Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

[Eparkhos]

On further research, the timing is inopportune. Basil's reign is still in its weak phase, Lekapenos holds a lot of power and Phokas & Skleros are still waiting in the wings in Baghdad for any sign of weakness. Otto's capture is still a major boon, and I think Basil might--or even need to--use it to expand influence in Italy. The opportunities are simply too plentiful:
- the death of the Sicilian emir at Stilo leaves a succession crisis/civil war in Sicily
- the Lombard principalities were thrown into chaos by Otto's campaign and the deaths of their princes at Stilo
- Antipope Boniface VII is in exile in Constantinople, ready to be installed in Rome
- Restoring rule in Italy allows him to one-up Otto even harder and legitimize himself.

The problem with this is that Lekapenos still holds far too much influence. This leaves Basil with two choices; crushing Lekapenos and wasting the golden opportunity or taking the opportunity and leaving Lekapenos in a dangerous position. Knowing Basil, the logical choice is to crush Lekapenos whatever the cost; however, I'm interested in a Byzzie-wank, so I'll have the young, rash Basil decide to prioritize Italy. I'd say he probably succeeds, reconquers Apulia, Langobardia and E/NE Sicily--the latter with the help of a revolt, which were pretty much constant at this point--subdues the Lombard princes and installs Boniface VII in Rome.

Once Basil is sufficiently far away, Lekapenos, knowing that the emperor is against him, raises Constantine VIII as sole emperor with himself as the man behind the throne. Once word of this reaches Baghdad, Phokas & Skleros will cross the frontier and launch a revolt in the east. Samuel of Bulgaria will also be playing merry hell in the Balkans. Basil rushes eastward via sea, defeating Lekapenos/Constantine/whoever their chief general is (Delphinas?) and regaining the capital before crossing into Anatolia and defeating the Anatolian rebels from 985-988(ish). (This may seem deterministic, but simply put Basil is the better commander and has better legitimacy/support)

Effectively, Basil consolidates his hold on power a few years earlier and the Byzantines gain much of Italy in the process. Also interesting is the question of succession--with Constantine dead/blinded/imprisoned, will Basil formally adopt someone or (gasp!) marry someone to produce an heir?

 

[WolfBear]

Effectively, Basil consolidates his hold on power a few years earlier and the Byzantines gain much of Italy in the process. Also interesting is the question of succession--with Constantine dead/blinded/imprisoned, will Basil formally adopt someone or (gasp!) marry someone to produce an heir?

Do you know why Basil never married in real life?

 

[Eparkhos]

Do you know why Basil never married in real life?

Nobody really knows. Speculated to be anything from gayness to hating women to fearing that any in-laws he had would try and kill him (makes sense, given the context)

 

[Eparkhos]

New idea:
'Vatatzes and Lampardas team up against Andronikos I'

IOTL, Ioannes Vatatzes revolted against Andronikos I after he seized the regency over Alexios II and defeated the army led by Andronikos Lampardas that was sent against him, only to die of a random disease the day after his victory. Lampardas was later betrayed by Andronikos I and executed. What if Lampradas catches wind of this and defects to the rebels?

I think that the rebels will win, as Andronikos is immensely unpopular at this point and few, if any, will be lining up to die for him. The two interesting hinge points are whether Andronikos kills Alexios II out of spite (entirely in character) and whether Vatatzes dies on schedule. For the sake of the scenario I'll assume that Alexios is killed, Andronikos is executed and Ioannes Vatatzes becomes Ioannes III.

 

[Buba]

Effectively, Basil consolidates his hold on power a few years earlier and the Byzantines gain much of Italy in the process.

Lovely write up, very educational, thank you.
Now I understand the background of an abandoned "SI into Constantine VIII" fic on AH-com.
A not-incompetent brother would had made Basil's job so much easier!

