Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

Reader mode
'More Germanic English Language'.

As in, something like what's been put forth by The Anglish Moot, in terms of grammar and vocabulary. The obvious PoD is butterflying the Norman Conquests, although whether English will shed its Germanic features over time regardless is uncertain to me. If Britain still becomes a global empire with contact with a diverse range of peoples, though, then en masse word-borrowing seems more likely to kick in, anyway (even if the final result wouldn't necessarily be intelligible to OTL Anglophones).
 
Zyobot said:
'More Germanic English Language'.

As in, something like what's been put forth by The Anglish Moot, in terms of grammar and vocabulary. The obvious PoD is butterflying the Norman Conquests, although whether English will shed its Germanic features over time regardless is uncertain to me. If Britain still becomes a global empire with contact with a diverse range of peoples, though, then en masse word-borrowing seems more likely to kick in, anyway (even if the final result wouldn't necessarily be intelligible to OTL Anglophones).
Click to expand...

Would a direct attempt to conquer England by the Holy Roman Empire result in Anglish Moot retaining its Germanic features, or even become a hybrid of Low German and Norse? There's still the Norwegians of Harald Hardrada left, or without the Norman Conquest, you may see Sweyn of Denmark attempt at conquering England.
 
Zyobot said:
'More Germanic English Language'.

As in, something like what's been put forth by The Anglish Moot, in terms of grammar and vocabulary. The obvious PoD is butterflying the Norman Conquests, although whether English will shed its Germanic features over time regardless is uncertain to me. If Britain still becomes a global empire with contact with a diverse range of peoples, though, then en masse word-borrowing seems more likely to kick in, anyway (even if the final result wouldn't necessarily be intelligible to OTL Anglophones).
Click to expand...
Firstly Aethelred the Unready never marries Emma of Normandy while his successors favor marriages either to other English nobles or royalty from other parts of the British Isles, greatly delaying English entanglement with continental affairs (and perhaps never allowing such entanglement to grow to the level of the Angevin Empire). Next, his son Edmund Ironside sniffs out the treacherous Eadric Streona to prevail at the Battle of Assandun in 1016 and may even go so far as to kill Canute (who obviously wouldn't be remembered as 'the Great' as a result), ensuring that Cerdicing rule over England is not interrupted.

England remains proudly Anglo-Saxon, defying both Frankish/Norman and properly Norse incursions for many more years yet, and remaining focused on insular affairs over continental ones; even there the Saxons will likely be far less ambitious than the Normans were, content to acquire suzerainty over and extract periodic tribute from the Welsh, Scots and (later) Irish as they traditionally had done instead of trying to aggressively conquer these neighbors and go on castle-building sprees to secure their power. The English language does not stray far from its Saxon roots, reflecting this conservatism: even much later into history its closest relative will still be Frisian, and they might not even diverge so much as to cease being mutually intelligible ITL.
 
Circle of Willis said:
Firstly Aethelred the Unready never marries Emma of Normandy while his successors favor marriages either to other English nobles or royalty from other parts of the British Isles, greatly delaying English entanglement with continental affairs (and perhaps never allowing such entanglement to grow to the level of the Angevin Empire). Next, his son Edmund Ironside sniffs out the treacherous Eadric Streona to prevail at the Battle of Assandun in 1016 and may even go so far as to kill Canute (who obviously wouldn't be remembered as 'the Great' as a result), ensuring that Cerdicing rule over England is not interrupted.

England remains proudly Anglo-Saxon, defying both Frankish/Norman and properly Norse incursions for many more years yet, and remaining focused on insular affairs over continental ones; even there the Saxons will likely be far less ambitious than the Normans were, content to acquire suzerainty over and extract periodic tribute from the Welsh, Scots and (later) Irish as they traditionally had done instead of trying to aggressively conquer these neighbors and go on castle-building sprees to secure their power. The English language does not stray far from its Saxon roots, reflecting this conservatism: even much later into history its closest relative will still be Frisian, and they might not even diverge so much as to cease being mutually intelligible ITL.
Click to expand...

Yes.Free Welsh,scots and Irish.And possible Vinland under England kings.Much better world,not ruled by City.
 
Zyobot said:
'More Germanic English Language'.

As in, something like what's been put forth by The Anglish Moot, in terms of grammar and vocabulary. The obvious PoD is butterflying the Norman Conquests, although whether English will shed its Germanic features over time regardless is uncertain to me. If Britain still becomes a global empire with contact with a diverse range of peoples, though, then en masse word-borrowing seems more likely to kick in, anyway (even if the final result wouldn't necessarily be intelligible to OTL Anglophones).
Click to expand...
 
