for the most part only expanded; after the Treaty of Karlowitz, for the most part it only contracts.

[Varijnland]

I'd have told King Harold's men to hold their ground on Senlac hill rather than chasing down the fleeing Bretons, this will have made it almost impossible for the Norman calvary to exploit the gap in the English shield wall. It would interest the fuck out of me to see a Norman influence free England.

[Arumdaum]

Japan's economy stabilizes itself and doesn't end up crashing, surpassing America as the largest economy.

Brezhnev doesn't overtake Khrushchev in a coup. He doesn't have to cry all the time.

Franklin Roosevelt manages to not die during his final term, and the Second Bill of Rights is hopefully implemented.

China, Japan, and Korea don't go into isolation. The Great Wall isn't built.

That one pope doesn't denounce the Jesuits in China, and the Kangxi emperor (I think it was him) doesn't get all annoyed with Christians in general.

Alexander the II isn't assassinated, and something like the Duma is established earlier.

The Racial Equality Proposal is accepted by the League of Nations. I dunno what happens after that.

Japan doens't pass the Peace Preservation Law. Leftists aren't killed as often, and get to participate in the Diet.

Ito Hirobumi isn't assassinated. Korea remains a protectorate for a little while longer before being annexed.

The German Revolution ends up being successful in establishing a state friendly to socialists and communists.

Suleiman the Magnificent doesn't end up killing his supposedly brilliant son Mustafa.

[The Archregimancy]

I'd have told King Harold's men to hold their ground on Senlac hill rather than chasing down the fleeing Bretons, this will have made it almost impossible for the Norman calvary to exploit the gap in the English shield wall. It would interest the fuck out of me to see a Norman influence free England.

What you actually mean is "an England with less Norman influence", not a "Norman influence-free England".

Strong Norman influence had already started under Edward the Confessor, who was the nephew of Richard II of Normandy via his mother Emma, spent the best part of 25 years living in Normandy, was strongly supported by his cousin Robert I of Normandy (making William the Conquerer Edward the Confessor's first cousin once removed), built the rather large Norman basilica we know as Westminster Abbey, and appointed the Norman Robert of Jumièges as Archbishop of Canterbury some 15 years before 1066.

Norman influence was well underway long before 1066, and continued influence at some level was likely inevitable; even Harold II seems to have been engaged to a William the Conqueror's daughter at some point. It's the degree of Norman influence that 1066 settles.

[EnragedMaldivians]

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with that sentence Arch. The Ottomans were in decline long before their second attempt to take Vienna.

I think this is just a slight misunderstanding.

Note my earlier sentence subclause "The Ottoman Empire wasn't at its peak in the first half of the 17th century"; I've already acknowledged the decline was underway.

So yes, the Ottoman state was certainly in decline prior to the Second Siege of Vienna, but the collapse only begins post-1683.

Prior to the Treaty of Karlowitz ending the Austro-Ottoman War, the Ottoman Empire had for the most part only expanded; after the Treaty of Karlowitz, for the most part it only contracts.

Well, after the interregnum period at least. Remember that Bayezid's late reign actually saw him lose most of the empire to Tamerlane's invasions before himself being taken hostage, leaving his heirs to squabble amongst themselves whilst the Byzantines propped up whoever was the weaker brother in order to prolong a civil war that almost led to the Empire's total collapse. It was only after this period, with Mehmed I regaining total control of the Empire, that the Ottomans restarted their course of steady expansion until the Treaty of Karlowitz.

Sorry, I know I'm being pedantic, and I know that you already knew that. I'm mostly just bugging you.

[Varijnland]

I'd have told King Harold's men to hold their ground on Senlac hill rather than chasing down the fleeing Bretons, this will have made it almost impossible for the Norman calvary to exploit the gap in the English shield wall. It would interest the fuck out of me to see a Norman influence free England.

What you actually mean is "an England with less Norman influence", not a "Norman influence-free England".

Strong Norman influence had already started under Edward the Confessor, who was the nephew of Richard II of Normandy via his mother Emma, spent the best part of 25 years living in Normandy, was strongly supported by his cousin Robert I of Normandy (making William the Conquerer Edward the Confessor's first cousin once removed), built the rather large Norman basilica we know as Westminster Abbey, and appointed the Norman Robert of Jumièges as Archbishop of Canterbury some 15 years before 1066.

Norman influence was well underway long before 1066, and continued influence at some level was likely inevitable; even Harold II seems to have been engaged to a William the Conqueror's daughter at some point. It's the degree of Norman influence that 1066 settles.

Ok then.........not everyone's a archeologist historian expert y'know, you knew what I meant.

[The Archregimancy]

I think this is just a slight misunderstanding.

Note my earlier sentence subclause "The Ottoman Empire wasn't at its peak in the first half of the 17th century"; I've already acknowledged the decline was underway.

So yes, the Ottoman state was certainly in decline prior to the Second Siege of Vienna, but the collapse only begins post-1683.

Prior to the Treaty of Karlowitz ending the Austro-Ottoman War, the Ottoman Empire had for the most part only expanded; after the Treaty of Karlowitz, for the most part it only contracts.

Well, after the interregnum period at least. Remember that Bayezid's late reign actually saw him lose most of the empire to Tamerlane's invasions before himself being taken hostage, leaving his heirs to squabble amongst themselves whilst the Byzantines propped up whoever was the weaker brother in order to prolong a civil war that almost led to the Empire's total collapse. It was only after this period, with Mehmed I regaining total control of the Empire, that the Ottomans restarted their course of steady expansion until the Treaty of Karlowitz.

Sorry, I know I'm being pedantic, and I know that you already knew that. I'm mostly just bugging you.

Yes, you're quite right to note the temporary interruption to Ottoman expansion in the 11 years after the Battle of Ankara; and there's a reason for the use of "for the most part" in my own post.

Timur died just three years after Ankara, and the Ottoman Empire not only made a full recovery, but continued to significantly expand afterwards. From a European perspective, the significance of Timur and Ankara on the Ottoman Empire is in temporarily delaying the conquest of Constantinople and the Balkans rather than halting it. It's notable that even while Ottoman rule in Anatolia was in chaos, the Empire lost almost no territory in Europe, other than some minor territories negotiated away to the Byzantines - and soon retaken - in return for Manuel II getting lucky over backing the right side in the civil war.

Similarly, the Empire didn't always contract after Karlowitz - as referenced earlier, it managed to retake the Morea from Venice in 1715 after losing it in the wake of the failure at Vienna. But I think "for the most part" is fair enough under the circumstances.

[Ostroeuropa]

The levelers would have been a more major force in the English civil war, and the military factions would have been sidelined.
I think this'd probably end up with a democratic republican UK. Hopefully with an eye toward civil rights and universal suffrage.
I'm going to assume that much like other european powers at the time, they would casually ignore these principles and go empiring anyway, but i think it'd probably result in a less authoritarian government of the colonies too, and hopefully the establishment of more democracies overseas at the end of the empire.

I also think it would have kickstarted modern progress a lot quicker and technological progress by expanding the base of educated people a few hundred years early.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers


If we're allowed a much larger deviation from history, then i'll say I'd change history so the Levellers straight up endorse a universal suffrage model and still go empiring against foreign monarchies to bring those lands into a federation that gave the natives the right to vote too, and equality before the law on a states model.

[Liberated Counties]

Stop Julius Caesar from being assassinated. Would be interesting to see what his future plans where.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Stop Julius Caesar from being assassinated. Would be interesting to see what his future plans where.

Follow in Crassus' footsteps and follow through with the insane idea of launching an invasion of Parthia if I recall correctly.

[Paixao]

The Roman empire survives and flourishes, thereby avoiding centuries of technological backwardness by Christianity during the dark ages. They continue to expand and eventually take on China and win. 'Cause they're cool like that.

A new era of unified world peace is achieved under which science flourishes and we all live in paradise-space-land.

[EnragedMaldivians]

The Roman empire survives and flourishes, thereby avoiding centuries of technological backwardness by Christianity during the dark ages. They continue to expand and eventually take on China and win. 'Cause they're cool like that.

A new era of unified world peace is achieved under which science flourishes and we all live in paradise-space-land.

The 'dark age' is mostly an excessively pejorative categorisation of the period by Renaissance Humanists who were utterly convinced that anything that didn't have its roots in classical Greco-Roman civilisation was obviously inferior.

And arguably the Roman Empire did survive until 1453 (well, maybe until the 60s if you count Trezibond and the like). It was only the Western Empire that fell in 476 A.D.

[Arumdaum]

The Roman empire survives and flourishes, thereby avoiding centuries of technological backwardness by Christianity during the dark ages. They continue to expand and eventually take on China and win. 'Cause they're cool like that.

A new era of unified world peace is achieved under which science flourishes and we all live in paradise-space-land.

The 'dark age' is mostly an excessively pejorative categorisation of the period by Renaissance Humanists who were utterly convinced that anything that didn't have its roots in classical Greco-Roman civilisation was obviously inferior.

And arguably the Roman Empire did survive until 1453 (well, maybe until the 60s if you count Trezibond and the like). It was only the Western Empire that fell in 476 A.D.

^ This.

Not to mention that the continuation of the Roman Empire as well as continuous expansion would just have raised administration costs, administering far-off provinces would be ridiculously hard and even closer ones would become harder to administer, and the lack of competition would have caused for stagnation much like with China in East Asia.

[The Archregimancy]

And arguably the Roman Empire did survive until 1453 (well, maybe until the 60s if you count Trezibond and the like). It was only the Western Empire that fell in 476 A.D.