 

[WolfBear]

'AHC: Another realistic leader over the last 100 years who would have used national self-determination as a prelude and smokescreen for imperialism, along the lines of both Hitler and Putin'

 

[stevep]

Railroads can be built to connect Ethiopia to Italian Somalia through the Ogaden Desert. But Yes, Eritrea will be easier to access for Ethiopia. But why not have two pathways to the sea for Ethiopia if it can acquire them both? France, after all, would be able to blockade any Ethiopian naval force in Eritrea due to France's control of Djibouti, but it would be harder for France to blockade Italian Somalia, I think. Not impossible, of course, but harder.

Having Russia build military and/or naval bases in Ethiopia would also be interesting, though I don't know just how the other Great Powers would actually take news of this. Would they feel provoked? Ethiopia could of course say that it's for self-defense, but would the other Great Powers actually buy that justification?

That would be an interesting scenario. Of course a Russian base so far from their homeland and without real security of supply lines to it would be very vulnerable. It would prompt some concern from both Britain and France but probably not too greatly in the short term because their allies at this point.

 

[WolfBear]

That would be an interesting scenario. Of course a Russian base so far from their homeland and without real security of supply lines to it would be very vulnerable. It would prompt some concern from both Britain and France but probably not too greatly in the short term because their allies at this point.

If you want to see a really epic Russian power play afterwards, you could eventually see Russia trying to conquer all of Persia in order to have a coastline on the Indian Ocean and thus being able to have a more direct sea route to Ethiopia if it will ever build a huge Indian Ocean Fleet.

 

[stevep]

If you want to see a really epic Russian power play afterwards, you could eventually see Russia trying to conquer all of Persia in order to have a coastline on the Indian Ocean and thus being able to have a more direct sea route to Ethiopia if it will ever build a huge Indian Ocean Fleet.

Both because of the importance of Iranian oil and even more so India and the supply routes through Indian Ocean this is likely to be a casus belli for Britain, at least at any time where Britain is still a great power. Even before Russia started basing a major fleet there. With later development of oil production in the Arabian peninsula and Iraq this would be very sensitive for everybody.

 

[WolfBear]

Both because of the importance of Iranian oil and even more so India and the supply routes through Indian Ocean this is likely to be a casus belli for Britain, at least at any time where Britain is still a great power. Even before Russia started basing a major fleet there. With later development of oil production in the Arabian peninsula and Iraq this would be very sensitive for everybody.

Would anyone else other than Britain and British colonies actually be willing to militarily oppose the Russians in regards to this? Because Russia could also make this war in part a fight for Indian independence against "predatory British imperialism".

 

[stevep]

Would anyone else other than Britain and British colonies actually be willing to militarily oppose the Russians in regards to this? Because Russia could also make this war in part a fight for Indian independence against "predatory British imperialism".

That would depend on the wider situation although at least the Turkish state would probably be concerned by such an expansion. If we're talking about either imperial or communist Russia a lot of reasonably well educated Indians are unlikely to be happy with the idea either - let alone the Iranians. You can always get extremists like Bose but most wouldn't want to replace British domination, already significantly reduced, with Russian.

Plus it would take some propaganda to argue that "due to predatory British imperialism Russia has decided to attack and occupy Iran".

 

[WolfBear]

Plus it would take some propaganda to argue that "due to predatory British imperialism Russia has decided to attack and occupy Iran".

Well, Russia needs a naval base on the Indian Ocean in order for it to combat predatory British imperialism there lol!

 

[WolfBear]

@stevep Here's an interesting AHC for you:

Have the US participate in an alt-WWI (let's say that WWI doesn't break out in 1914 due to no Sarajevo assassinations) which breaks out sometime after 1916 or 1917 since by that point in time the completion of Russia's Great Military Program should ensure that Germany doesn't invade Belgium (too risky while Germany's eastern territories are very vulnerable to a Russian attack) and thus Britain doesn't enter the war on the Franco-Russian side.