Circle of Willis said:
Firstly Aethelred the Unready never marries Emma of Normandy while his successors favor marriages either to other English nobles or royalty from other parts of the British Isles, greatly delaying English entanglement with continental affairs (and perhaps never allowing such entanglement to grow to the level of the Angevin Empire). Next, his son Edmund Ironside sniffs out the treacherous Eadric Streona to prevail at the Battle of Assandun in 1016 and may even go so far as to kill Canute (who obviously wouldn't be remembered as 'the Great' as a result), ensuring that Cerdicing rule over England is not interrupted.

England remains proudly Anglo-Saxon, defying both Frankish/Norman and properly Norse incursions for many more years yet, and remaining focused on insular affairs over continental ones; even there the Saxons will likely be far less ambitious than the Normans were, content to acquire suzerainty over and extract periodic tribute from the Welsh, Scots and (later) Irish as they traditionally had done instead of trying to aggressively conquer these neighbors and go on castle-building sprees to secure their power. The English language does not stray far from its Saxon roots, reflecting this conservatism: even much later into history its closest relative will still be Frisian, and they might not even diverge so much as to cease being mutually intelligible ITL.
Click to expand...

I just thought about some TL which i read/i forget where,unfortunatelly/
Basically Wihelm Bastartd had good winds,sailed to England early,and in pitched battle died fighting England King who died,too.With all his brothers.Normans retreated,english go to London.

Harold Hardrada sailed just like in OTL,defeated english forces,and ,becouse there was no quick english attack,go for London.
English army with some next King cousin get defeated,child King run to France,and Harold Hardrada become King of Norwegia and England.

That is something which made England stronger,with more probably Vinland rediscovery.Which would never become much populated/no gold cities there/.
Till England/Norwegian ships find Mexico,of course.Then we would add Aztec Empire to their holdings,becouse,let be frank,Aztec was idiot cunts which would be beaten by basically everybody with iron weapons and few brain cells.
 
‘Anglo/American-German Cold War’.

Preferably with the German Empire dominating the European continent, which would (presumably) come to be sometime in the twentieth century. Maybe it really lucks out in winning World War I, scoring lopsided peace terms for the Central Powers and turning continental Europe into a giant Mitteleuropa?

I’m also wondering how France and Russia, also brought into heavy conflict with the Germans, would fare under this arrangement? Presumably, they’d both be beaten back via a successfully executed Schlieffen Plan or something, with peace terms forcing them to cede territory (leaving both to stew angrily over the next few decades).
 
Zyobot said:
‘Anglo/American-German Cold War’.

Preferably with the German Empire dominating the European continent, which would (presumably) come to be sometime in the twentieth century. Maybe it really lucks out in winning World War I, scoring lopsided peace terms for the Central Powers and turning continental Europe into a giant Mitteleuropa?

I’m also wondering how France and Russia, also brought into heavy conflict with the Germans, would fare under this arrangement? Presumably, they’d both be beaten back via a successfully executed Schlieffen Plan or something, with peace terms forcing them to cede territory (leaving both to stew angrily over the next few decades).
Click to expand...

Could be done.It would worked if germans do not send reinforcments East.Stupid move - even if Russia take over East Prussia,there was nothing important there
And germans planned to made client states in the East.Which,considering how nice germans was there,would hate them as much as France or more.And wait for mother Russia to save them.
 
ATP said:
Could be done.It would worked if germans do not send reinforcments East.Stupid move - even if Russia take over East Prussia,there was nothing important there
And germans planned to made client states in the East.Which,considering how nice germans was there,would hate them as much as France or more.And wait for mother Russia to save them.
Click to expand...

I see. In that case, I suppose Tsarist Russia becomes a third faction in the aftermath? Which is to say, an isolated and rabidly anti-liberal empire bitter over losing to Germany, and determined to exact bloody revenge once it's gotten strong enough. The analogy's not perfect, but I can see it becoming the poster-child for far-right totalitarianism in any ATL equivalent to World War II that pops up (rather than Nazi Germany, like IOTL).

In the meantime, I imagine the ensuing Cold War between the Anglo-American bloc and newly enlarged German Empire, while not the blatant ideological showdown that OTL Cold War was, will nonetheless carry certain cultural "overtones" that reflect the competition between them. On the one hand, Britain (as well as America once it's brought aboard later) is the leading light of laissez-faire and limited government, drawing on a long-standing tradition of English liberalism and free trade, as it rallies the Anglosphere to oppose the new hegemon of continental Europe. On the other, Germany is a parliamentary monarchy with social-democratic economic leanings, pairing its moderate market economy off with various pension and social-insurance programs that are a natural outgrowth of Von Bismarck's welfare reforms. Unsurprisingly, the rest of Mittëleuropa follows in Germany's footsteps, with a friendly Austria-Hungary and a strong-armed Scandinavia--as well as other, smaller countries in and peripheral to Central Europe--falling in line and forming a common market centered around Germany Proper and backed by the Reichsbank. As the battle lines are being drawn and the factions coalesced into alliances, though, they may benefit from (temporarily) shelving their rivalry to defeat the resurgent empire to the East, now angry and unquenchably thirsty for the blood of "the Western liberals" who humiliated it a generation ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP
Alternate twist, mess with the origins of WW1. The Archduke lives and the web of treaties doesn't drag all the Great Powers into war. Then a few years later, the Russian revolution breaks out anyway, the Tsar is losing control and they ask for foreign assistance from all the other Great Powers of Europe to prevent communism from taking over Russia and let them keep their throne, even if as a puppet. Cue a massive, multi-sided war between Great Powers who want to monopolize puppeteering Russia, Russian nationalists loyal to the Tsar, Russian nationalists who've turned against the Tsar for his betrayal of inviting in foreign invaders and communist revolutionaries.
 
Zyobot said:
I see. In that case, I suppose Tsarist Russia becomes a third faction in the aftermath? Which is to say, an isolated and rabidly anti-liberal empire bitter over losing to Germany, and determined to exact bloody revenge once it's gotten strong enough. The analogy's not perfect, but I can see it becoming the poster-child for far-right totalitarianism in any ATL equivalent to World War II that pops up (rather than Nazi Germany, like IOTL).

In the meantime, I imagine the ensuing Cold War between the Anglo-American bloc and newly enlarged German Empire, while not the blatant ideological showdown that OTL Cold War was, will nonetheless carry certain cultural "overtones" that reflect the competition between them. On the one hand, Britain (as well as America once it's brought aboard later) is the leading light of laissez-faire and limited government, drawing on a long-standing tradition of English liberalism and free trade, as it rallies the Anglosphere to oppose the new hegemon of continental Europe. On the other, Germany is a parliamentary monarchy with social-democratic economic leanings, pairing its moderate market economy off with various pension and social-insurance programs that are a natural outgrowth of Von Bismarck's welfare reforms. Unsurprisingly, the rest of Mittëleuropa follows in Germany's footsteps, with a friendly Austria-Hungary and a strong-armed Scandinavia--as well as other, smaller countries in and peripheral to Central Europe--falling in line and forming a common market centered around Germany Proper and backed by the Reichsbank. As the battle lines are being drawn and the factions coalesced into alliances, though, they may benefit from (temporarily) shelving their rivalry to defeat the resurgent empire to the East, now angry and unquenchably thirsty for the blood of "the Western liberals" who humiliated it a generation ago.
Click to expand...

Made it panslavic orthodox empire,then.Considering how german use to treat any slavic minprity,all of them except poles would cry "tsar,save us".
And even we could do that if germans keep going with their usual,pre WW1 methods against poles.
 
‘Landslide 1948 US Presidential Election’.

IOTL, it was a surprising (if still decisive) victory for Harry Truman, but what could make an absolute blowout for either him or whoever else steps up to the plate, whether they’re a Republican or a Democrat?
 
Zyobot said:
‘Landslide 1948 US Presidential Election’.

IOTL, it was a surprising (if still decisive) victory for Harry Truman, but what could make an absolute blowout for either him or whoever else steps up to the plate, whether they’re a Republican or a Democrat?
Click to expand...
I finished a TL where Dewey actually defeats Truman several months ago, it's in my sig. However, his victory there was a pretty narrow one. Having him win by a bigger margin than he did in my TL wouldn't be too difficult, given Truman's unpopularity going into the election - a combination of Dewey campaigning aggressively even earlier (IOTL a mix of overconfidence and learning the wrong lessons from his 1944 run against FDR led him to run an anemic, substance-free campaign that was drowning in platitudes) and delaying the economic recovery from the post-WW2 recession until after the election's done should make '48 into the proper Republican blowout everyone not named Harry S. Truman initially expected.
 
"Earlier Death of Stalin"

I wrote a TL about Stalin dying in October of 1945 (the closest thing to an early death of Stalin), and the ensuing power struggle that ended with Anastas Mikoyan becoming his successor. That was the last TL I wrote on AH.com before my ban (thank goodness for that, since it's clear that AH.com has since become a left-wing infested hellhole), and that I never got around to finishing it.
 
ATP said:
...Vinland rediscovery...

...Norwegian ships find Mexico,of course...

...because, let's be frank, Aztecs were idiot cunts who would be beaten by basically everybody with iron weapons and a few brain cells...
Click to expand...
The viking Vinland expeditions never actually made it down to Aztec territory. Change that and the vikings probably would've been able to replicate the Spanish conquistadors success for the same reasons of better weapons, plague immunities and all the natives besides the Aztecs hating the Aztecs over the whole mass-abduction-and-religiously-motivated-LARPing-as-slasher-movie-baddies thing.

That or you'd get some kind of cultural synchronization between Norse belief in the souls of dead warriors becoming Einherjar and forming Odin's army during Ragnarök and Aztec belief in the souls of dead warriors becoming Quauhteca and forming Huitzilopochtli's army to defend the world against the Tzitzimitl eating the sun, ending with the belief that Ragnarök could be averted if Odin has sufficient warriors and receiving sacrificial offerings since 'warriors who died violently' wouldn't necessarily have to specify 'in battle'.
 
Bassoe said:
The viking Vinland expeditions never actually made it down to Aztec territory. Change that and the vikings probably would've been able to replicate the Spanish conquistadors success for the same reasons of better weapons, plague immunities and all the natives besides the Aztecs hating the Aztecs over the whole mass-abduction-and-religiously-motivated-LARPing-as-slasher-movie-baddies thing.

That or you'd get some kind of cultural synchronization between Norse belief in the souls of dead warriors becoming Einherjar and forming Odin's army during Ragnarök and Aztec belief in the souls of dead warriors becoming Quauhteca and forming Huitzilopochtli's army to defend the world against the Tzitzimitl eating the sun, ending with the belief that Ragnarök could be averted if Odin has sufficient warriors and receiving sacrificial offerings since 'warriors who died violently' wouldn't necessarily have to specify 'in battle'.
Click to expand...

The Vikings were active from about the eighth to eleventh centuries with the Vinland expeditions towards the end of that span. The Aztecs as we know them started in the fourteenth century. They left behind relative dates and king lists. Possibly the beginning is mythical, but the usual tendency is for mythologizers to backdate their nations not make them seem more recent. There may well be Nahuatl speakers in the area, but they're the neighbors that the Mexica would later farm for sacrifices or the proto-Mexica who hadn't yet decided it was a great idea to try to compete with the 20th century Germans and Russians for the bad neighbor award using a multi-century prolonged universal dickishness strategy.
 
The vikings are very unlikely to replicate Cortez's success, as the tech difference is lesser.
However, I imagine that a repeat of the OTL South Italian Norman scenario is possible :)
 
Buba said:
The vikings are very unlikely to replicate Cortez's success, as the tech difference is lesser.
However, I imagine that a repeat of the OTL South Italian Norman scenario is possible :)
Click to expand...
Especially,that there was no Aztec empire to conqest yet,only city-states.Like @Atarlost said.
 
An interesting single divergence for a Central America story might be Europeans having a more accurate estimate of the Earth's diameter. If the Atlantic and Pacific were one vast hemisphere spanning ocean they could not attempt to sail it unless the people interested in spices talked to the people interested in fish who knew about Newfoundland and if they did they would start exploring in the north where they knew there was land to resupply at not at the latitude they expected to find China on. Nor if they knew they'd have to build up a waypoint colony for resupply would they have likely started as early since it would cost more.

This would give the Nuhuatl peoples more time to advance and the Mexica were not as I understand things at the forefront of developing bronze. I forget which neighbor had started producing bronze very recently in archeological terms at the time of the Spanish conquest, but one of them had. Instead of the Spanish showing up in the early 16th century it could have been the English or Dutch or French showing up in the late 16th or early 17th century to find a bronze age federation fresh off liberating themselves instead of a stone age empire. Or maybe the Aztecs would have clamped down before their neighbors figured out you could use bronze for weapons or it just takes longer than they have and it's just different Europeans showing up into the same situation.
 
Atarlost said:
An interesting single divergence for a Central America story might be Europeans having a more accurate estimate of the Earth's diameter. If the Atlantic and Pacific were one vast hemisphere spanning ocean they could not attempt to sail it unless the people interested in spices talked to the people interested in fish who knew about Newfoundland and if they did they would start exploring in the north where they knew there was land to resupply at not at the latitude they expected to find China on. Nor if they knew they'd have to build up a waypoint colony for resupply would they have likely started as early since it would cost more.

This would give the Nuhuatl peoples more time to advance and the Mexica were not as I understand things at the forefront of developing bronze. I forget which neighbor had started producing bronze very recently in archeological terms at the time of the Spanish conquest, but one of them had. Instead of the Spanish showing up in the early 16th century it could have been the English or Dutch or French showing up in the late 16th or early 17th century to find a bronze age federation fresh off liberating themselves instead of a stone age empire. Or maybe the Aztecs would have clamped down before their neighbors figured out you could use bronze for weapons or it just takes longer than they have and it's just different Europeans showing up into the same situation.
Click to expand...

I think it was Tlaxalan - people living near Pacyfic shore,who fought to kill,not capture alive and butcher.As a result,even with stone weapons on both sides and Aztecs having numerical advantage,they almost always lost.

But Inca empire would be lost cause - they worshipped ancestors so much,that every dead Inca had its own province which pay for his still existing court.And since there were no more cyvilised countries to conqer,Incas would start fighting each other and destroy their empire once there would be no more resources for living Inca and his ancestors.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top