And even then the last person to claim the title "Roman Emperor" under the principle of translatio imperii didn't give up that title until 1806.

We tend to forget that the period from 1806-2013 is a 200 year anomaly in European history, in that it's the first time since the accession of Augustus that there's been no claimant to the title of Roman Emperor, however debased and hypothetical that title and Empire later became. The 207 years we've been without an acknowledged emperor in the West is also still some 117 years shorter than the 324 years between 476 and 800 AD.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Actually, now I think of it, it'd be interesting if people in the Roman Empire realised the potential of this.

[Napkiraly]

Actually, now I think of it, it'd be interesting if people in the Roman Empire realised the potential of this.

But then you remove the joy of having slaves.

[Paixao]

Damn you more historically inclined NSers...

X)

I do too much modern history for my own good.

EDIT: Even then, I'm hardly an expert unless it comes to 1815-1848 British Politics, the politics surrounding much of the American Civil War or the Nazi's rise to power. Yeay me.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Damn you more historically inclined NSers...

X)

I do too much modern history for my own good.

Well if it makes you feel any better it's less that I'm historically inclined and more that I don't get out as much as I should.

I don't really do much besides go to the gym, go to lectures/tutorials and read books.

[Forsher]

let Hitler get accepted into the art academy that rejected him and make sure he never rose to power to become leader.

I come from another past where this did happen.

The only difference was that the Nazis treated the stolen art well.

If I could change one thing? I would never have ever read anything ever written by Yootwopia on history. I feel like this thread would be more fun that way.

Stop Julius Caesar from being assassinated. Would be interesting to see what his future plans where.

Be more interesting, have Alexander the Great survive his fever, launch his planned expedition against Arabia and, then, well... in the long run it'd probably all work out to be the same. He wasn't a cautious man and nearly died of injuries a number of times.

Alternatively, have Pitt accept Napoleon's offer of peace and carve up Europe. Or, better yet, have the French population dispersed across the world post-Waterloo and the world then enters a new Anglo-Prussian era of brilliance. Before ultimately succumbing to external pressure and it all ends up with Forsher writing about how this didn't happen...

Yeah, I'm going to stick with my first answer. But I'll support it properly.

Let's look at Gallipoli. Let's look at the Suvla Landings. Let's have IX Corps do what they were meant to this time around. Ah, great, it stagnated anyway... (This is probably what would've happened, the Turkish resistance really was much better led than the attacking forces.) Hamilton's still removed, they're all still evacuated, Churchill still says victory was really really close and I just find some other example to talk about.

Something we do in economics a lot is not something we really pay much attention to in history. We've just shifted right from D to D₁ and raised the price from Pe to Pe₁ but the question is why? What is it about that shift that made that change? In theory, I think this is what "causes and consequences" is meant to be about but it really ends up more as, "The Great Depression established the context necessary for the rise of the Nazis". Come to think of it, maybe that's why I only get merits in the externals...

[Serrland]

And arguably the Roman Empire did survive until 1453 (well, maybe until the 60s if you count Trezibond and the like). It was only the Western Empire that fell in 476 A.D.

And even then the last person to claim the title "Roman Emperor" under the principle of translatio imperii didn't give up that title until 1806.

We tend to forget that the period from 1806-2013 is a 200 year anomaly in European history, in that it's the first time since the accession of Augustus that there's been no claimant to the title of Roman Emperor, however debased and hypothetical that title and Empire later became. The 207 years we've been without an acknowledged emperor in the West is also still some 117 years shorter than the 324 years between 476 and 800 AD.

Or perhaps, without a publicly known claimant. I can see dear, sweet old Berlusconi fashioning himself as Emperor during his Bunga Bunga parties.

[Farnhamia]

And even then the last person to claim the title "Roman Emperor" under the principle of translatio imperii didn't give up that title until 1806.

We tend to forget that the period from 1806-2013 is a 200 year anomaly in European history, in that it's the first time since the accession of Augustus that there's been no claimant to the title of Roman Emperor, however debased and hypothetical that title and Empire later became. The 207 years we've been without an acknowledged emperor in the West is also still some 117 years shorter than the 324 years between 476 and 800 AD.

Or perhaps, without a publicly known claimant. I can see dear, sweet old Berlusconi fashioning himself as Emperor during his Bunga Bunga parties.

There's nothing left to claim. Not only did Francis II relinquish his claim, he dissolved the Empire itself.

[EnragedMaldivians]

And arguably the Roman Empire did survive until 1453 (well, maybe until the 60s if you count Trezibond and the like). It was only the Western Empire that fell in 476 A.D.

And even then the last person to claim the title "Roman Emperor" under the principle of translatio imperii didn't give up that title until 1806.

We tend to forget that the period from 1806-2013 is a 200 year anomaly in European history, in that it's the first time since the accession of Augustus that there's been no claimant to the title of Roman Emperor.

Challenge accepted!