What if - superstates which never appeared

[Hetman]

From time to time in history we can find an event when it was possible to create completely different states, some of this could be called european ( asian) or even world's powers or even hiper-powers.

How many such events do You know?

At this moment I can think of

- Alexander the Great superpower if he lived for much longer,

- English-French or rather French-English ( English nobility soon would speak only in french - this way french would be used instead of english nowadays - really bad news, because english is much easier) super-power if English won the 100 years war,

- Scandinavian super-power if Kalmar union survived,

- Polish-Lithuanian-Russian ( even + Swedish) hiper-power if polish king Wladislaw really became tzar ( he was elected by russian boyars),

- Prussian-Polish state if it survived Napoleon's blow in 1806,

- Napoleon's hiper-power if he succeded in crushing Russia,

and more.

Regards Hetman http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Dead Moroz]

Quote[/b] (Hetman @ June 18 2004,11:48)]- Polish-Lithuanian-Russian ( even + Swedish) hiper-power if polish king Wladislaw really became tzar ( he was elected by russian boyars)
Or if Ivan the Terrible or his son became Polish-Lithuanian king (they were candidates at the elections of Polish king in 1570s). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Rosacrux]

Athenian superpower if Athens had won the Peloponnesian war.

Persian hyper-super-power if they'd manage to conquer Greece and use it as their base for ventures into the Balkans and Europe.

Mongolian Euro-super power, if the horde didn't return home to watch the succession fireworks.

... I could think of many others

[Leet Eriksson]

Arab super power if they defeated charles martel at tours http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif or successfully seiged constantinople.

[Crimson Castle]

Superstates have always had difficulty in surviving for long periods of time. Check out Alexander the Great's Empire. It practically fell apart after his death.

Its simple - the factions within the superstate must have a compelling reason to stick together. Usually its held together by threat of military punishment - ie, the Mongol Empire, or the Soviet Union etc..

But often its more a variety of factors - trade, culture, technology exchange, and of course military rule.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

As much as i would love to say yes, the English could never have defeated france completly in the hundreds year war. A population of 2 1/2 million could never keep one of 15 million down,especially post 1436, once the burgundians turned against the english.

[cutepuppy]

But the opposite didn't happen either. How long has Louis I been king of England? 9 months?

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Are you talking about when discontented english nobles invited the Dauphin to become king in 1215/16? Thats not the time period he is on about. Of course i could say that the chances of France invading england and winning was minimal because the chance(apart from a few rare incidents) of winning against the english in a defensive position would have been small to say the least but i though that was obvious.

The english nobility spoke French anyway. It was the language of the nobility and court. The first english speaking king(as his first language) was Henry the fourth.

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
Reich III if Hitler managed to crush CCCP and invade Britain. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-skull.gif
_

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ June 18 2004,09:49)]Persian hyper-super-power if they'd manage to conquer Greece and use it as their base for ventures into the Balkans and Europe.
They didn't need Greece for that...

[SwordsMaster]

What about the Spanish-English empire? When Philippe II married an english queen? in the XVI cent?

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Do you mean queen mary and old phil of spain?

[SwordsMaster]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-oops.gif yep right, what was I thinkin about?

[Ironside]

Swedish empire at 1660 if Karl X would had succeded with everything he tried (Sweden, a larger version of todays Finland, Norway, Denmark, Pommerania, Poland- Lithuania, Livonia, Estonia and some more provinces in Germany) or victory at 1660 but "only" grabbing enough in Poland to make the Baltic sea to a pure Swedish sea is enough.

Sweden, Gustav II Adolf didn't die in Lutzen and the Hapsburgs got defeated badly in 1633-1634.

The reformed HRE is the Hapsburgs had won the 30-years war.

Spanish - Portugal if they had maintained their strength into 1600+.

The Byz didn't have thier military decline around year 1050 or being successful in defeating the Arabs.

[The Wizard]

Actually the Byzantine military was reformed by Alexios I Comnenos, but it is mainly the Fourth Crusade which caused the downfall of the Empire. The Paleologian dynasty was never able to recreate the glory of Comnenan Byzantium, let alone Thematic Byzantium.



~Wiz

[Ironside]

Wasn't Manzikert 1072 a big loss thanks to poor miltary and commanding skills?

And yes the Byzantines had a very long, slow decline with parts of greater strength.

[The Wizard]

Manzikert wasn't a big loss regarding losses - the one big thing that it did was break Byzantine (read: the professional, thematic which remained amongst the morass of mercenaries) morale.

Subsequently, the thematic system developed by Heraclius could no longer be counted on by a strong emperor like Alexios Komnenos because Anatolia, since a long time the main theme, was lost to the Seljuq and subsequently occupied by the Seljuq emir of Rûm.

He had to manipulate the Catholic world to get back his old territories, and the self-minded Crusaders were never fully manipulated, because they started founding their own principalites, the Crusader States. Also, since they were interested in the 'Holy Land' only, they bypassed Anatolia alltogether (well, mostly, a Greek expert like Rosacrux or Rasoforos should verify this thesis...).



~Wiz

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Or how bout an American superpower? That would be nifty

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Seriously:
Has anyone ever read Pastwatch? A book, I think by a guy named something like Orson Scott Card or something with Card in it ...

Anyway, in it, some people went back in time during Columbus' voyage and did some stuff and created an empire of native peoples who figured out European technology and became superpowers who did stuff.

I had to read for a summer reading assignment a while ago. Good read. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif Forgotten most of it. Thought it applied to this topic (at least a little bit; all you guys have posted actually possible alternatives to history, I think).