 

[stevep]

@stevep Here's an interesting AHC for you:

Have the US participate in an alt-WWI (let's say that WWI doesn't break out in 1914 due to no Sarajevo assassinations) which breaks out sometime after 1916 or 1917 since by that point in time the completion of Russia's Great Military Program should ensure that Germany doesn't invade Belgium (too risky while Germany's eastern territories are very vulnerable to a Russian attack) and thus Britain doesn't enter the war on the Franco-Russian side.

Well in this case the CPs are on the defensive, although still likely to win as the sheer size of Russian forces are going to be greatly restricted by their poor quality. Plus in this scenario Italy might possibly end up on their side or at least staying neutral.

The problem I see with the war is if Britain stays neutral - at least throughout the war if that's what you mean rather than joining either side later on - then it seems unlikely that the US would be drawn in. Britain is deeply involved in events on the continent because it has so much interaction with it and is dependent on events there. If its not prompted to some role, especially since such a conflict will raise serious questions such as protection of its trade with combatants and neutral, of merchant shipping, investments on the continent etc then a deeply isolationist US an ocean away is very unlikely to be drawn in. Things like attacks on merchant shipping - by either side, supplying funds or other resources which OTL were involved in drawing the US in are more likely to apply to a neutral Britain than a distant US.

Even if say Teddy Roosevelt was to become President in 1912, being distinctly more belligerent and also more interested in foreign affairs I doubt there would be a trigger that would bring the US intro the war which didn't bring the UK in as well. Unless for some reason its a personal thing, say a political leader - probably either Wilhelm or Nickolas - has a personal and deep hostility develop with the US or just possibly the President?

 

[WolfBear]

Well in this case the CPs are on the defensive, although still likely to win as the sheer size of Russian forces are going to be greatly restricted by their poor quality. Plus in this scenario Italy might possibly end up on their side or at least staying neutral.

The problem I see with the war is if Britain stays neutral - at least throughout the war if that's what you mean rather than joining either side later on - then it seems unlikely that the US would be drawn in. Britain is deeply involved in events on the continent because it has so much interaction with it and is dependent on events there. If its not prompted to some role, especially since such a conflict will raise serious questions such as protection of its trade with combatants and neutral, of merchant shipping, investments on the continent etc then a deeply isolationist US an ocean away is very unlikely to be drawn in. Things like attacks on merchant shipping - by either side, supplying funds or other resources which OTL were involved in drawing the US in are more likely to apply to a neutral Britain than a distant US.

Even if say Teddy Roosevelt was to become President in 1912, being distinctly more belligerent and also more interested in foreign affairs I doubt there would be a trigger that would bring the US intro the war which didn't bring the UK in as well. Unless for some reason its a personal thing, say a political leader - probably either Wilhelm or Nickolas - has a personal and deep hostility develop with the US or just possibly the President?

There is another way to bring the US into the war: Have some Russian leader be nutty enough to attack Alaska lol!

 

[WolfBear]

Yeah, I remember that I previously asked about South Asians but forgot that I previously asked about East Asians here as well. Sorry about that.

I do have a specific question about European immigration to Russia for @stevep: If Russia avoids the Bolshevik coup and instead manages to become at least a flawed democracy, at least for a time, is there any chance of Russia attracting more European immigrants after the US will still close its doors to most of them, especially but not only from southern and eastern Europe, in the 1920s? Russia does have some of the same advantages as the US in regards to free land and whatnot, and if Russia succeeds in becoming at least a flawed democracy (at least for a time), then it could also look rather attractive to potential European immigrants, no?

FWIW, there was some precedent for this in the past:

History of Germans in Russia, Ukraine, and the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Russia would still have to compete with some other countries in the New World for this, of course. Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, maybe even Canada.

 

[WolfBear]

I do have a specific question about European immigration to Russia for @stevep: If Russia avoids the Bolshevik coup and instead manages to become at least a flawed democracy, at least for a time, is there any chance of Russia attracting more European immigrants after the US will still close its doors to most of them, especially but not only from southern and eastern Europe, in the 1920s? Russia does have some of the same advantages as the US in regards to free land and whatnot, and if Russia succeeds in becoming at least a flawed democracy (at least for a time), then it could also look rather attractive to potential European immigrants, no?

FWIW, there was some precedent for this in the past:

History of Germans in Russia, Ukraine, and the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Russia would still have to compete with some other countries in the New World for this, of course. Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, maybe even Canada.

@Husky_Khan Maybe you would also enjoy answering this question of mine!

 

[stevep]

I do have a specific question about European immigration to Russia for @stevep: If Russia avoids the Bolshevik coup and instead manages to become at least a flawed democracy, at least for a time, is there any chance of Russia attracting more European immigrants after the US will still close its doors to most of them, especially but not only from southern and eastern Europe, in the 1920s? Russia does have some of the same advantages as the US in regards to free land and whatnot, and if Russia succeeds in becoming at least a flawed democracy (at least for a time), then it could also look rather attractive to potential European immigrants, no?

FWIW, there was some precedent for this in the past:

History of Germans in Russia, Ukraine, and the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

Russia would still have to compete with some other countries in the New World for this, of course. Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, maybe even Canada.

Interesting idea and its a possibility. If it stays fairly democratic and sees decent economic growth and possibly also a decline in the home birth rate.

Obvious early options might be some of the Greeks expelled from their homes in Anatolia as say the northern Black sea area could be a better option than an overcrowded and impoverished Greece. Ditto such a Russian republic might well keep most of Armenia [or be its protector] and I could see migration from there.

Would say the most likely sources would be the other Orthodox states in the Balkans given the long and poor history between Orthodox and Catholic branches of Christianity. Possibly also from areas like Italy which have surplus population but lack the recent bad feeling between the two sects. [You might see moderate left wingers seeking refuge from Mussolini assuming he still gains power. Ditto if Spain goes through a republican phase and then its overthrown by fascism or some other right wing dictatorship as OTL.

 

[WolfBear]

Interesting idea and its a possibility. If it stays fairly democratic and sees decent economic growth and possibly also a decline in the home birth rate.

Obvious early options might be some of the Greeks expelled from their homes in Anatolia as say the northern Black sea area could be a better option than an overcrowded and impoverished Greece. Ditto such a Russian republic might well keep most of Armenia [or be its protector] and I could see migration from there.

Would say the most likely sources would be the other Orthodox states in the Balkans given the long and poor history between Orthodox and Catholic branches of Christianity. Possibly also from areas like Italy which have surplus population but lack the recent bad feeling between the two sects. [You might see moderate left wingers seeking refuge from Mussolini assuming he still gains power. Ditto if Spain goes through a republican phase and then its overthrown by fascism or some other right wing dictatorship as OTL.

I think that the birth rate might start declining once urbanization really picks up. For instance, AFAIK, there was almost no increase in Russia's urbanization percentage between 1897 and 1926 in real life.

Were Catholics and Eastern Orthodox particularly hostile towards one another in the early 20th century? One would think that if such hostile feelings existed, they would have become reduced by the modern era, no?

Also, Yes, I was thinking of Greeks, Armenians, Italians, Spaniards, other Balkan peoples, and even perhaps a bit of migration from groups such as Czechs and Slovaks given past history:

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

Though by the 1920s, Czechoslovakia should be much more developed than Russia would be, I think. Unless perhaps one wants to stick to farming.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

PC: How would Eastern European Jewish culture develop in a world where the Partitions of Poland never happened?

It was mostly because of these partitions that the Russian Empire went from having very few Jews within its borders to becoming the nation with the largest Jewish population in Europe, but they were restricted to the Pale of Settlement.

Now, had the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth avoided the partition, would Eastern European Jewish culture be influenced largely by Polish, rather than Russian, culture? Moreover, it would also be interesting to see how a surviving PLC would also have an influence on the development of later Jewish religious movements similar to Hasidism.