Cheers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Quote[/b] (Ironside @ June 20 2004,20:05)]Swedish empire at 1660 if Karl X would had succeded with everything he tried (Sweden, a larger version of todays Finland, Norway, Denmark, Pommerania, Poland- Lithuania, Livonia, Estonia and some more provinces in Germany) or victory at 1660 but "only" grabbing enough in Poland to make the Baltic sea to a pure Swedish sea is enough.

Sweden, Gustav II Adolf didn't die in Lutzen and the Hapsburgs got defeated badly in 1633-1634.

The reformed HRE is the Hapsburgs had won the 30-years war.

Spanish - Portugal if they had maintained their strength into 1600+.

The Byz didn't have thier military decline around year 1050 or being successful in defeating the Arabs.


On Sweden I disagree...

First of all, the Dutch had complete control over the Swedish economy (as they more or less had over the English, French, etc. etc.). Nor would they ever allow Sweden to gain control over Denmark. Mind you that they saved Copenhaguen once, and IIRC went to war over it a few more times.

For Spain and Portugal the exact same problem. They lacked the economic strength to maintain their empire. Plus Portugal lacked the population.

There is a reason why the only one to be considered as possible third hegemon in world history is the Dutch Republic between 1640 and 1680. So therefor I propose the Dutch Republic. And I will also give the reasons why it failed:


A lack of demographic base. Simply put there were not enough Dutchmen around to support the empire. It was a nation of immigrants. A large part (if not the majority) of those serving in the army were Swedes, Germans, French, English, Scots, Danes etc. etc. etc. for example.
Economically it was too powerfull. The Dutch Republic was economically so powerful (controlled most of the shipping world wide) that it antagonized everyone. Up to the point that in 1672 it faced the combined might of France, England and the German principalities on the east. Sweden was a reluctant ally, and only Spain and Brandenburg joined the Dutch when the Dutch had reversed the tide (and likely after some heavy bribing). The Dutch financed the wars against Louis XIV (much like the English would finance the wars against Napoleon), which broke their back.
THe Dutch even largely financed the US War of Independence; To give you an idea, though generally it is considered that the Dutch Republic went into an economic decline (or actually, the economic growth declined) after 1700, it probably took until 1800 or even later before it no longer had the highest per capita income in Europe (and therefor the world), and was overtaken by England. Also, none of the countries it fought with could impose full economic sanctions agains the Dutch Republic, because they would succumb before the Dutch Republic would.[/list]

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] ]On Sweden I disagree...

First of all, the Dutch had complete control over the Swedish economy (as they more or less had over the English, French, etc. etc.). Nor would they ever allow Sweden to gain control over Denmark. Mind you that they saved Copenhaguen once, and IIRC went to war over it a few more times.


The point was that if Karl X succeded with all his plans (or most), the Baltic sea would be a Swedish sea and with the control of Denmark and possibly Norway, Sweden would have a huge cash-cow (and a big and very mordern army) and could probably get away from the Dutch control.

Why do you think that the Dutch was against those plans? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[shakaka36]

roman even more so superpower, had they defeated the germans at Teutobourg forest

[shakaka36]

and a tamerlane superpower, had he not died just before his planned invasion of china. had he lived on the ottomans might never have become a great power, as he demonstrated hwo willing he was to invade them when they grew to strong.

[lonewolf371]

European superpower if all you petty squablers across the Atlantic could agree on something for a change. https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Honestly, the only way we could lose our dominance in the States right now would probably be if we had a civil war, and right now that isn't very likely.

The Dutch certainly were a power to be reckoned with during much of the Baroque period, however their one true weakness like you said was the fact that there simply weren't enough Dutchmen to go around. Their army was one of the best trained in Europe, their fleet was the largest and excellently maintained, their coffers were overflowing, but the fact that their next-door neighbor France could simply raise a massive army to overwhelm the Dutch cities negated those advantages. The Netherlands throughout some of the more turbulent wars in Europe many times had to preserve its independance by pulling other major nations with larger manpower pools to distract aggressors. Granted that with her wealth they probably could have summoned a large mercenary army, but by the mid-1700's with standing armies being raised by nations all over Europe (which were of a much higher quality than the mercenaries) finally denied this advantage as well to the Netherlands. Now if the Dutch crown had, oh say, been merged with one of the larger countries surrounding it that were on the rise (France or England), Dutch wealth combined with the manpower from one of the two would have created an unstoppable, "hyper" nation.

Among the great nations of the past, perhaps the reformed Byzantium of Justinian I had a good chance of recreating the Roman Empire.

IMO, France during the Renaissance had some of the greatest potential by far in Europe. It was in many ways fabulously wealthy. It's largest problems in this period were that its leaders often squandered its resources on useless wars or luxuries and things of wealth. Had it been governed by more able leaders, France could have easily become much more powerful and much more wealthy than its monarchs could have imagined. Compared to France at this period, its actually quite remarkable that England came to dominance rather than France.

Russia after Peter the Great's reforms also had some of the greatest potential, but I believe that later rulers (Catherine among them) were in many ways too timid or too blind to the needs of their people. Catherine was a master of politics with her nobles and abroad, but in terms of economical reform inside her own country, I believe she hadn't the slightest idea of what she was doing.

I could go on to name many others, such "hyper" powers were and still are by no means restricted to Europe. But I'd actually prefer to keep my post within a halfway suitable reading time for most of you. https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif